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

[Bob001]

The thing here is that the plaintiffs needed to advance a legal justification for why the police were liable and the judges found that they did not. That is what being thrown out means that even assuming everything the plaintiffs say is accepted they failed to meet the legal bounds of culpability for the police department.

Should all the most ridiculous lawsuits also go forward to juries even when they totally fail to prove their cases? That will make things expensive for Devin Nunes's cow. And it will make SLAPP lawsuits much more effective.

No, "ridiculous" and frivolous lawsuits deserve to be dismissed. But in this case a uniformed police officer used her duty weapon to kill somebody. It would be reasonable to ask whether her training required her to identify her target before shooting, give the target adequate time to surrender, retreat and call for backup, take cover, use nonlethal force first, etc. If her training allowed her to believe that shooting at an unidentified shadow was a reasonable response to a percieved threat, then it is appropriate to ask whether her training/lack thereof contributed to the victim's death. Those would be fair questions to take to a trial.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No, "ridiculous" and frivolous lawsuits deserve to be dismissed. But in this case a uniformed police officer used her duty weapon to kill somebody. It would be reasonable to ask whether her training required her to identify her target before shooting, give the target adequate time to surrender, retreat and call for backup, take cover, use nonlethal force first, etc. If her training allowed her to believe that shooting at an unidentified shadow was a reasonable response to a percieved threat, then it is appropriate to ask whether her training/lack thereof contributed to the victim's death. Those would be fair questions to take to a trial.

Maybe, the judge found that even with a dirrect reading that the training was insufficent that it did not create liability for the police. This kind of thing is pretty well established in law.

 

[JoeMorgue]

No, "ridiculous" and frivolous lawsuits deserve to be dismissed. But in this case a uniformed police officer used her duty weapon to kill somebody. It would be reasonable to ask whether her training required her to identify her target before shooting, give the target adequate time to surrender, retreat and call for backup, take cover, use nonlethal force first, etc. If her training allowed her to believe that shooting at an unidentified shadow was a reasonable response to a percieved threat, then it is appropriate to ask whether her training/lack thereof contributed to the victim's death. Those would be fair questions to take to a trial.

This isn't some case of minor procedural compliance that could have been corrected with a little more training.

Again if you're kind of person who needs to be told "Oh so I shouldn't (let me underline that so I don't forget) shoot unarmed people sitting at home doing nothing" then training isn't the problem.

 

[Elagabalus]

Maybe it's because she wasn't on duty...

If so, whew! Dallas PD dodged a bullet!

 

[Bob001]

This isn't some case of minor procedural compliance that could have been corrected with a little more training.

Again if you're kind of person who needs to be told "Oh so I shouldn't (let me underline that so I don't forget) shoot unarmed people sitting at home doing nothing" then training isn't the problem.

No, I would start at the point where she (unjustifiably and unreasonably) perceived a threat. How did her training teach her to respond in such circumstances? There has been quite a lot of coverage about how modern police training often relies heavily on an "us vs. them," "survive above all" military-style doctrine. If the Dallas PD does anything like that, they could well share responsibility for Jean's death.

The most serious consequence of the rapid militarization of American police forces, however, is the subtle evolution in the mentality of the "men in blue" from "peace officer" to soldier. This development is absolutely critical and represents a fundamental change in the nature of law enforcement.

https://www.theatlantic.com/nationa...-on-terror-has-militarized-the-police/248047/

 

[William Parcher]

If the Dallas PD does anything like that, they could well share responsibility for Jean's death.

The Dallas PD does not train officers to kill innocent unarmed people in the own home. They don't train to do that!

Plus she wasn't on duty.

 

[Bob001]

The Dallas PD does not train officers to kill innocent unarmed people in the own home. They don't train to do that!
Plus she wasn't on duty.

Again, the premise is that she didn't know the facts, only that she perceived a threat. How does the Dallas PD train officers to respond to a threat?

And on duty or not, she would have behaved as she was trained to behave under the circumstances.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again, the premise is that she didn't know the facts, only that she perceived a threat. How does the Dallas PD train officers to respond to a threat?

And on duty or not, she would have behaved as she was trained to behave under the circumstances.

Okay we're not going back down the "What she thought her in head is all that matters" rabbit hole. It didn't work in court.

She made the decision to murder Botham Jean. She bears full responsibility.

Unless you have evidence that Dallas PD ran their officers through a "How to act when stumbling into the wrong apartment while tired and horny" class this is a red herring.

 

[Bob001]

Okay we're not going back down the "What she thought her in head is all that matters" rabbit hole. It didn't work in court.

She made the decision to murder Botham Jean. She bears full responsibility.

Unless you have evidence that Dallas PD ran their officers through a "How to act when stumbling into the wrong apartment while tired and horny" class this is a red herring.

The red herring is pretending that her training had nothing to do with her behavior. She certainly bears full responsibility for killing a man unjustifiably. Nothing diminishes that. But she doesn't necessarily bear sole responsibility. From the point of view of the victim's family, they are entitled to seek justice from anyone and everyone who contributed to the death of their loved one. If the Dallas PD taught officers anything like "Confront the threat!" vs. "Retreat and call for backup!," they share responsibility. And such training is common enough among police depts. today.

It also wouldn't surprise me to see action against the landlord and even the lock manufacturer, if there is any evidence that the door didn't lock securely when it was supposed to.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If the Dallas PD taught officers anything like "Confront the threat!" vs. "Retreat and call for backup!," they share responsibility. And such training is common enough among police depts. today.

They did. This was well established during the trial. She didn't follow her training, hence her defense in court and all the apologetics toward her here on the board having to create this split brain patient of "Super cop dropping into her training by reflex" and "Scawwed whittle white girl driven by fear" at the same time in a constant quantum flux.

 

[Thermal]

Again, the premise is that she didn't know the facts, only that she perceived a threat. How does the Dallas PD train officers to respond to a threat?

And on duty or not, she would have behaved as she was trained to behave under the circumstances.

Being a human being, even in an unexpected place, is not a lethal threat. The lethal response was inappropriate no matter how you spin it.

 

[Bob001]

They did. This was well established during the trial. She didn't follow her training, hence her defense in court and all the apologetics toward her here on the board having to create this split brain patient of "Super cop dropping into her training by reflex" and "Scawwed whittle white girl driven by fear" at the same time in a constant quantum flux.

I'm not apologizing for her. I think her prison sentence is too short, especially since she'll probably only serve half. But I hate to see the Dallas PD get off the hook entirely. They hired her, trained her, supervised her and put a gun in her hand. I think the family should have been able to make its case to a jury.

 

[Bob001]

Being a human being, even in an unexpected place, is not a lethal threat. The lethal response was inappropriate no matter how you spin it.

Yes, of course. I'm not spinning it. She belongs in prison. I'm saying that the family should have been able to argue to a jury that the Dallas PD's training and supervision contributed to an innocent man's death.

 

[Thermal]

I'm not apologizing for her. I think her prison sentence is too short, especially since she'll probably only serve half. But I hate to see the Dallas PD get off the hook entirely. They hired her, trained her, supervised her and put a gun in her hand. I think the family should have been able to make its case to a jury.

You think they taught her that anybody with a pulse should be shot on sight?

 

[Thermal]

Yes, of course. I'm not spinning it. She belongs in prison. I'm saying that the family should have been able to argue to a jury that the Dallas PD's training and supervision contributed to an innocent man's death.

And I'm saying that DPD never taught her to identify a guy watching tv as a lethal threat. She cooked that up all on her own, hence DPD bears no responsibility for the flawed threat identification

 

[Bob001]

And I'm saying that DPD never taught her to identify a guy watching tv as a lethal threat. She cooked that up all on her own, hence DPD bears no responsibility for the flawed threat identification

Great. That would be a matter of fact to be resolved at trial, and if a jury buys it the PD would win. But the issues would include their training and supervision of her. If say, there were other disciplinary issues -- like her shooting somebody during a traffic stop when other officers present didn't feel threatened, as she did -- that could be explored, too. She had a gun in her hand because the PD put it there. If she had run over a kid with a patrol car while driving drunk, the PD wouldn't be able to say "we never told her to do that!" and waltz away.

The family might not have a slam-dunk case. But they aren't pulling it out of thin air either.

 

[Thermal]

Great. That would be a matter of fact to be resolved at trial, and if a jury buys it the PD would win. But the issues would include their training and supervision of her. If say, there were other disciplinary issues -- like her shooting somebody during a traffic stop when other officers present didn't feel threatened, as she did -- that could be explored, too. She had a gun in her hand because the PD put it there. If she had run over a kid with a patrol car while driving drunk, the PD wouldn't be able to say "we never told her to do that!" and waltz away.

The family might not have a slam-dunk case. But they aren't pulling it out of thin air either.

Ok, that's fair. It could be claimed that Guyger's training was improper and resulted in poor target identification. Would not the courts have already reasonably heard such complaints in the past, and no longer consider them meritorious, barring something unusual? That is my guess.

 

[William Parcher]

Though it wouldn't be the intent, the judge could be saving the Jean family money by dismissing the lawsuit. They would be paying their lawyer to prepare for and begin the trial. Within the first hour of the trial Dallas would submit a motion to dismiss the case. The judge would grant the motion and everything would end. A jury wouldn't hear any testimony.

 

[William Parcher]

Ex-officer Amber Guyger responds to federal lawsuit filed by Botham Jean's family

Fired Dallas police officer Amber Guyger has responded to allegations in a civil lawsuit filed by the family of Botham Jean for the first time since it was filed in October 2018. Guyger is currently serving a 10-year prison sentence for the murder of Jean. Court proceedings regarding the federal lawsuit were put on hold until the murder trial was completed.

Guyger's response comes a few weeks after a federal judge ruled that the City of Dallas was dismissed in the lawsuit over the death of Jean. Judge Barbara Lynn dismissed the wrongful death case with prejudice in December. The dismissal of the case against the City is because Jean's family failed to "state a claim," court records show.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the Jean family in October 2018. With this ruling, former Dallas police officer Amber Guyger is now the lone defendant in the wrongful death lawsuit.

Jean's family claims Guyger used excessive force when she killed Jean. Though attorneys for Guyger had previously acknowledged the lawsuit and requested a stay until the end of the criminal proceeding, Guyger's answer filed Thursday is the first detailed response to Jean's family's claims...

The civil lawsuit states Guyger did not have proper training as a police officer and used excessive force in the deadly shooting of Jean. In May 2017, Guyger was involved in a non-fatal police shooting. She fired her weapon during a physical altercation with a drug offender. The man had taken her Taser.

"Defendant Guyger has been a police officer for less than five years yet the shooting of Jean represents the second suspicious shooting of an unarmed suspect of color," the lawsuit against her claims. "Upon information and belief, Defendant Guyger was not required to undergo any mental counseling and/or training after the first officer-involved shooting she was involved in," the lawsuit states.

In the recent court documents filed, Guyger denied that either of the shootings were "suspicious."

The lawsuit also mentions that Guyger’s Pinterest account included photos that indicated that she was a dangerous person with "highly violence and anti-social propensities." The suit states Guyger violated the Police Department’s social media policies and never faced any reprimands for it. It also claims Guyger was given time to delete content from her social media accounts before her name was publicly released after the night she killed Jean.

According to court documents, Guyger states she sometimes clicked "Like" on Pinterest posts and admitted she never was reprimanded for violating DPD’s social media guidelines. Guyger has requested a jury trial in the federal civil case.

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/s...ents/287-002b4aa1-6e53-4f2d-a1ab-e45142238cd9

 

[William Parcher]

Botham Jean’s family plans lawsuit against apartment complex where Amber Guyger shot him

The family of Botham Jean plans to file a separate lawsuit against South Side Flats, the apartment complex where former Dallas police officer Amber Guyger fatally shot him, a family attorney said. Attorney Lee Merritt said Saturday that a confusing layout on the upper floors, coupled with a faulty door mechanism, created circumstances that led to Jean’s death in September 2018.

During Guyger’s trial, an investigator testified that Jean’s door was defective. “It wouldn’t shut all the way,” Merritt said. “If it had shut all the way, Amber Guyger wouldn’t have been able to get in.” The base plates and lock plates didn’t line up on some of the doors, Jean’s included, Merritt said. “The lock would snag and not connect in response to certain types of weather,” he said. Guyger testified that “the door sprang open,” Merritt said.

“During the trial, something like 70 percent of the people on the third and fourth floors said that they’ve gone to the wrong floors before,” Merritt said.

Merritt also is appealing a federal court decision that removed the city of Dallas from a civil lawsuit filed by the family. Guyger’s off-duty status at the time of the shooting also factored into the suit’s dismissal, but Merritt disputes the reasoning behind that. “When a police officer observes a crime, when she responds to it, she goes back on duty," he said. "They are considered to be back on duty.”...

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/cou...apartment-complex-where-amber-guyger-shot-him