Cont: Man shot, killed by off-duty Dallas police officer who walked into wrong apartment p2

[Drewbot]

True. Jean was a single guy, and photos of the place showed a single guy mess. That cereal bowl could have been there from that morning. Or last week.

I'm sure the autopsy would have shown what was in his stomach, so they will know what he was doing. I'm thinking he was eating it on his couch, and when the door opened, got up, set it on the counter, while trying to figure out what was going on

 

[JoeMorgue]

If you live alone, and walk into your darkened apartment with someone coming after you, and they don't stop when you tell them to, it's reasonable to think that you would be allowed to shoot that person.

Okay I've lost all patients with this.

IT... WASN'T... HER... APARTMENT.

That's not some trivial little small detail.

You're missing the part about mistake of fact. If she legitimately thought she was in her apartment, an intruder in the dark coming for you is a green light to shoot.

There is no requirement to identify a target in the dark if you think you are in danger in your own house.

IT WASN'T HER HOUSE.


IT WASN'T HER HOUSE.


IT WASN'T HER HOUSE.


IT WASN'T HER HOUSE.


IT WASN'T HER HOUSE.


IT WASN'T HER HOUSE.


IT WASN'T HER HOUSE.


IT WASN'T HER HOUSE.


IT WASN'T HER HOUSE.

 

[Distracted1]

Why would he prop the door open? I mean, Occam's Razor is a thing. If the apartment was dark, and she had to turn the lights on, I would bet he was getting ready to go to bed. After all, Officer Sleepy McShootFace was so tired after her 16 hours that she could barely stay awake! Probably the same goes for him? So he propped his door open just to let some people come in at random?



I don't. The good thing about it is...it doesn't matter either way. I couldn't give a **** what he was doing because it was his god damned house and he can do whatever the **** he wants in it.

I don't care if he was hopping up and down with a loaded AK-47, smoking a joint while eating hallucinogenic mushrooms. It still doesn't give her the right to enter his house, it certainly doesn't give her the right to shoot him, and all in all it really shouldn't matter to the case.

Again, everything here is her fault.

I agree that everything that happened was Guyers fault.

My feeling ( based upon what has been made public ) is that she made a mistake that cost Jean his life, and is most definitely civilly liable.
I am not convinced her actions were criminal (although I would like them to be)

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm sure the autopsy would have shown what was in his stomach, so they will know what he was doing. I'm thinking he was eating it on his couch, and when the door opened, got up, set it on the counter, while trying to figure out what was going on

Is it legal to shoot black people sitting in their own home when they aren't eating cereal?

What differences does it make?

Stop making excuses.

 

[plague311]

True. Jean was a single guy, and photos of the place showed a single guy mess. That cereal bowl could have been there from that morning. Or last week.

Right? The only bowl not in the sink, where the myriad of other dishes are located, but it could have been there for God knows how long!

 

[Distracted1]

Right? The only bowl not in the sink, where the myriad of other dishes are located, but it could have been there for God knows how long!

You see. That is a good example of thinking critically.

 

[plague311]

I agree that everything that happened was Guyers fault.

My feeling ( based upon what has been made public ) is that she made a mistake that cost Jean his life, and is most definitely civilly liable.
I am not convinced her actions were criminal (although I would like them to be)

Then you have absolutely no idea how the law works, and have never been involved with it because you are WAY off kilter on this one.

Entering someone else's apartment isn't "a mistake". It's negligent by the very literal definition of that word.

The apartment numbers are lit up, she parked on the wrong floor, she went into a place that wasn't hers when the door was closed, she didn't do any due diligence and with no regard started shooting at someone.

Every. *******. Thing. She. Did. Was. Wrong.

 

[Distracted1]

Then you have absolutely no idea how the law works, and have never been involved with it because you are WAY off kilter on this one.

Entering someone else's apartment isn't "a mistake". It's negligent by the very literal definition of that word.

The apartment numbers are lit up, she parked on the wrong floor, she went into a place that wasn't hers when the door was closed, she didn't do any due diligence and with no regard started shooting at someone.

Every. *******. Thing. She. Did. Was. Wrong.

She did not IMO "fail to excercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would excercise in like circumstances" (Webster definition of Negligence).

Are the numbers really lit up?
Is there a "wrong" floor to park on?

 

[plague311]

She did not IMO "fail to excercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would excercise in like circumstances" (Webster definition of Negligence).

The law:

Negligent homicide is a much lower intent crime and is used as a charge when one person causes the death of another through criminal negligence. The charge does not involve premeditation, but focuses on what the defendant should have known and the risks associated with what he did know.

Things people should ******* know -----> Where they live LoL. I mean, seriously?

Are the numbers really lit up?

Yes, they are.

Is there a "wrong" floor to park on?

By her own admission? Yes. She says, "I parked on the wrong floor."

So, yeah.

 

[Thermal]

Right? The only bowl not in the sink, where the myriad of other dishes are located, but it could have been there for God knows how long!

Was it the only bowl not in the sink? I didn't catch the inventory on that.

I mean, it doesn't matter one way or the other. I see sidebars like that as a good test of objectivity. Are we projecting the most innocent activities we can on Jean, with confirmation bias, or looking levely?

 

[Belz...]

The defense will stipulate that she was in the wrong apartment.

But they will stipulate that at the time of the shooting, the jury should consider that she THOUGHT she was in her apartment.

Maybe she THOUGHT she was in Berlin, too. Who cares what she thought? The question is whether that THOUGHT was reasonable. I contend that it wasn't.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Okay I've asked this of the apologist a dozen times and haven't got an answer.

WHAT IS A CRIME IN YOUR WORLD?

What couldn't be countered with "LOL I though the situation was different so you have to say I'm innocent."

 

[Belz...]

Okay I've lost all patients with this.

You should pay more attention to those under your care.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Are we projecting the most innocent activities we can on Jean, with confirmation bias, or looking levely?

Jean is not on trial, and his right to be present in his own home is not in question. If he had, on Guyger forcing his door open, taken a gun and emptied the magazine into her chest, he would not be guilty of a crime under Texas law (though a biased jury might find him guilty of one). It matters not one jot how innocent his activities were; Guyger had no reasonable cause to break into his apartment and shoot him dead.

Dave

 

[plague311]

Was it the only bowl not in the sink? I didn't catch the inventory on that.

CNN has a video of the crime scene where you can see the entire living room, and a walk through of the apartment. So yes, it's the only bowl not in the sink.

I mean, it doesn't matter one way or the other. I see sidebars like that as a good test of objectivity. Are we projecting the most innocent activities we can on Jean, with confirmation bias, or looking levely?

Can you show that I have confirmation bias or that I am not looking levely (whatever the hell that word means)?

 

[Thermal]

Jean is not on trial, and his right to be present in his own home is not in question. If he had, on Guyger forcing his door open, taken a gun and emptied the magazine into her chest, he would not be guilty of a crime under Texas law (though a biased jury might find him guilty of one). It matters not one jot how innocent his activities were; Guyger had no reasonable cause to break into his apartment and shoot him dead.

Dave

...agreed, as I have argued on many pages. Point in there somewhere?

 

[JoeMorgue]

...agreed, as I have argued on many pages. Point in there somewhere?

The point is if you agree what's with the apologetics?

 

[Dave Rogers]

...agreed, as I have argued on many pages. Point in there somewhere?

The point is, why are you asking how Jean's activities are being considered when it's of no relevance?

Dave

ETA: Think I see what you mean; are people betraying their anti-Guyger bias by showing pro-Jean bias. Still, hard to see how bias can make Guyger's actions much worse than they were. Any verdict short of negligent homicide would be a travesty.

 

[Thermal]

CNN has a video of the crime scene where you can see the entire living room, and a walk through of the apartment. So yes, it's the only bowl not in the sink.



Can you show that I have confirmation bias or that I am not looking levely (whatever the hell that word means)?

Levely? Really?

If you say that he was sitting at the counter eating cereal and did not run at her, you are stating as fact sever things at once that are not on the record. Was he not said to have been watching football earlier? If he was sitting at the counter, he would seemed to have moved quite a bit to where his body lay. I think it is just as likely he was watching the game and jumped up at the ruckus at his door. I sure would have. But it sounds more Dewey-eyed to claim he was just eating his bweakfast and was a sitting duck.

Not calling you to the carpet, man. Just noticing when details are cherry picked for effect.

 

[Thermal]

The point is, why are you asking how Jean's activities are being considered when it's of no relevance?

Dave

ETA: Think I see what you mean; are people betraying their anti-Guyger bias by showing pro-Jean bias. Still, hard to see how bias can make Guyger's actions much worse than they were. Any verdict short of negligent homicide would be a travesty.

Your eta: you got it. I think she should be up on murder 2., plain and simple. But every torqued detail, every fleshed out narrative, every spun representation, is a step towards pitchforks and nooses instead of reason.