• 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.
plague311 said:
They said that there was a light switch right inside.

Looking at the TV it looks like Jean was watching youtube rather than football. The conspiracy grows.
Click to expand...

The highlights are usually up on YouTube about 10 minutes after the game. Could've been watching those.
 
theprestige said:
Who said anything about the same conclusion?

Treating your analogy with more grace than it remotely deserves, we don't demand that only the people who debated the wording, wrote the final draft, and ratified it with a vote; be allowed to interpret the Constitution and rule on its meaning.

No, we agree that any reasonably competent and experienced jurist can render their own professional, expert opinion of the document.

Same thing here.
Click to expand...
Yet it would be preferable, if possible, to have the intent expressed directly from the mouth of the writer when in doubt, no?
 
Elagabalus said:
There was also a witness(cited earlier in the thread) who heard Botham yell "what did you do that for?"
Click to expand...
Was that the report?
I remember the discussion, but it is a lot of thread to comb through.
I remember someone reported hearing "why did you do that!?" Or a very similar question, but I don't remember if it was reported wether the voice was identified as a man's or a woman's'.
The event seems to lend credence to it being uttered by either of them.
 
Elagabalus said:
There was also a witness(cited earlier in the thread) who heard Botham yell "what did you do that for?"
Click to expand...

Have either of the Babbs sisters testified?

I suggested earlier in the thread that Bunny didn't really help because she essentially made her video and testimony something that the prosecution wouldn't want to touch.
 
Have they brought up the ice cream bowl?

Before the trial there was a picture and video that showed the bowl on an ottoman. My previous theory was that Jean stepped forward and was putting the bowl down and Guyger couldn't see what he was doing behind the counter and thought he was reaching for a gun. But that was based on the wrong apartment layout where there the living room is enclosed with a wall. And I haven't heard about anything at trail where Guyger claims she though he was reaching for a weapon.

But I'm curious where the bowl ended up. If it was on the ottoman, I think it was more likely that Jean stood and placed it there before he was shot.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
Have they brought up the ice cream bowl?

Before the trial there was a picture and video that showed the bowl on an ottoman. My previous theory was that Jean stepped forward and was putting the bowl down and Guyger couldn't see what he was doing behind the counter and thought he was reaching for a gun. But that was based on the wrong apartment layout where there the living room is enclosed with a wall. And I haven't heard about anything at trail where Guyger claims she though he was reaching for a weapon.

But I'm curious where the bowl ended up. If it was on the ottoman, I think it was more likely that Jean stood and placed it there before he was shot.
Click to expand...
This is some serious Kremlinological bull crap right here.
 
quadraginta said:
Is there some reason the jury can't find for a lesser offense?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure. Lesser offenses are often included, but either side could object to having those allowed. Many news reports say the jury will decide among murder or lesser charges, but I don't trust the news. I have not heard anything on whether the court has actually ruled on that issue.

Has the court ruled on any instructions to the jury regarding mistake of fact, self-defense, or castle law? I haven't heard anything, so I'm not sure if that was addressed in a previous hearing or if they are waiting until after evidence to address that.
 
plague311 said:
The defense was going for, what I think Dr. Keith was saying, that he charged towards her, saw the gun, ducked, got shot and fell backwards.
Click to expand...

That's different from he defense's opening argument. They said he could not have been crouching. They said he was bending over at the waist looking down at the gun.

But Jean ducking down is at least possible. Guyger walks in. Jean sees her as the door closes. She's in the dark. He doesn't see her uniform or gun. He starts walking toward her to confront her. When he gets close enough, he see the gun. He crouches down to duck out of the way. So when she shoots the bullet enters at a downward trajectory.

But Guyger shot him in the heart. I assume that is where she was aiming. That would mean that she shot him after he ducked. He was crouching down. In a defensive position. Not coming at her. Not threatening her life.

plague311 said:
The "oompf" of the bullet wouldn't have been enough to throw a 247 lbs. 6' 1" man backwards if he had forward momentum.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is any "oompf" from a bullet. The movies always show a bullet hitting someone and they going flying backward. That doesn't happen in real life. A bullet has almost no backward force compared to a person. Mythbusters did a show on that.
 
My guess is Jean was sitting with his ice cream on the couch. He has his earbuds in, listening to whatever (the tv in the crime scene video showed a JFK show I think), and he sees the light start coming in the door. At this point, Guyger has tried the lock (which Jean didn't hear because of the earbuds) and is pushing the door open, noticing it's ajar. She pulls her gun as she opens the door, she sees Jean in the living room (the tv and laptop both had light that would cause her to look in his direction immediately (I'm not positive here, laptop could have been in "sleep" mode and dark but the family said he played fantasy. He could have been checking his team)). By this time he's put his ice cream down and pushes himself forward as he starts to stand up. She shoots, hits him and causes him to stagger and take a step forward, which results in her missing the second shot. He crouches as he collapses, sliding backwards at the same time.

The issues I have, start with that there was a light directly over Jean's door. As she opened the door there's no reason the light wouldn't have lit the big mess from behind her, forward. There's also a red stand, no endtable with bright flowers and a few other things in the background. She's 5'2" and the light was up top. It would have filled his apartment in front of her, that's basic lighting. No matter what happened before... this specific point should have made her stop and take inventory. She would have light shining on at least 30% of the room and Jean was a straight up slob.

The prosector should continue to downplay how she got to the wrong place and play up her actions once at the door big time.

I ESPECIALLY liked the repeated times the prosecutor pointed out she had a taser and pepper spray.
 
Last edited:
plague311 said:
.....
The issues I have, start with that there was a light directly over Jean's door. As she opened the door there's no reason the light wouldn't have lit the big mess from behind her, forward.
....
Click to expand...

It should be noted that from Jean's perspective, Guyger would have been silhouetted by the light behind her. He would have seen her shape, but probably not her uniform and maybe not her upraised gun. So when a stranger burst into his apartment screaming "Don't move! Put your hands up! Get on the ground! Put your hands behind your head!," etc., if that's really what she did, his natural reaction would have been to stand up and say "What the hell..?" Bang, bang.
 
I have a terrible suspicion that pondering.. satire is going to be proven rather close to the bone. I think her being a police officer is going to be used to explain why she didn't react the way we would expect a reasonable non police officer to act. Her "training" took over because she thought it was a hostile situation, whereas thee and me may have hesitated in such a situation and therefore had time to think, her incredibly honed reactions as part of her police training meant she was like a coiled viper, instantly ready to act in a hostile situation.
 
Darat said:
I have a terrible suspicion that pondering.. satire is going to be proven rather close to the bone. I think her being a police officer is going to be used to explain why she didn't react the way we would expect a reasonable non police officer to act. Her "training" took over because she thought it was a hostile situation, whereas thee and me may have hesitated in such a situation and therefore had time to think, her incredibly honed reactions as part of her police training meant she was like a coiled viper, instantly ready to act in a hostile situation.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately tend to agree tbf


****** up if it happens
 
Darat said:
I have a terrible suspicion that pondering.. satire is going to be proven rather close to the bone. I think her being a police officer is going to be used to explain why she didn't react the way we would expect a reasonable non police officer to act. Her "training" took over because she thought it was a hostile situation, whereas thee and me may have hesitated in such a situation and therefore had time to think, her incredibly honed reactions as part of her police training meant she was like a coiled viper, instantly ready to act in a hostile situation.
Click to expand...

I would hope that the prosecution is aware of this strategy and drives home the point that lethal action is not the first step in police training - which I think is being done by pointing that she had other means at hand. Should continue to point out that other means were available and that her training should have allowed her to better assess the situation before immediately going for her gun.
 
JoeMorgue said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, mistake of fact is a powerful drug.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom