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

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.
Click to expand...

I still don't get how anyone can say manslaughter, she meant to kill him, either it was justified or it wasn't. How does it suddenly become unintentional? Did she not know her gun was loaded or something?
 
acbytesla said:
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.
Click to expand...

And of course why bother remembering your BS descalation training when it is all about taking control of the situation on the streets?
 
"We believe that Botham's life mattered and we want a sentence that reflects that," Lee Merritt, an attorney for Jean family said ..."

WTH???? :)

Implying that if someone's like did NOT matter, sentencing should also reflect that fact?
 
Ron Swanson said:
"We believe that Botham's life mattered and we want a sentence that reflects that," Lee Merritt, an attorney for Jean family said ..."

WTH???? :)

Implying that if someone's like did NOT matter, sentencing should also reflect that fact?
Click to expand...

I think that would be this police shooting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Akai_Gurley

"On April 19, 2016, Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Danny Chun sentenced Peter Liang to five years of probation and 800 hours community service, after downgrading his manslaughter conviction to criminally negligent homicide.[7]"
 
theprestige said:
Ah, okay. Are there a lot of self-declared Reapers out there?
Click to expand...

If the news is to be believed, quite a few. Cops shooting unarmed men are a regular reporting. I was first infuriated with this story when Guyger wasn't arrested on the spot, guns ddrawn on her and tossed on the back like any other killer, to be processed.
 
Thermal said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's part of their training. At least that is what my friend says. People get shot and they keep moving forward sometimes not even realizing they have been shot. There are lots of examples where after receiving a fatal shot they keep attacking only to die later.

Maybe it shouldn't be. Which has been an argument I've had with my friend.
 
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.

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

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.

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...

That's not jury nullification.

A jury that refuses to convict because they believe the law to be misapplied or simply because the law is offensive to their conscious constitutes examples of jury nullification.

A jury that votes to convict absent evidence is committing a criminal and civil rights violation.
 
ponderingturtle said:
And of course why bother remembering your BS descalation training when it is all about taking control of the situation on the streets?
Click to expand...

There you go.

This while isn't exactly the same, reminds me a little of an incident in Seattle where a police officer shot and killed a woodcarver. The cop within seconds of getting out of his cruiser pulled his gun and closed the ground between him and the woodcarver and then shot the guy. Being on the job and since the woodcarver was carrying a knife, no charges were filed against the officer. But the officer either of his own volition resigned or was forced to.

 
acbytesla said:
It's part of their training. At least that is what my friend says. People get shot and they keep moving forward sometimes not even realizing they have been shot. There are lots of examples where after receiving a fatal shot they keep attacking only to die later.

Maybe it shouldn't be. Which has been an argument I've had with my friend.
Click to expand...

Yea, but they have a lot of training in non lethal methods, too. Tasers, calling for backup, deescalation, and more. Guyger forgot all about those and went straight to killing a man that by her own testimony, posed no threat to her other than what was between her ears. I have a huge problem with that.
 
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...

Probably best left to another thread, but I would say that there is ample evidence that many departments in the US lack the resources to properly hire and train officers. And yes, the two issues are so intertwined that I'm not really going to separate them. You don't know a Kevin until you try to train a Kevin.

The problem is that we have no law that requires uniform training and there is not legally binding standard that officers all over the country must meet. That makes it a bit difficult to single out which departments are deficient and which are compliant. But, fear not, I assume this is a feature, not a bug.
 
theprestige said:
Yes, but are there a lot of self-declared Reapers out there?
Click to expand...

As plague says, prob a separate topic that warrants another thread. I asked the mods to split one off earlier but nah.

In my most humble of opinions, most guys carrying are a wannabe Reapers. Lots of practice in killing at the range, very little in actual defensive tactics. But another argument
 
Ron Swanson said:
I just read an article that said "The 12-member jury reached its verdict after deliberating for less than two days. "

I wonder if they deliberated at all??
Click to expand...

That statement is accurate because 5 hours is less that 2 days. It would also be accurate to say that the jury reached its verdict after deliberating for less than 71 days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom