• 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.
theprestige said:
Why would he need to have investigated the incident? The results of the investigation are documented.

On the one hand, it doesn't seem likely that an investigator would testify to his conclusions from the investigation, that weren't supported by his written report of the investigation. If he did so testify, it seems likely that his testimony would be demolished on cross-examination.

On the other hand, if the investigators documented the investigation properly, then any similarly-qualified investigator, with similar experience in that jurisdiction, should be able to read their report and come to appropriately professional conclusions from it.

I mean, that should be obvious, right? If one police detective conducts an investigation and documents their findings, we should expect any other competent police detective to be able to read that document and give a properly professional opinion on what it means.
Click to expand...


What does all this even mean? Typically the person testifying is someone who participated in, ideally led, the investigation so he can be questioned about how it was conducted and how conclusions were reached. It doesn't make much sense to put a disinterested party on the stand and ask "What does this official report say?" Are you claiming that's what happened here?
 
theprestige said:
In a typical AR-15 action, the ejection is accomplished by a small spring, which drives a pin in the bolt face that tips the empty case sideways out the ejection port. The ejection force itself is supplied entirely by the spring, and is unrelated to the propellant force of the powder that drives the bullet.

Basically what happens is this:

First, the explosion of the powder drives the bolt back out of the chamber. The bolt face has a small latching mechanism - the extractor - that pulls the case back with it as it backs out of the chamber. All of this bolt flying backwards and pulling the case along happens with a force related to the force of the powder that caused the recoil.

Then, as the case comes clear of the chamber, alongside the ejection port, the ejection spring is able to expand, pushing the ejection pin out from the bolt face and tipping the case out the ejection port. All of this pushing the case out happens with a force related to the force of the ejection spring.

Loading the gun with a more powerful cartridge should have no effect on the ejection force provided by the ejection spring. I don't know if it's different for common 9mm pistol designs. But as far as I know, there aren't any handgun designs at all that use the recoil force to help eject the case.
Click to expand...

The extractor is just re-directing the energy from the recoil in most pistols AFAIK.

They seem to agree with me that the load will make a difference here:

https://www.glocktalk.com/threads/how-far-will-a-good-g20-eject-10mm-brass.1506884/

Most pistols are recoil operated, unlike an AR-15.

Actually I'm quite sure it makes a difference at least on some pistols.

ETA: I can acutely recall having "smokestack" jams on a Colt 1911 (45 ACP not 9mm) when I was about 10 to 12 because my dad would load them up really soft. That means the brass didn't eject far enough and it would block the chamber open. Good practice for clearing a jam.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
AR-15 is definitely recoil-operated, even if its extraction mechanism doesn't depend on recoil energy.
Click to expand...

It definitely depends on the recoil to operate. Its just that some of the gas is allowed to escape via a piston. That why an AR-15 has so little felt recoil.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas-operated_reloading#Short-stroke_piston

But, very few pistols are gas. Desert Eagle being the only one I know off hand actually. And since she shot him with her duty pistol, which I can't determine 100% but its almost certainly not gas operated.

ETA: oh now I see your edit :/
 
Belz... said:
I don't think he's wrong. The prosecution should probably got for negligent homicide, not murder.
Click to expand...


Is there some reason the jury can't find for a lesser offense?

I know that's what they did in the case I cited early in the first iteration of this thread. Prosecution was going for manslaughter. Jury found defendant guilty of criminally negligent homicide.

He got eight years.
 
I got distracted again.

The Ranger did work on the case, he took over for the initial lead detective.

Gun residue expert on the stand now.

Gun shot residue (all 5 particles) found on the inside of the outside (exit door) door, but none found outside of the outside (exit) door. Some other details on the inside of the inside door, where 2 of the particles were found that were primary to GSR.
 
Lot of experts for the facts that aren't in dispute.

Nobody's arguing that she shot him and some exact "2.5 centimeters inside the threshold of the door vice 1.4 centimeters outside the threshold" hardly seems to matter.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Lot of experts for the facts that aren't in dispute.

Nobody's arguing that she shot him and some exact "2.5 centimeters inside the threshold of the door vice 1.4 centimeters outside the threshold" hardly seems to matter.
Click to expand...

Depends. If she made her way significantly into his appartment one could argue that she should've noticed that this wasn't her place.
 
It seemed kind of stupid to me. It sounds like some GSR was transferred to Jean and the prosecution just wanted to quash the idea that he had a gun or was a danger of any form. I think they also wanted to establish that she shot from inside the apartment rather than standing in the hallway.

Which she had to have been inside the apartment. There's no GSR on the outside trim of his door.
 
Belz... said:
Depends. If she made her way significantly into his appartment one could argue that she should've noticed that this wasn't her place.
Click to expand...

I mean... maybe.

Again I'm still of the mindset that if (g)we accept she missed the floor, floor number, door mat, and flowers then... hell she could have walked fully into the apartment, made a snack, took a quick shower, and still not realized it wasn't her apartment.

We're already at absurd levels of "I'm not noticing" by the time she's at the door, might as well go crazy. If (again general) we accept that she made it to the door in a stupor, I find it real hard to figure out at what magical point she should have realized her mistake.
 
Last edited:
plague311 said:
I got distracted again.

The Ranger did work on the case, he took over for the initial lead detective.

Gun residue expert on the stand now.

Gun shot residue (all 5 particles) found on the inside of the outside (exit door) door, but none found outside of the outside (exit) door. Some other details on the inside of the inside door, where 2 of the particles were found that were primary to GSR.
Click to expand...
Does that not indicate that the door had closed behind her as she entered?
 
Distracted1 said:
Does that not indicate that the door had closed behind her as she entered?
Click to expand...

That wasn't the impression that I got from the testimony, but it was tough to understand the questions. The prosecution\defense attorney's speak soft and then the person on the stand is loud as ****.

From what I understand, the door was open when she fired the shot. There was GSR on the inside of the outside door (which is what they call his door leading to the hallway), and there was GSR on the inside door (I think maybe a linen closet)? Indicating that she never had her gun in the hallway, the shots were fired with her gun inside of the door with the door open.

Others should watch this and confirm as well. I'm well documented as being wrong regularly and am always happy to admit when I am.
 
plague311 said:
That wasn't the impression that I got from the testimony, but it was tough to understand the questions. The prosecution\defense attorney's speak soft and then the person on the stand is loud as ****.

From what I understand, the door was open when she fired the shot. There was GSR on the inside of the outside door (which is what they call his door leading to the hallway), and there was GSR on the inside door (I think maybe a linen closet)? Indicating that she never had her gun in the hallway, the shots were fired with her gun inside of the door with the door open.

Others should watch this and confirm as well. I'm well documented as being wrong regularly and am always happy to admit when I am.
Click to expand...
Seems like the only way the outside of the door would remain clear of residue is if she was on the other side of it when she shot Jean.
It has already been established that these are self-closing doors? Or has it?
 
Belz... said:
Not sure why you asked, since I said I think they should get her for a lesser offense than murder. :)
Click to expand...

So what was she really shooting at if she shot him by accident? The TV?

Because it kind of seems like she intended to kill him when she fired.
 
Distracted1 said:
Seems like the only way the outside of the door would remain clear of residue is if she was on the other side of it when she shot Jean.
Click to expand...

I did not hear them ask about GSR being on the outside of the outside door. I don't know that they tested that.

The expert made it extremely clear that GSR is extremely easily transferable. Maybe they didn't test the door because she was proven to have touched the door multiple times (going in and out of the apartment) vs. just the trim around the door?

Then they asked about the GSR on the body. As I said, I would watch it and not take my word for it because it was tough to hear and my office walls are paper thin so I don't want to piss someone off by having my volume too loud.

Distracted1 said:
It has already been established that these are self-closing doors? Or has it?
Click to expand...

Kind of? Testimony from other witnesses seems to imply that the doors will close without a problem, but won't lock unless pushed closed a bit harder.

Jean's specific door was proven to have not always closed and shut completely because there was an issue with his strike plate.

_______________________________________________________

Right now the prosecutor is saying he's going to call the ME to go over the report and says they can't bring in THC to after death.
 
quadraginta said:
Is there some reason the jury can't find for a lesser offense?
....
Click to expand...

It depends on the judge's instructions. There have been some cases where the defense asked that lesser offenses not be included, so they could roll the dice on an all-or-nothing defense to the top charge.
 
They're going over trajectory and this angle is pretty tough to explain away. I mean, he had to be leaning over almost completely at the waist.

Holy ****

ETA: It really, really, really, really looks like he was starting to stand up.
 
Last edited:
plague311 said:
They're going over trajectory and this angle is pretty tough to explain away. I mean, he had to be leaning over almost completely at the waist.

Holy ****

ETA: It really, really, really, really looks like he was starting to stand up.
Click to expand...

Again so? She was "mistaken" and in her mind's eye he was charging at her, possibly riding a Unicorn and wielding Excalibur.

Again that's the trap the "Mistake of Fact" argument puts us in when it's used dishonestly. Everything she was wrong about... somehow proves her case since her entire argument "Well I was wrong, LOL can't touch me."

If she can miss entire floor of a building I'm sure the subtle nuance between "crouching shape in the shadows" and "standing shape in the shadows" is too much of a burden to put on the poor woman.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom