• 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.
JoeMorgue said:
Yeah the Apologists, probably including her own legal team, think they've got us trapped in a gotcha where if we agree that going to the wrong door is a legitimate mistake we just have to accept everything that happened afterwards because of in mens rea mistake of fact with sprinkles.

They are going to get a foot in the door (no pun) with the "She just made an honest mistake" thing and then try to hammer home the "Therefore it makes sense to gun down a guy sitting on a sofa eating ice cream because that's what intruders do I guess."

Whether or not anyone bites is a different story.
Click to expand...

You're forgetting that this big, bad criminal was also kicking back and watching TV. Seems reasonable that she feared for her life.
 
Belz... said:
I had the same thought. If it's something that happens from time to time you shouldn't just shoot on sight.
Click to expand...

We live in bizarro world where trained cops are held to lower standards than the average citizen. We've just accepted as a given that cops are hair-triggered and will shoot their way out of any situation. "Scared for my life" + "I'm a cop" is the magic formula in this country.
 
Disbelief said:
You're forgetting that this big, bad criminal was also kicking back and watching TV. Seems reasonable that she feared for her life.
Click to expand...

If only she'd thought, "Maybe the mantenance guy left my door unlocked, then somebody from a different floor went into my apartment thinking it was his own," then maybe she'd have held her fire.

Dave
 
JoeMorgue said:
Yeah the Apologists, probably including her own legal team, think they've got us trapped in a gotcha where if we agree that going to the wrong door is a legitimate mistake we just have to accept everything that happened afterwards because of in mens rea mistake of fact with sprinkles.
Click to expand...

The problem is that even if, generally speaking, going to the wrong door is reasonable, as it indeed is, it doesn't mean that it's reasonable in this specific red mat instance.
 
Distracted1 said:
In 3000 posts, I have seen none that accuse Mr. Jean of being a criminal. Nor has either the Prosecution or Defense thus far. done so.

What makes you believe he was?
Click to expand...

Obviously Guyger did, or we would not have this thread and he would still be alive.
 
Have they got to the bullet trajectory yet?

I thought the defense's argument in the opening that it was because Jean was bending down to look at the gun to be rather absurd. Even though he is about a foot taller than her, from 13-15 feet away he would not bend down at the waist to look at the gun. He could just move his eyes or his head.

Presumably the gun was at about 4 feet. It would be in his line of vison. Bending over would have him looking at the floor. I'm curious about what sort of diagrams they present to show how this would have worked.
 
Distracted1 said:
Valid point.
I would think that the cornerstone might be more accurately described as "she mistakenly thought he was", as the defense does not seem to be pushing the narrative that he actually was one.
Click to expand...

And sitting eating ice cream while watching TV is not usually associated with criminal behavior.
 
Should we consider it ironic foreshadowing that she was texting because she wanted to bang someone she shouldn't have?
 
Distracted1 said:
In 3000 posts, I have seen none that accuse Mr. Jean of being a criminal. Nor has either the Prosecution or Defense thus far. done so.

What makes you believe he was?
Click to expand...

Oh what a load of tosh and biscuits.

Her entire legal defense, of which you are cheering on from the sidelines, is based on the idea that she thought he was an intruder in her home. Don't sit there and try to play the "Oh he has to have been an intruder for her fantasy to work but let's not say anyone has claimed he was criminal, no siree that's too far."

Hence the defense's character assassination about the smell of pot and the fact that he used marijuana as if that made any possible difference. I'd love to know where that fits into your "Nobody is saying he's a criminal" argument.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Oh what a load of tosh and biscuits.

Her entire legal defense, of which you are cheering on from the sidelines, is based on the idea that she thought he was an intruder in her home. Don't sit there and try to play the "Oh he has to have been an intruder for her fantasy to work but let's not say anyone has claimed he was criminal, no siree that's too far."

Hence the defense's character assassination about the smell of pot and the fact that he used marijuana as if that made any possible difference. I'd love to know where that fits into your "Nobody is saying he's a criminal" argument.
Click to expand...
It only makes no difference if the events that took place inside the apartment make no difference.
Are you conceding that?
 
Distracted1 said:
I am not so sure.
Google something like "man breaks into house and makes dinner" and see if you get any hits.
Click to expand...

Hence when I said, not USUALLY associated with criminal activity. Guess in your world though, it could be a death sentence - especially if it really wasn't a criminal, but the actual homeowner.
 
Distracted1 said:
It only makes no difference if the events that took place inside the apartment make no difference.
Are you conceding that?
Click to expand...

I'm not conceding anything, I'm just not going to let you rewrite the narrative over and over until you find one that gets this chick off because that's so vitally important to you.

You keep demanding that every individual factor be looked at in a vacuum, allowing this woman to make mistake piled upon mistake in a way that doesn't even make sense in the context of the original mistake.

If you're the kind of person who forgets where they live, you get less slack in the "Oh but I'm only protecting what I thought was my castle" argument. You can't defend mistakes with incompetence or vice versa.
 
Last edited:
She walks into what she thinks is her apartment.

Smells marijuana.

Realizes someone is there.

Asks: "ARE YOU DONE WITH THE MAINTENANCE?"

Victim responds: "GET OUT OF MY APARTMENT LADY"

She thinks: WTF A CRAZY PERSON IS IN MY APT.

Victim approaches, she yells 'stop' she shoots him.
 
Drewbot said:
She walks into what she thinks is her apartment.

Smells marijuana.

Realizes someone is there.

Asks: "ARE YOU DONE WITH THE MAINTENANCE?"

Victim responds: "GET OUT OF MY APARTMENT LADY"

She thinks: WTF A CRAZY PERSON IS IN MY APT.

Victim approaches, she yells 'stop' she shoots him.
Click to expand...


Alternatively ...

She walks into what she thinks is her apartment

Victim : "Hey, w-"

<BANG> <BANG>

AG thinks : wait, where am I, who was that, what was he doing (hey, was it even a 'he'?), what was behind him, it's it safe to shoot, if so is it proper to shoot

[finally looks around to asses the situation]

AG : "welp, not getting laid tonight I guess"
 
plague311 said:
Now they're getting into all of the messed up **** that the police did to help Guyger at the scene. They shut off the recording, the detectives were telling her to not say anything, officers were giving her instructions, and so on.

The prosecution isn't ******* around here. I think the person they're showing now is the head of the Dallas Police Officers Association asking the Sergeant on-scene to shut off the recording devices so he could speak with her.
Click to expand...

I think that would be complicity in any other jurisdiction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom