Man shot, killed by off-duty Dallas police officer who walked into wrong apartment p3

theprestige said:
Your post about police training.

Also you misrepsented my "argument" about jury nullification.

Which is: "What if they didn't think the prosecution carried its burden of proof, but gave them a pass because they wanted convict anyway; or what if they thought there was no crime in the law, but believed there should be, and so convicted anyway?"

The way I see it, the jury finding a crime where none exists in law is just the other side of the same nullification coin as not finding a crime where one does exist in law.
Click to expand...

It may be interesting in a case where the prosecution seemed to be having a problem carrying their burden. This was not that case. She admitted that she intended to kill the man. An intentional killing in Texas is called murder. Once she admitted that she intentionally killed him it was pretty easy for the jury to find her guilty. No inverse jury nullification needed.

And this is, to me, much more interesting than the boring claim that police should get proper training.
Click to expand...

Agreed, it is obvious that police should get proper training. Which is why your post questioning this concept stuck out a bit.

And that itself is a misrepresentation of the actual complaint, which is that some police aren't receiving the proper training. My question is, which police are those, specifically.
Click to expand...

Those like Amber Guyger who admitted on the stand that she could not recall her deescalation training from last year and who ignored protocol by barging into a space she thought was occupied by an intruder and then failed to give first aid despite having relevant material in her possession that may have helped her victim. She is an example that the police hiring or training process is flawed.

Then you have all the police who think she was in the right. Police who were waiting to testify that what she did was good and proper for a reasonable police officer. Those folks need some training.

We should want all police to get proper training, is perhaps the least useful reply possible to that question. Were you going for uselessness on purpose, or did you honestly believe that's what was being asked?
Click to expand...

I can only read what you write. And above there are two claims that I have misrepresented your posts. I have not.
 
Bob001 said:
And you are reaching a conclusion that is contrary to the one reached by the police department, the district attorney's office, the judge and the jury. The judge, in particular, could have stopped the process at any moment and even before it started. You insist that they are all wrong, even corrupt, and you and "Amber" are right? You think maybe you're misinterpreting the law?
Click to expand...

Minor correction. It is my understanding that both the Dallas PD and the Texas Rangers concluded that Guyger did not commit a crime. The DA prosecuted anyway
 
whoanellie said:
Minor correction. It is my understanding that both the Dallas PD and the Texas Rangers concluded that Guyger did not commit a crime. The DA prosecuted anyway
Click to expand...

Technically not true as well. The Dallas PD started with charges of manslaughter, and it was just a single Texas Ranger that concluded she did not commit a crime in his opinion.
 
That didn't take long, and it shouldn't have. There was no doubt she was guilty. If you are going to carry a deadly weapon, you automatically have a responsibility for using it correctly. If you don't want that responsibility, don't carry one.
 
Dr. Keith said:
It may be interesting in a case where the prosecution seemed to be having a problem carrying their burden. This was not that case. She admitted that she intended to kill the man. An intentional killing in Texas is called murder. Once she admitted that she intentionally killed him it was pretty easy for the jury to find her guilty. No inverse jury nullification needed.
Click to expand...

Texas has capital punishment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Texas#Execution_procedure

Is the person administering the lethal injection a murderer under Texas law?
 
plague311 said:
Technically not true as well. The Dallas PD started with charges of manslaughter, and it was just a single Texas Ranger that concluded she did not commit a crime in his opinion.
Click to expand...


I thought DPD turned it over to Texas Rangers who then charged her with manslaughter.
 
Dr. Keith said:
Those like Amber Guyger who admitted on the stand that she could not recall her deescalation training from last year and who ignored protocol by barging into a space she thought was occupied by an intruder and then failed to give first aid despite having relevant material in her possession that may have helped her victim. She is an example that the police hiring or training process is flawed.
Click to expand...

She blames lack of training for her actions. This is a self-serving claim that should be taken with a grain of salt. Do you have reason to believe that Guyger's actions were a result of poor training? Because if this was really a training failure, then the defense screwed up big time by not marshaling that evidence and making that argument at trial. "Guyger did the best she could, but her department set her up to fail" would probably have played a lot better with the jury than "oops, my bad!"

Also, let's not conflate the question of training - the question actually before us - with questiosn of hiring, supervision, etc.

Anyway, my impression is that Guyger was kind of a garbage cop whose professional shortcomings couldn't really be fixed by more training. Better hiring or supervisory practices, maybe. But that's not the question. Certainly there doesn't seem to be any serious complaints about Dallas PD training, in this case. My guess is that Dallas cops are reasonably well trained, and that Guyger is kind of a Kevin.

Which brings us back around to my question: Which cops, specifically, aren't getting the proper training they need? Guyger? All half a million of them?
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
She seems like a poor representative for self-declared Reapers. This wasn't a vigilante cop reaping criminals who have escaped due process. Or even reaping "criminals" who have "escaped" due process. This was a jackass cop committing a colossal and tragic **** up. There are probably much more apt faces to put on your point of concern.
Click to expand...

You are describing vigilantes, or Punishers. My objection is with anyone who fires a weapon absent the proverbial clear and present danger/imminent threat. She'll do fine.
 
Thermal said:
Conceded, I personified too much. My argument has been against excusing people for murder under these pretexts. She became my personal poster bitch for self-declared Reapers.

So I propose a toast to the People of Texas, as represented by the Jury: where reason has prevailed over Yosemite Sam excuses for shootings.
Click to expand...

From what I could see, she deserved to be found guilty. From what I knew of the case and I admit, my knowledge is limited,I am sure I would have found her guilty of at least manslaughter and possibly murder. I have no problem with the verdict.

My best friend is an FTO with the Seattle Police. (Field Training Officer) He trains new probationary police officers after they graduate from the police academy. He said outside of pulling the trigger she did everything wrong. She should have called for backup instead of going in alone was her biggest mistake. She put herself in danger and eliminated options.

Pulling the trigger with an intent to kill was so much part of her training that it was instinctual. The problem is she ignored the rest of her training. She should have never put herself in that position.
 
theprestige said:
She blames lack of training for her actions. This is a self-serving claim that should be taken with a grain of salt. Do you have reason to believe that Guyger's actions were a result of poor training? Because if this was really a training failure, then the defense screwed up big time by not marshaling that evidence and making that argument at trial. "Guyger did the best she could, but her department set her up to fail" would probably have played a lot better with the jury than "oops, my bad!"

Also, let's not conflate the question of training - the question actually before us - with questiosn of hiring, supervision, etc.

Anyway, my impression is that Guyger was kind of a garbage cop whose professional shortcomings couldn't really be fixed by more training. Better hiring or supervisory practices, maybe. But that's not the question. Certainly there doesn't seem to be any serious complaints about Dallas PD training, in this case. My guess is that Dallas cops are reasonably well trained, and that Guyger is kind of a Kevin.

Which brings us back around to my question: Which cops, specifically, aren't getting the proper training they need? Guyger? All half a million of them?
Click to expand...

It varies a lot from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It costs money to give officers good training and in smaller departments or ones where they lack resources, it wouldn't be surprising that it might be deficient. Just assuming that she received good training I think is a mistake.
 
acbytesla said:
From what I could see, she deserved to be found guilty. From what I knew of the case and I admit, my knowledge is limited,I am sure I would have found her guilty of at least manslaughter and possibly murder. I have no problem with the verdict.

My best friend is an FTO with the Seattle Police. (Field Training Officer) He trains new probationary police officers after they graduate from the police academy. He said outside of pulling the trigger she did everything wrong. She should have called for backup instead of going in alone was her biggest mistake. She put herself in danger and eliminated options.

Pulling the trigger with an intent to kill was so much part of her training that it was instinctual. The problem is she ignored the rest of her training. She should have never put herself in that position.
Click to expand...

The other options available to her were discussed at length up thread, and it was widely agreed that she made the worst possible choice short of calling in an air strike.

I'm not sure if shooting was actually instinctual, though, as much as the preferred option. That is much more my concern in these sordid tales. Police or citizens firing should be the absolute last resort, hands down no other option lest self or others face grave peril.
 
I'm quite surprised by the low range of sentences people are talking about. I thought tough sentences were normal in America but you're seriously talking about as little as five years for murder?

In Scotland murder carries a mandatory life sentence, although that doesn't mean the murderer is never going to get out. The judge has to pass a life sentence, but he then has to decide on a "tariff", which is the length of time the convicted person absolutely has to serve in jail. After that the possibility of parole is introduced and is likely to be granted if the prisoner has behaved and shows due remorse and so on. Tariffs for murder are typically around 20 years. But after that it's only "released on licence". If the offender offends again he's going back inside not just for whatever sentence the new offence carries, but he will be recalled from the licence and this time it's likely to be throw away the key.

The refusal of parole to someone who is not suitably remorseful can be a problem in miscarriage of justice cases. There are cases of people who could have been freed on licence if they'd admitted they were guilty being kept in jail long after the end of their tariff, and then being proved innocent later. Difficult one.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
I thought DPD turned it over to Texas Rangers who then charged her with manslaughter.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, it's kind of hard to decipher as I'm looking at it. I first went off of this:

Sept. 9, 2018 -- An arrest warrant is issued for Guyger, charging her with manslaughter
Click to expand...

Which led to this:

An arrest warrant will soon be issued for a Dallas police officer who shot and killed a man upon returning home from her shift and entering an apartment she apparently thought was her own, police said Friday.

Dallas Police Chief Renee Hall announced at a press conference that authorities are in the process of obtaining a warrant for the officer involved, who has not yet been identified
Click to expand...

Though that was the day after the shooting so it might not tell the whole story.
 
Rolfe said:
I'm quite surprised by the low range of sentences people are talking about. I thought tough sentences were normal in America but you're seriously talking about as little as five years for murder?

In Scotland murder carries a mandatory life sentence, although that doesn't mean the murderer is never going to get out.
Click to expand...

So Scotland's definition of murder is probably similar to "Capital Murder" in Texas.

Every state has it's own laws. Terms are somewhat standardized but not completely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom