• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Distracted1 said:
Your examples (doctor, pilot, and driver) all involve doing things that have a minimal level of attentiveness built in. It's why one cannot perform surgery, fly a plane, or operate a car whilst drunk without facing criminal repercussions.

Making your way home from work does not have any minimal standard of attentiveness that it is considered criminal not to display. (With the obvious exception of the driving itself)
Click to expand...

Possessing and using a lethal weapon, one assigned to you as a trained LEO, does not have any minimal standard of attentiveness, while simply driving a car does? Are you sure?
 
Distracted1 said:
Your examples (doctor, pilot, and driver) all involve doing things that have a minimal level of attentiveness built in. It's why one cannot perform surgery, fly a plane, or operate a car whilst drunk without facing criminal repercussions.

Making your way home from work does not have any minimal standard of attentiveness that it is considered criminal not to display. (With the obvious exception of the driving itself)
Click to expand...

You know, I think firing a gun at someone in apartment might have a minimum standard of attentiveness built in.

I mean, if the others have a minimum standard inherent because they might kill someone, then maybe intentionally killing someone, you know...

eta:ninja'd by G
 
JoeMorgue said:
Maybe because it's insane and stupid to even consider?

I get what you're doing now. You're going to demand I give you an example of this exact scenario, when my entire point is this entire scenario is so absurd that of course the law bloody never had a precedent for it.
Click to expand...

Until last April, I lived on the fourth floor of a block of flats. I tried to enter what I thought was my own home. The key wouldn't open the door, so I tried another. Eventually, the door did open - because it was opened from the inside... by the owner. I was trying to get into a flat on the sixth floor. It happens. You don't consider your surroundings until something happens to snap you out of 'robot mode'.

JoeMorgue, no one is excusing anything, in this thread in my opinion. They're wondering how the **** did this happen. The fan fiction stuff is all your own projection. Some Americans' willingness to kill each other and trigger happy paranoid police officers are important here, I think.
 
plague311 said:
If you have never once in this thread defended the "mistake of fact", then I will absolutely apologize. I'll dig through the thread, since I've got some time today, just for S's and G's. The mistake of fact premise is based on her being tired, and having a long day at work of at least 16 hours.



He shouldn't have ******* had to respond to any commands. She also never said, "Police Officer", and this also is counter to what you're claiming. He can't have been a threat if he were stoned off his ass, and had delayed movement as you implied.

Also, per this article, I don't think her defense is going to work all that well. It was actually the Grand Jury that upgraded the charges in this case, not the DA.



I would bet that there is something we're missing.
Click to expand...

I am beginning to hate the phrase "mistake of fact". No matter. Mistakes of fact - aka "Whoops! I drove down the wrong road" or "I thought you said the party was this week" - don't have to be linked to a lack of sleep.
 
plague311 said:
The **** are you talking about? Did you read the quoted passage I was responding too? Perhaps spend a moment doing that, then come back. I'll take you just rescinding this comment when you're ready. Thanks.



So your claim is that she wasn't tired, she wasn't distracted, she just parked on the wrong floor, walked by multiple floor # signs, went to an apartment that has a bright red doormat that she didn't have, didn't look at the lit up sign next to the door, barged in and started shooting because of that mistake?
Click to expand...

Not everything in the world is a claim or counterclaim. What is wrong with just being distracted or not paying attention? I cannot believe that you have never been in a situation where you thought you were in one place or talking to one person (whatever) but found out later that you were wrong. The door signs, the red mat etc are ignored in this sort of situation: they're blanked out. They only become of interest when you go "hang on, where am I?"
 
plague311 said:
I wholeheartedly agree with this. I only brought up because Drewbot spoke definitively. I think it's in question as well, for sure. The only part that would make it even kind of plausible for me is:

  • Guyger gets done with work
  • Parks on the 4th floor because she intended to talk to Jean about his music knowing that she had a long day at work, it was later and night and wanted to ensure a good nights sleep
  • She goes to his door, knocks on it a few times, and so on...

I have absolutely nothing at all to back up any of that, just an alternate scenario.



I have the gift of hindsight, but the moment the I noticed the door was open I would have taken in my surroundings. The floor mat, the light, etc.



Which is why I agreed with Darat with regards to the mistake of fact getting her to the door. As he said, once she's there she deliberately took each step from that point forward. Even her mistake of fact to get her to the door doesn't allow her to enter the home without permission.
Click to expand...

Re the bold bit: How do you know this? This goes to the heart of the "mistake of fact". You assume you'd not be so unaware of your surroundings. What makes you special?
 
Distracted1 said:
Your examples (doctor, pilot, and driver) all involve doing things that have a minimal level of attentiveness built in. It's why one cannot perform surgery, fly a plane, or operate a car whilst drunk without facing criminal repercussions.
Click to expand...

Thankfully untrue of firearms. Be as drunk as you want with them.
 
The Common Potato said:
Not everything in the world is a claim or counterclaim. What is wrong with just being distracted or not paying attention? I cannot believe that you have never been in a situation where you thought you were in one place or talking to one person (whatever) but found out later that you were wrong. The door signs, the red mat etc are ignored in this sort of situation: they're blanked out. They only become of interest when you go "hang on, where am I?"
Click to expand...
My take as well.
 
The Common Potato said:
Not everything in the world is a claim or counterclaim. What is wrong with just being distracted or not paying attention? I cannot believe that you have never been in a situation where you thought you were in one place or talking to one person (whatever) but found out later that you were wrong. The door signs, the red mat etc are ignored in this sort of situation: they're blanked out. They only become of interest when you go "hang on, where am I?"
Click to expand...

And not everything in the world can be dismissed with "mistake of fact". At some point you, as an individual, have to take responsibility for your actions. The difference is whenever I'm mistaken it doesn't cause me to take out a gun and shoot at the people closest to my location simply because I, myself, have made the error. That's never happened. My confusion has never caused a death.

The Common Potato said:
Re the bold bit: How do you know this? This goes to the heart of the "mistake of fact". You assume you'd not be so unaware of your surroundings. What makes you special?
Click to expand...

I'm not special, nor do I think taking in your surroundings when you find your door open at a time you don't expect it to be particularly special or out of the ordinary. In fact, I would call it perfectly within the realm of possibility. If I came home and my door was unlocked and opened when it a) physically closes by itself b) locks automatically upon closing and c) takes a special keyfob to open it that blinks green or red. It would cause me to step back a moment. Meanwhile, you're staring down at your keys\the door knob where's there's a red mat that doesn't belong to you.

Again, mistake of fact isn't some catchall that allows her to do whatever the **** she wants because she's a brain dead idiot. Actions have consequences, and you've provided nothing here that's against the norm of the defenders of Amber or the ones claiming to know how the law goes.
 
Last edited:
An OP-ED about the racism in the announcement that DPD is not allowing time off during the Guyger Trial. https://www.dallasobserver.com/news...biased-signals-in-amber-guyger-trial-11749330


But here is what I can un-weave, and I think you can, too, if you take the time. In this trial, heavily freighted with race, a public announcement that the police department is on red alert is a powerful message that there may be racial trouble if Guyger gets off. And that fear is about black people.

Yeah, OK, tell me I’m wrong. City officials are really worried about the white folks rioting. Tell you what. I don’t very much think so. And neither do you.

Assuming someone at City Hall truly believes there is a threat of public discord related to this trial, surely the same person can see the powerful message that a public announcement sends to jurors: “If you let her off, the black people will riot.”
Click to expand...
 
Drewbot said:
An OP-ED about the racism in the announcement that DPD is not allowing time off during the Guyger Trial. https://www.dallasobserver.com/news...biased-signals-in-amber-guyger-trial-11749330
Click to expand...

The article asks:

And let me ask you something else. Why did city officials have to tell us? Why did they publicly announce the no-time-off policy for cops? Couldn’t they just have done it? Isn’t this a personnel matter? How did it become a public issue that needed to be announced? What’s the public part?
Click to expand...

I cannot find any evidence of a public announcement. It was handled internally through memos and email to personal that were leaked to the press. It was only after the press published information from the memos that the police department made a public statement on the matter.
 
yes DA, that sounds correct.

Unless, the original email was 'leaked', and not actually leaked.

As in, the DPD routinely gets public information out to the public by 'leaking' an email to a member of the media or something.

I asked the author to clarify.
 
Last edited:
DevilsAdvocate said:
The article asks:

I cannot find any evidence of a public announcement. It was handled internally through memos and email to personal that were leaked to the press. It was only after the press published information from the memos that the police department made a public statement on the matter.
Click to expand...

I don't know if "leaked" is the right word here. Even if there was no official announcement, it's not some kind of state secret. Every police officer and civilian employee would have been notified about the policy. That's thousands of people. It's a safe bet that many of them aren't happy about the policy, and some of those are acquainted with reporters. Something like that would be sure to be made more public; it was never really not public.
 
Bob001 said:
I don't know if "leaked" is the right word here. Even if there was no official announcement, it's not some kind of state secret. Every police officer and civilian employee would have been notified about the policy. That's thousands of people. It's a safe bet that many of them aren't happy about the policy, and some of those are acquainted with reporters. Something like that would be sure to be made more public; it was never really not public.
Click to expand...

I didn't want to use the word "leaked" but I couldn't think of a better word. The point is, they did not do what the op-ed writer accused them of doing and did do what the op-ed writer accused them of not doing. No public announcement. Internal memos.

If the police department had tried to keep it secret, it would have gotten out to the press and then people would have complained about transparency and some other shenanigans.

Of course the police are worried about a possible riot. This is a controversial case.
 
Drewbot said:
They have found a jury.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/cri...-murder-trial-in-the-shooting-of-botham-jean/
Click to expand...

That's good, that means she won't be able to get the case moved to a more friendly district.

Juror 46 couldn't convict Guyger of murder no matter what the evidence said. Neither could jurors 6, 10, 53, 88, 92, 119 and 181. Juror 14 said he was biased in favor of the police. Juror 179 said she couldn't sit in judgment of someone.
Click to expand...

This part blows my mind. How can you be so bias as to not be able to convict someone of murder? Damn we have some complete morons in this nation. Being a cop doesn't put you above the law.
 
Last edited:
Half the people active in this thread think the chick should walk, either directly and personally or because "that's what the law says."

Can't imagine what's shocking about any halfway competent attorney being able to find 2 or 3 people to put on a jury who think the same.
 
I think there are one or two who think maaaaybe she should walk. With a pool of hundreds of potential jurors, the juror vetting will need to be good by the prosecution. Not insurmountable
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom