• 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.
William Parcher said:
She may have had instant certainty that the 10:00pm "guy in the dark" is not the building maintenance guy.
Click to expand...

Who gives a ****** She had "instant certainty" she was in her own apartment as well and see how that turned out.

If her entire defense is based on her being wrong, I don't want to hear about what she was "certain" about.
 
William Parcher said:
We don't know the nature of the maintenance visit and we don't know what she would already know about the details of the service visit (such as who, when, etc.)

She may have had instant certainty that the 10:00pm "guy in the dark" is not the building maintenance guy.

She may have even thought that the intruder gained easy entry to her apartment because the (earlier) maintenance guy somehow screwed up her lock and now anybody could just push the door open.

That maintenance could have been a quicky daytime thing and she knew it. Besides that, doing any non-emergency maintenance in an apartment building at 10pm is really odd.
Click to expand...

Or she may have known that the building manager employed a maintenance company whose employees always wore Kevlar on duty. Isn't it fun when you just make stuff up?

I'm impressed, though, with the suggestion that she quickly thought through the list of possible people who might have been in her apartment, considered the mantenance guy, worked out that he must have finished the job much earlier and had to have left, and then concluded that the guy in her flat couldn't have been him before opening fire, yet was still too tired, distracted or mortally scared to figure out that the red doormat right in front of her shouldn't have been there. That's an impressive cognitive needle to thread.

Dave
 
William Parcher said:
We don't know the nature of the maintenance visit and we don't know what she would already know about the details of the service visit (such as who, when, etc.)

She may have had instant certainty that the 10:00pm "guy in the dark" is not the building maintenance guy.

She may have even thought that the intruder gained easy entry to her apartment because the (earlier) maintenance guy somehow screwed up her lock and now anybody could just push the door open.

That maintenance could have been a quicky daytime thing and she knew it. Besides that, doing any non-emergency maintenance in an apartment building at 10pm is really odd.
Click to expand...

There's testimony that she put her keyfob in the door, which flashed red. Whether the door opened or not, that is another sign that she missed. I've noticed there's an issue in this thread with taking every given situation as an independent event. That's not, at all, what the prosecution is doing and I think they're doing it right.

They're saying it would be off the ******* chain for someone to make this many repeated "mistakes of fact". Everything from the apartment being lit up on the inside from the TV, etc., to the fact there were a ton of markers showing her it wasn't her apartment, the fact her fob didn't work (and there's an audible whirring sound when the door unlocks), that she could have been expecting a maintenance guy (I do IT, I have 1 hour jobs turn into 10 hour jobs), the red carpet, there was decorative potted plants, several signs on the walls.

The prosecution isn't treating things in isolation. They're pointing out everything from the police misdeeds at the scene to the boyfriend\others saying she never mentioned she was tired at all. I think they're doing a great job.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
Noted earlier, when you live in an apartment building, it doesn't matter what the time is, an emergency worker might be in there unannounced. This is one of those things that differentiates apartment life from a single family dwelling. And slams the door, so to speak, on any rationalization of her thinking nobody else 'should' be in there and so they deserved to die
Click to expand...
Her scheduled maintenance may not have been an emergency. It could have been a small paint touch-up on the ceiling. Who knows?
 
Dave Rogers said:
I'm impressed, though, with the suggestion that she quickly thought through the list of possible people who might have been in her apartment, considered the mantenance guy, worked out that he must have finished the job much earlier and had to have left, and then concluded that the guy in her flat couldn't have been him before opening fire, yet was still too tired, distracted or mortally scared to figure out that the red doormat right in front of her shouldn't have been there. That's an impressive cognitive needle to thread.
Click to expand...

That's been the demand of the Apologists since day, even before more concrete facts and timeline starting coming out, that this woman was completely frazzled about everything but laser focused about everything else with no rhyme or reason.

She's wrong when it's convenient for her to be wrong and she's right when it's convenient for her to be right, she's able to perform a split second Sherlock Scan on her surroundings and instantly make threat assessment but also a walking zombie who lacked the most basic recognition of what reality she was in, a trained law enforcement officer who instantly feel back on her training in one moment, a scawwed whittle white woman civilian facing down da big scawy black guy the next all with no rhyme, reason, or consistency.

This isn't "mistake of fact" or "in mens rea" or any other coffeehouse lawyer term, it's letting a killer go back through their own narrative and basically just pick and choose which version of events makes them look the best and demanding it be the only reality they can be judged in.
 
The defense bringing up that Jean had earbuds in his ears. I'm not sure why they think that helps her case. They also showed her apartment which has an end table with a bunch of flowers right inside the door way. Bright flowers even.
 
Belz... said:
I don't think he's wrong. The prosecution should probably got for negligent homicide, not murder.
Click to expand...

The gun just went off, no way for her to stop it or have any effect on it.

These things happen when you carry guns not any actual intent to kill someone needed at all. It isn't like she drew the gun and shot him with any intent the gun did it all on its own.

Really how do you get that she never meant to kill him? She clearly intended to shoot him when she shot him. This isn't like she was putting the gun away and it went off and went through the floor killing him. That would be manslaughter. This is either murder or legitimate self defense.
 
The defense was crushing it earlier. They got the Texas Ranger to admit he'd parked on the wrong floor, he'd missed visual cues to locate floors, etc. They were doing well for Amber, but now they're showing a picture taken from her door of her truck and drew a path that showed her literally walking by the one indicator that the Texas Ranger said he used to locate the floor he was on. That's odd.
 
Last edited:
William Parcher said:
Her scheduled maintenance may not have been an emergency. It could have been a small paint touch-up on the ceiling. Who knows?
Click to expand...

Quick anecdote: I worked in a managed condo where I suddenly had water coming through the ceiling. Alerted property management, who went in to the unit above and found a blown line in a dishwasher throwing water everywhere. We did not stop to put up little signs that said 'There's a worker in your property' on the door. It happens.

She did not own the whole building. Just like she had no right to gun down people in the hallways for prowling, she has no right to treat this rented apartment as her private property. It simply is not.
 
Thermal said:
Quick anecdote: I worked in a managed condo where I suddenly had water coming through the ceiling. Alerted property management, who went in to the unit above and found a blown line in a dishwasher throwing water everywhere. We did not stop to put up little signs that said 'There's a worker in your property' on the door. It happens.
Click to expand...

But in texas you can kill such maintenance workers on sight.
 
This Texas Ranger is annihilating the prosecution. He's made an extremely convincing argument that she bears no responsibility, and that 24% of the building goes to the wrong apartment.

If anything, this has been the biggest kick in the teeth to the prosecution because it's coming from an extremely trusted source, and he's done absolutely nothing but support her.

Ouch.
 
Belz... said:
How far was MacGuyver into the appartment when she shot the poor guy?
Click to expand...
A police leak said that the spent cartridges were found just inside the door. So she had not gone far into the apartment at all. The distance from there to the couch is almost the full length of the whole place. Another leak (maybe the same) said that his body was found 12-15 feet from the door. That suggests that if he started on the couch then he got about halfway to the door before he went down. I don't know if these things have been confirmed or are included in the trial.
 
plague311 said:
The defense bringing up that Jean had earbuds in his ears. I'm not sure why they think that helps her case. They also showed her apartment which has an end table with a bunch of flowers right inside the door way. Bright flowers even.
Click to expand...

If he couldn't hear her, he couldn't comply with orders to freeze or whatever she said
 
plague311 said:
This Texas Ranger is annihilating the prosecution. He's made an extremely convincing argument that she bears no responsibility, and that 24% of the building goes to the wrong apartment.
Click to expand...

What percentage open fire when they get there? I get it the wrong apartment is always good for killing a black or something.
 
William Parcher said:
A police leak said that the spent cartridges were found just inside the door. So she had not gone far into the apartment at all. The distance from there to the couch is almost the full length of the whole place. Another leak (maybe the same) said that his body was found 12-15 feet from the door. That suggests that if he started on the couch then he got about halfway to the door before he went down. I don't know if these things have been confirmed or are included in the trial.
Click to expand...

Bullet trajectory said he was shot as he was getting up, and then he took a few steps before collapsing. She was in the doorway and shot him in front of his TV, which was on and emitting light.

As tough as this witness is, he's still only getting her to the door. It doesn't rationalize what happened afterwards.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom