Post: #126

Really I think congress needs to pass a law that a police department can't investigate it's own officers. At least an out of county department. Or even start an agency just to spy on the FBI and CIA (maybe not all that it would be bureaucracy on top of bureaucracy) or at least investigate local and state police crimes.

Post: #127

(09-25-2018 01:30 PM)godfather dust Wrote:  Really I think congress needs to pass a law that a police department can't investigate it's own officers. At least an out of county department. Or even start an agency just to spy on the FBI and CIA (maybe not all that it would be bureaucracy on top of bureaucracy) or at least investigate local and state police crimes.

NYC had some success with putting real pricks in Internal Affairs on towing the FBI. Not even ticketing them, just towing government cars out of illegal spots and making them come wait in line to pick them up.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/nyreg...xempt.html

Writ large, cross-train some total sociopaths who will enjoy it to get assigned to these investigations in jurisdictions where they have no friends anyway.

Post: #128

(09-25-2018 11:30 AM)Jetset Wrote:  If they literally mean "when she was arrested", my guess would be a trailer park outburst.

Years ago, we had an incident in my region where two sheriff's deputies were shacked up, and one deputy tampered with evidence and intimidated the victim at a drunk driving accident, trying to protect the driver, who was his deputy girlfriend's loser nephew or something. The victim called 911 and asked the state police to come.

So the state police report describes going to their shared home, and one politely says that the female deputy "requested professional courtesy".

The other report made it clear that as they walked away she had a tantrum and started cursing at them from her porch for investigating a fellow officer. So one of the troopers walked back and confronted her, asked her if there's something she'd like to say to his face.

Based on the personality type from her Twitter, I'd bet it was something very similar and they're using it as leverage to get her out and stop paying her.

The Dallas Police Association is paying her legal bills.

Is that last part usual over there? In my old agency (and the ones around us) off duty incidents were on your own dime. You could hire the union attorney if you wanted, but you were still paying out of your own pocket. Every police union would go bankrupt if they defended all our off duty idiocy.

A lot of this seems really unusual (even for an unusual incident to begin with). I'm assuming the real story (if it ever comes out) is going to be pretty damn strange.

Post: #129

^^^ Too add, would the union cover her now that shes fired?

Post: #130

I've been wondering... a neighbor recorded her outside his apartment making a phone call -- was anyone inside trying to save his life? Shouldn't she be inside trying to save his life? When did that recording take place before or after the EMTs got there?

Post: #131

(09-25-2018 04:22 PM)Repo Wrote:  ^^^ Too add, would the union cover her now that shes fired?

The Unions cover you after you've been fired, but covering you at all for off duty stuff is unusual. She may be claiming she activated herself for the intruder, and the union is accepting it even if the city isn't.

Post: #132

(09-25-2018 05:39 PM)Chowder Head Wrote:  I've been wondering... a neighbor recorded her outside his apartment making a phone call -- was anyone inside trying to save his life? Shouldn't she be inside trying to save his life? When did that recording take place before or after the EMTs got there?

In the affidavit she claims to attempt CPR.

Post: #133

(09-25-2018 06:58 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 04:22 PM)Repo Wrote:  ^^^ Too add, would the union cover her now that shes fired?

The Unions cover you after you've been fired, but covering you at all for off duty stuff is unusual. She may be claiming she activated herself for the intruder, and the union is accepting it even if the city isn't.

Ok, so this sounds like a judgement call on the Unions part then?

Post: #134

(09-25-2018 06:59 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 05:39 PM)Chowder Head Wrote:  I've been wondering... a neighbor recorded her outside his apartment making a phone call -- was anyone inside trying to save his life? Shouldn't she be inside trying to save his life? When did that recording take place before or after the EMTs got there?

In the affidavit she claims to attempt CPR.

This sounds like something his body would display evidence of if she did it properly. . .

Post: #135

(09-25-2018 07:27 PM)Repo Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 06:59 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 05:39 PM)Chowder Head Wrote:  I've been wondering... a neighbor recorded her outside his apartment making a phone call -- was anyone inside trying to save his life? Shouldn't she be inside trying to save his life? When did that recording take place before or after the EMTs got there?

In the affidavit she claims to attempt CPR.

This sounds like something his body would display evidence of if she did it properly. . .

I don't doubt she did it. It's a standard cop CYA maneuver, especially if you know you fucked up or it's questionable. Justifies any signs of her inside the apartment too, let's her have her cake and eat it too.

Post: #136

(09-25-2018 07:11 PM)Repo Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 06:58 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 04:22 PM)Repo Wrote:  ^^^ Too add, would the union cover her now that shes fired?

The Unions cover you after you've been fired, but covering you at all for off duty stuff is unusual. She may be claiming she activated herself for the intruder, and the union is accepting it even if the city isn't.

Ok, so this sounds like a judgement call on the Unions part then?

I don't want to claim to know, different part of the country, and the whole thing sounds really strange anyway. And contrary to popular opinion, police unions are usually happy to dump problem children with off duty issues.

Post: #137

Gonna be a criminal trial for the ages, for sure--but that ain't shit compared to the eventual civil trial. Similar to OJ. Criminal trial was a complete shit-show.

The crime was really solved in the civil case.

Criminally, it really has very little to do with "what actually happened." It only depends on "what the lawyers can prove or disprove." People's rights are protected. There are rules...

Civil court is a massively different monster. Gloves come off the attorneys at that point.

Post: #138

(09-25-2018 07:52 PM)Dulceácido Wrote:  Gonna be a criminal trial for the ages, for sure--but that ain't shit compared to the eventual civil trial. Similar to OJ. Criminal trial was a complete shit-show.

The crime was really solved in the civil case.

Criminally, it really has very little to do with "what actually happened." It only depends on "what the lawyers can prove or disprove." People's rights are protected. There are rules...

Civil court is a massively different monster. Gloves come off the attorneys at that point.

If it went to trial, it would draw a lot of attention (and probably reveal some weird dirt) but I doubt it will go that far. They're going out of their way to offer her an easy deal already (manslaughter!?!) and they're probably putting together a strong enough case that she'll be forced to take it. She did a clever job, but it's still hard to put together an unassailable murder defense in 5 minutes after a traumatic event. There are going to be holes and neighbors and all kinds of evidence and inconsistencies coming out.

Post: #139

I was assuming she'd contest it, but you bring up a valid point. She could just say, "Fuck it. I'll take the manslaughter."

That doesn't change the course of the civil case, however.

...and all that dirt is still gonna come out.

Post: #140

(09-25-2018 08:02 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 07:52 PM)Dulceácido Wrote:  Gonna be a criminal trial for the ages, for sure--but that ain't shit compared to the eventual civil trial. Similar to OJ. Criminal trial was a complete shit-show.

The crime was really solved in the civil case.

Criminally, it really has very little to do with "what actually happened." It only depends on "what the lawyers can prove or disprove." People's rights are protected. There are rules...

Civil court is a massively different monster. Gloves come off the attorneys at that point.

If it went to trial, it would draw a lot of attention (and probably reveal some weird dirt) but I doubt it will go that far. They're going out of their way to offer her an easy deal already (manslaughter!?!) and they're probably putting together a strong enough case that she'll be forced to take it. She did a clever job, but it's still hard to put together an unassailable murder defense in 5 minutes after a traumatic event. There are going to be holes and neighbors and all kinds of evidence and inconsistencies coming out.

I read from several online comment chains that for this kind of case they usually start with a lighter charge because it's easier to upgrade the charge to something more serious as evidence comes out, but if they start with a heavier charge and the evidence doesnt fully support it, it's harder to downgrade the charge and theres a bigger chance of her walking. Havent had time to vet this, but maybe someone here can shed light.

Post: #141

Post: #142

delete

Post: #143

(09-25-2018 08:08 PM)Repo Wrote:  I read from several online comment chains that for this kind of case they usually start with a lighter charge because it's easier to upgrade the charge to something more serious as evidence comes out, but if they start with a heavier charge and the evidence doesnt fully support it, it's harder to downgrade the charge and theres a bigger chance of her walking. Havent had time to vet this, but maybe someone here can shed light.

It'll be up to the grand jury to get it right, guided by the prosecutor.

Look up Dante Servin and Anita Alvarez if you want to be amazed.

Servin was a Chicago police officer who, annoyed by the noise from a party in a public park, fired multiple shots into a crowd, killing an African-American woman. Witnesses said he was obviously drunk, and he claimed he thought somebody in the crowd had a gun.

Alvarez was an overtly pro-police prosecutor. At one point, she famously claimed that newly-available DNA evidence did not clear a wrongly convicted rapist, because it was impossible to prove that the DNA had not been left by a necrophiliac who had raped the victim's dead body again later.

(Will pause to let you read that twice.)

Under public pressure, she charged Servin with manslaughter.

Servin's charge was thrown out by the judge. Servin had clearly fired on the crowd intentionally. His firearm had not been discharged recklessly. It would be impossible to prove manslaughter. The correct charge, according to the judge, would be first degree murder.

Due to double jeopardy protections, the prosecution had one shot. Servin had been given a fair trial on this set of facts, and the prosecution lost. He could not be retried and so walked free of shooting somebody dead on a technicality.

To this day, many in Chicago believe Alvarez threw the trial on purpose.

Texas law does appear to be written the same way: Guyger knowingly and intentionally drew her pistol, aimed it, and discharged it into a human body. Those facts, by my reading and the commentary of a bunch of Dallas lawyers in the news, clearly support an underlying charge of murder, not manslaughter, regardless of any possible defense. Will be interesting to see what happens if they stick with manslaughter.

Post: #144

(09-25-2018 08:21 PM)Jetset Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 08:08 PM)Repo Wrote:  I read from several online comment chains that for this kind of case they usually start with a lighter charge because it's easier to upgrade the charge to something more serious as evidence comes out, but if they start with a heavier charge and the evidence doesnt fully support it, it's harder to downgrade the charge and theres a bigger chance of her walking. Havent had time to vet this, but maybe someone here can shed light.

It'll be up to the grand jury to get it right, guided by the prosecutor.

Look up Dante Servin and Anita Alvarez if you want to be amazed.

Servin was a Chicago police officer who, annoyed by the noise from a party in a public park, fired multiple shots into a crowd, killing an African-American woman. Witnesses said he was obviously drunk, and he claimed he thought somebody in the crowd had a gun.

Alvarez was an overtly pro-police prosecutor. At one point, she famously claimed that newly-available DNA evidence did not clear a wrongly convicted rapist, because it was impossible to prove that the DNA had not been left by a necrophiliac who had raped the victim's dead body again later.

(Will pause to let you read that twice.)

Under public pressure, she charged Servin with manslaughter.

Servin's charge was thrown out by the judge. Servin had clearly fired on the crowd intentionally. His firearm had not been discharged recklessly. It would be impossible to prove manslaughter. The correct charge, according to the judge, would be first degree murder.

Due to double jeopardy protections, the prosecution had one shot. Servin had been given a fair trial on this set of facts, and the prosecution lost. He could not be retried and so walked free of shooting somebody dead on a technicality.

To this day, many in Chicago believe Alvarez threw the trial on purpose.

Texas law does appear to be written the same way: Guyger knowingly and intentionally drew her pistol, aimed it, and discharged it into a human body. Those facts, by my reading and the commentary of a bunch of Dallas lawyers in the news, clearly support an underlying charge of murder, not manslaughter, regardless of any possible defense. Will be interesting to see what happens if they stick with manslaughter.

If this turns into a blatant bag job, Dallas is going to burn.

Post: #145

The Dallas County grand jury has just indicted Amber Geiger on murder.

Post: #146

Manslaughter would have been a guaranteed guilty plea. Now she has a chance to walk.

Post: #147

According to the news here, the the district attorney had oneitis on getting a murder indictment. She lost her re-election bid on Nov 6 and her replacement, a democrat, starts next year. Who knows where this will go.

Post: #148

(11-30-2018 07:08 PM)MidJack Wrote:  Manslaughter would have been a guaranteed guilty plea. Now she has a chance to walk.

Yeah... unless there's something we don't know (such as that they knew each other and she had some motive) murder seems like a reach. There's a difference between being evil and stupid (granted not much) and thats seemingly the line here

Post: #149

She still has a manslaughter charge, in addition to murder.

Post: #150

(11-30-2018 07:31 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

(11-30-2018 07:08 PM)MidJack Wrote:  Manslaughter would have been a guaranteed guilty plea. Now she has a chance to walk.

Yeah... unless there's something we don't know (such as that they knew each other and she had some motive) murder seems like a reach. There's a difference between being evil and stupid (granted not much) and thats seemingly the line here

I know it's long, but read my post about Anita Alvarez a few posts above. The line is intent. Although Guyger believed she was justified, she admits she saw a person and intentionally shot him.

There have been cases where manslaughter charges have been thrown out entirely on those specific grounds: the killer intended to shoot the victim, so the prosecution brought the wrong charge and no manslaughter conviction would be possible, rendering the trial a waste of everyone's time.

DA's office did their job here.