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

[Thermal]

The only reason I disagree with this is because she shows repeated negligence previous to that particular point. Passing multiple signs that show what floor she's on, not noticing the doormat, not noticing the lit up sign with the apt # on it, her key didn't work (it had to have flashed red), the door being a jar.

There were enough red flags that they can't be written off, not that you're doing that.

It was posed way back that she literally murdered him, either as a secret lovers thing or psychopathic retaliation for loud music. Are you suggesting this was premeditated?

Eta: I meant could have been premeditated

 

[Distracted1]

*DISCLAIMER FOR DISTRACTED1, THIS MIGHT HAVE BEEN COVERED*

There's a video from someone in the same apartment that goes through the process of opening the door that blows the cover off of this sleep deprivation or wrong apartment nonsense. In order to get into the door you have to put the key into the lock, hold it, then when it turns green you have to turn the lock and go in. The doors also auto shuts fairly aggressively so there's really no reason to think the door was open, but anything is possible.

Of course.
We didn't cover this over 25 pages already.

See: door ajar

 

[Bob001]

.....
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.
.....

Are we sure her story is confirmed? I seem to recall a video showing that the apartment doors in that building are spring-loaded and close automatically. And wasn't there a neighbor who claimed to hear a woman say something like "Let me in!" Most residential doors lock unless they are intentionally set to do otherwise. Is it likely that she just happened to push on a door that just happened to be unlocked late at night? Or is it likely that she heard the TV in what she thought was her apartment and banged on the door, he got up and opened it, and she killed the scary black guy in her house as he backed away from a woman waving a gun?

 

[Distracted1]

The only reason I disagree with this is because she shows repeated negligence previous to that particular point. Passing multiple signs that show what floor she's on, not noticing the doormat, not noticing the lit up sign with the apt # on it, her key didn't work (it had to have flashed red), the door being a jar.

There were enough red flags that they can't be written off, not that you're doing that.

You ever seen this ball counting experiment.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo

You might be surprised what one can overlook when attention is elsewhere.
And, being off duty, she had no particular duty to show more attention than any average person.

 

[Distracted1]

Are we sure her story is confirmed? I seem to recall a video showing that the apartment doors in that building are spring-loaded and close automatically. And wasn't there a neighbor who claimed to hear a woman say something like "Let me in!" Most residential doors lock unless they are intentionally set to do otherwise. Is it likely that she just happened to push on a door that just happened to be unlocked late at night? Or is it likely that she heard the TV in what she thought was her apartment and banged on the door, he got up and opened it, and she killed the scary black guy in her house as he backed away from a woman waving a gun?

Most hotel doors operate that way.
I still check before leaving my room, because sometimes the lock does not engage if I just leave it to shut itself.

 

[Steve]

Cool story, bro.

They can argue whatever they want, but being awake for 16 hours doesn't cause sleep deprivation, as far as I know. Just because they argue it doesn't mean it will be believed as well. In fact, if the prosecution can come up with any other time that she was awake that long and didn't shoot someone it kind of shoots that defense to ****.

I can vouch for this. My standard workday Monday to Friday is 6.75 hours sleep 17.25 hours awake. I still manage to park in my own garage when I get home each day. I live in a townhome strata so there is a similarity of appearance between many of the buildings.

For the record, I do not own a gun. If I came home and found someone inside what I thought was my home I suspect my reaction would be to exit much more quickly than I entered.

No doubt the defence lawyers in this case will try any bizarre claim they think might convince a jury. If the jury actually buys it, it will be because the prosecutor is totally incompetent in countering the defence.

 

[quadraginta]

You ever seen this ball counting experiment.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo

You might be surprised what one can overlook when attention is elsewhere.

That's a good example of how something can be overlooked when someone's attention is focused carefully on a single, separate, and somewhat complicated task.

And, being off duty, she had no particular duty to show more attention than any average person.

What task was she focusing on which would demand that sort of careful concentration?

That video is often enlightening the first time someone sees it, but it isn't all that germane to her mental state as she was returning home, engaging in nothing in particular.

 

[Darat]

A similar mistake of fact type case would be a police officer shooting a kid with a cap-gun or airsoft gun.

The cop thought it was a real gun in the situation and shot the person with it.

In this case, the cop thought it was a real intruder in their apartment, and shot the person.

Why is this different? If we allow for the mistake of going into the wrong apartment, is it not the same as mistaking a toy gun for a real gun?

She did not accidentally take her gun out, aim it, pulled the trigger, aimed it again and pulled the trigger again. They were all deliberate actions she took.

 

[Blue Mountain]

The only reason I disagree with this is because she shows repeated negligence previous to that particular point. Passing multiple signs that show what floor she's on, not noticing the doormat, not noticing the lit up sign with the apt # on it, her key didn't work (it had to have flashed red), the door being a jar.

There were enough red flags that they can't be written off, not that you're doing that.

For me the two that are questionable are not noticing or questioning the unexpected door mat and not asking why the door was ajar, although upon noticing the door she might have immediately jumped to the conclusion there was an intruder in her suite. (More on this in the next paragraph.) When you have no reason to suspect you're on the wrong floor there's no need to look at the suite numbers, lit up or not. On my walk from the elevator to my apartment I'm often fiddling with keys, trying to get the door key ready to insert into the lock. So my attention is focused on the keys. I can see the walls and doors in my peripheral vision so I know how many I've passed, but I certainly don't notice the apartment numbers on the doors.

Are you familiar with the idea that the human brain has two separate thought processes? One is very fast and jumps to conclusions, allowing for quick action in the case of a threat. It runs on a hair trigger and often makes mistakes, but can be life saving in an emergency. The second system is the analytical one, but it's slower to start up and takes longer to come to conclusions. I suggest that upon seeing "her" door was ajar (although that means she ignored the unexpected door mat) the fast system leapt to the conclusion "intruder!" And there was one, so she took quick and decisive action against it. Only then did the slower system kick in and start to really analyse what was going on. (Oh boy ... I can just see JoeMorgue saying "fan fiction!" And, Darat, based on this idea it was her "fast" system that governed the sequence of draw gun, aim, fire, aim again and fire again. It's possible her police training helped her with that—although I there's no way I can say that for certain because I don't know what her department's training procedures are.)

Having said that, there was no reason for her to draw a gun and fire at an unexpected person. Drawing the gun on what she likely thought was a burglar is likely to be expected, but as others have pointed out she should have immediately retreated. Had she done so there would have been some words and apologies exchanged, and life for both of them would go on.

At the very least she's guilty of whatever Texas law uses for "manslaughter."

 

[Distracted1]

That's a good example of how something can be overlooked when someone's attention is focused carefully on a single, separate, and somewhat complicated task.




What task was she focusing on which would demand that sort of careful concentration?

That video is often enlightening the first time someone sees it, but it isn't all that germane to her mental state as she was returning home, engaging in nothing in particular.

I have a rich internal life. It is not uncommon for me to be "lost in thought" while going through routine daily activities.
I expect I am not alone in that.

 

[Darat]

I have a rich internal life. It is not uncommon for me to be "lost in thought" while going through routine daily activities.
I expect I am not alone in that.

Pulling a gun, aiming a gun, firing a gun, aiming a gun for the second time, firing a gun for the second time are routine daily activities for you?

 

[Darat]

For me the two that are questionable are not noticing or questioning the unexpected door mat and not asking why the door was ajar, although upon noticing the door she might have immediately jumped to the conclusion there was an intruder in her suite. (More on this in the next paragraph.) When you have no reason to suspect you're on the wrong floor there's no need to look at the suite numbers, lit up or not. On my walk from the elevator to my apartment I'm often fiddling with keys, trying to get the door key ready to insert into the lock. So my attention is focused on the keys. I can see the walls and doors in my peripheral vision so I know how many I've passed, but I certainly don't notice the apartment numbers on the doors.



Are you familiar with the idea that the human brain has two separate thought processes? One is very fast and jumps to conclusions, allowing for quick action in the case of a threat. It runs on a hair trigger and often makes mistakes, but can be life saving in an emergency. The second system is the analytical one, but it's slower to start up and takes longer to come to conclusions. I suggest that upon seeing "her" door was ajar (although that means she ignored the unexpected door mat) the fast system leapt to the conclusion "intruder!" And there was one, so she took quick and decisive action against it. Only then did the slower system kick in and start to really analyse what was going on. (Oh boy ... I can just see JoeMorgue saying "fan fiction!" And, Darat, based on this idea it was her "fast" system that governed the sequence of draw gun, aim, fire, aim again and fire again. It's possible her police training helped her with that—although I there's no way I can say that for certain because I don't know what her department's training procedures are.)



Having said that, there was no reason for her to draw a gun and fire at an unexpected person. Drawing the gun on what she likely thought was a burglar is likely to be expected, but as others have pointed out she should have immediately retreated. Had she done so there would have been some words and apologies exchanged, and life for both of them would go on.



At the very least she's guilty of whatever Texas law uses for "manslaughter."

Police training should* be about ensuring people don't act in instinctive and unconscious ways. So if she was acting as a police officer I'd say there is even less excuse for the "fast reaction" as you describe it.

(*Granted that some police training in the states is bad.)

 

[Distracted1]

Pulling a gun, aiming a gun, firing a gun, aiming a gun for the second time, firing a gun for the second time are routine daily activities for you?

Generally not.
Making my way home after work, however, I am frequently focused on internal matters.
Is that negligent?

 

[Darat]

Generally not.
Making my way home after work, however, I am frequently focused on internal matters.
Is that negligent?

How many times have you shot someone in their home?

 

[Whip]

Don't criticize content. The move is to lob character assassinations about the typo in the last word.

what?

 

[Babbylonian]

How many times have you shot someone in their home?

Or in your own? I'm a little tired of this idea that it would be reasonable to shoot someone because you came home and saw them in your rented living room. Not only are there good reasons someone might enter a rental, or even an owned condo-type, property (things like gas and water leaks) but if you're not inside you have non-lethal options like calling the on-duty police. Why would anyone want a killing on their conscience when it can easily be avoided?

 

[Bob001]

Generally not.
Making my way home after work, however, I am frequently focused on internal matters.
Is that negligent?

It is if you, say, run over a kid because you weren't paying attention to your driving. And you can go to prison for it.

 

[theprestige]

Mostly I just check in on this thread to see how long everyone can keep batting the same shuttlecock back and forth, without introducing any new insight.

 

[Elagabalus]

Are we sure her story is confirmed? I seem to recall a video showing that the apartment doors in that building are spring-loaded and close automatically. And wasn't there a neighbor who claimed to hear a woman say something like "Let me in!" Most residential doors lock unless they are intentionally set to do otherwise. Is it likely that she just happened to push on a door that just happened to be unlocked late at night? Or is it likely that she heard the TV in what she thought was her apartment and banged on the door, he got up and opened it, and she killed the scary black guy in her house as he backed away from a woman waving a gun?

Or the red mat slipped back over threshold and the door didn't shut all the way?

 

[Steve]

Mostly I just check in on this thread to see how long everyone can keep batting the same shuttlecock back and forth, without introducing any new insight.

You must lead a rather dull life.