Cont: Man shot, killed by off-duty Dallas police officer who walked into wrong apartment p2

[Drewbot]

I believe that she thought she was in her apartment. I also believe she shot him dead because she wanted to, not because she was even a little bit in fear of anything. Murder 2

You think her intent was to kill a complete stranger in the wrong apartment?

 

[William Parcher]

To be fair, I think this would be much less of a problem if policemen were expected to undertake a higher burden of risk than civilians.

They automatically undertake a higher burden of risk. As a profession, they are regularly fired upon and assaulted. Unlike civilians, they run towards armed and dangerous criminals instead of running away from them.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You think her intent was to kill a complete stranger in the wrong apartment?

Again this only matters in this loony bin world people live in where "intent" is the same thing as "preplanning."

The phrase someone used earlier was "These are the facts, and they are not in dispute." She pointed her gun at another human being and pulled the trigger. Did she think her gun shot magical healing bullets?

 

[JoeMorgue]

They automatically undertake a higher burden of risk. As a profession, they are regularly fired upon and assaulted. Unlike civilians, they run towards armed and dangerous criminals instead of running away from them.

Also they... well don't take on a higher burden of risk. Law Enforcement doesn't break the top ten of most dangerous professions in the US.

 

[bignickel]

To be fair, I think this would be much less of a problem if policemen were expected to undertake a higher burden of risk than civilians.

They're not even in the top 10 of most hazardous jobs here in the states! And yet, they've convinced themselves, that they're an occupying force in a hostile environment.

I think part of the problem is in wording of who's who: in my post, I said "if a civilian"; then it struck me: they're civilians too. Somewhere along the line, the police began to think of themselves as beyond civilians, instead of people doing a job, just like the rest of us. Or perhaps it was ever thus; just seems to me that a minority view is now the majority accepted view among police.

If I were to say where the crucial turning point was, I would probably say it was when shooting an unarmed person, which used to get one convicted of murder, became an acceptable excuse "because. reasons." I remember the old days where cops would be frantic about finding the weapon they said the suspect had, because they would be up the creek if they didn't. Where bad cops carried extra pieces for planting if a shoot went wrong (or right). Now? Why even bother? "He made a move to his waistband ("socks", "jacket after I asked him for ID", "just moved his arm while sleeping in his car")". Bang.

 

[bignickel]

They automatically undertake a higher burden of risk. As a profession, they are regularly fired upon and assaulted. Unlike civilians, they run towards armed and dangerous criminals instead of running away from them.

Actually, as we've seen from so many cases, it's been well established that they do not have to run towards anything dangerous. (subway slasher, etc) However, if they command you to assist them in a dangerous situation, you have to comply. Dissonance, anyone?

 

[William Parcher]

Also they... well don't take on a higher burden of risk. Law Enforcement doesn't break the top ten of most dangerous professions in the US.

I wonder where they would rank if they were always unarmed and did not also carry the less-lethal weapons like tasers and teargas and flash grenades, etc.

Imagine the dangers when trying to take violent and armed American criminals to jail without having your own gun. Who would take that job?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I wonder where they would rank if they were always unarmed and did not also carry the less-lethal weapons like tasers and teargas and flash grenades, etc.

Imagine the dangers when trying to take violent and armed American criminals to jail without having your own gun. Who would take that job?

*Confused* How high would lumberjacks rank if they weren't allowed to use chainsaws but had to chop down trees with their bare hands what kind of nonsense is that...

Beside what's your broader point? That "Protect and Serve" means they get to kill unarmed black people sitting in their own homes every once in a while?

 

[Thermal]

You think her intent was to kill a complete stranger in the wrong apartment?

No, I think she personifies the Yosemite Sam mentality, that thinks you can pop a cap in anyone you think crossed your path. No regard for who it was, or what they were doing there, or if they posed a grave threat, or if they could be subdued without killing. People like this are murderers on the hoof, just waiting for their opportunity to kill with impunity.

As I said upthread, I live in a beach town where summer renters and maintenance workers frequently walk in the wrong houses. I've walked in my home to find strange men alone in it. Hell, I've woken up to find unknown guys inside. You know what I didn't do? Kill them. You know why? They were not threatening my life and I am not a ******* murderer.

 

[Thermal]

Also they... well don't take on a higher burden of risk. Law Enforcement doesn't break the top ten of most dangerous professions in the US.

Depends on what you mean by dangerous. Police can use force to mitigate dangers, so suffer less casualties. That doesn't mean they weren't in extreme danger, even more so than a garbage collector.

 

[Whip]

I believe that the Jean Family attorney (Merritt) and claimed witness Bunny both still think that she went to his apartment for the purpose of murdering him knowing that it was his apartment. There have been other people in the press as well who think that it was a pre-planned murder. I don't know if the 911 call transcript would change their thinking.

She did administer first aid, and in her call you can hear her speaking to Jean both as encouraging him to remain alert (stay alive) and apologizing to him. It isn't typical for a murderer to want their victim to stay alive... to be alive... to be able to testify against them in court for what they have done.

The fact that Guyger wanted Jean to be alive is contrary to the theory that she went there to murder him. It could even be argued that wanting him to be alive is contrary to intentional murder with racist intent. We have people in this forum and elsewhere saying that she only pulled the trigger because Jean was black.

that's a large leap just based on words.

 

[Bob001]

..... I've walked in my home to find strange men alone in it. Hell, I've woken up to find unknown guys inside.
.....

This relates to the discussion of deadbolts above: You need better locks, or at least better key control.

 

[Bob001]

.....
However, if they command you to assist them in a dangerous situation, you have to comply. Dissonance, anyone?

Is there a source for that? Bystanders have been criticized for not choosing to help cops in trouble, but I'd be surprised if a cop could order you "Hey, go chase that bank robber!"

 

[Thermal]

This relates to the discussion of deadbolts above: You need better locks, or at least better key control.

The locks are fine, we just don't use them. Also, it's besides the point. The issue is what to do when confronted with a stranger in your home, not prevention.

 

[bignickel]

Is there a source for that? Bystanders have been criticized for not choosing to help cops in trouble, but I'd be surprised if a cop could order you "Hey, go chase that bank robber!"

It was on one of these discussion threads in this sub-fora, probably one of the "USA police acting badly" threads.

I wish when you searched for words using the search feature, it took you to the very post with the words, rather than page 1 of a 30 page thread. Makes it pretty useless.

 

[Bob001]

The locks are fine, we just don't use them. Also, it's besides the point. The issue is what to do when confronted with a stranger in your home, not prevention.

I think most of us here agree that the cop was wildly unjustified and deserves hard time.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Is there a source for that? Bystanders have been criticized for not choosing to help cops in trouble, but I'd be surprised if a cop could order you "Hey, go chase that bank robber!"

Broadly it gets into the same laws that have to do with forming posse's and commandeering cars. The police have that legal power but it really isn't one that they use. And again like a lot of things it will depend on the state as well.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Depends on what you mean by dangerous. Police can use force to mitigate dangers, so suffer less casualties. That doesn't mean they weren't in extreme danger, even more so than a garbage collector.

The locks are fine, we just don't use them. Also, it's besides the point. The issue is what to do when confronted with a stranger in your home, not prevention.

Clearly you should use extreme force like the police to keep you safe like them.

 

[Thermal]

I think most of us here agree that the cop was wildly unjustified and deserves hard time.

Most do. Some are pretty clearly trying to downplay it. My position is that it does not matter how sleepy she was, or where she thought she was, or any of the flatulent mitigations offered. She killed a guy that posed no imminent threat. That's murder. Not just unjustified, or reckless, or negligent, or whoopsie-daisy inadvertent killing. Murder.

 

[CORed]

Subject for discussion: If she had stepped out of the apartment and pulled the door closed after she shot him, would she ever have been caught? How long would it have taken? There were no security cameras, and even if neighbors had heard shots, they didn't see anything. She could have claimed that she went home to her unit, heard "what sounded like shots," and went upstairs to investigate. If neighbors peered out they would have seen a uniformed police officer investigating a suspicious noise. I suspect that we could be in a different place today if she had kept her wits about her. (Of course, if she had any wits she wouldn't have shot anybody in the first place.)

Ballistic evidence presumably would have tied the bullet that killed him to her gun. Of course, if they believed her story, it's possible that her gun wouldn't have been checked.