Post: #101

Ok went back and looked - turns out they searched the whole apartment, which apparently isn't unusual in homicide investigations. Don't take my word for that, see the guy at 7:50ish




Got to wonder about the use of the "narcotics" in the search. One view is it could be that they use a boilerplate warrant for crimes like this and are used to putting in things like contraband, narcotics etc. Given how most homicides go down, that's a possible explanation. Then again, the judge granting the warrant should have realized there was no corroborating evidence for that and rejected the warrant affidavit until it was corrected. He did not. Therefore, whatever use the defense hopes to get out of the pot found won't get very far. I really don't think the police department with a black female chief is looking to smear the decedent.

The police chief interviewed in the video above didn't precisely answer the question about why search for narcotics (other than looking for evidence in a homicide), but he did explain that it would be ordinary business for the warrant affidavit to become a matter of public record, and not long thereafter the news would eagerly find it and release it because that's what eager beaver news stations do. Depending which team has the ball, people either cheer or jeer this habit.

Notice too, at the beginning of the video, the defense attorney says there is no evidence that the two knew each other - so there's less likelihood this is a booty call gone wrong. As I mentioned before, she still has nothing demonstrating any reasonable and articulable fear for her life at the moment she used deadly force. I don't think she will walk.

Post: #102

(09-19-2018 09:00 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  ...because at 5'2'' and 135lb or so her only choices in any confrontation are 0 to deadly force. There's almost zero chance of a non lethal force solution because she knows that if it gets physical a man, any man, he will likely take her gun from her and kill her. She went in there knowing shed likely have to kill someone

The catch is that in some states, the law may be on your side with this. There is often no duty to retreat from your own home. However, the unusual situation of mistakenly believing you are in someone else's home is hard to parse from the statutes I skimmed, and Texas law is written a little differently from what I'm familiar with. Instead of specifying "burglary" as a crime you may stop with lethal force, a presumption of reasonableness is given if you "knew or had reason to believe" that the intruder entered "unlawfully and with force". Note that it does not say "reasonable belief", but "reason to believe". In theory, you need to be able to articulate what this reason was.

(09-19-2018 09:34 PM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  IF she reasonably believed (again, will depend upon door investigation above, and other factors) that it was her place being burglarized she did indeed have the authority to command. There is no "right to resist" in that situation or whatever else at that moment even if later the cop is proven to be mistaken. BLM has really fucked up the public understanding of what a cop is allowed to do.

...and yet, she was not acting in pursuit of her usual police duties, although she was in uniform. Reasonableness, too, is subject to the view of a ordinary third party, rather than her own subjective interpretation. It's not totally clear to me whether or not intent even matters, the way it's written: it may be that you have a duty to correctly determine whether or not it is your home, much as you have a duty not to violate certain traffic ordinances - regardless of intent or well-meaning belief.

Here's where it gets really fun:

(09-19-2018 09:34 PM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  From what I've seen, the doors will indeed close (one resident posted a youtube video) if allowed to swing from fully open position. But will they close fully from just barely closed? Maybe that's how they were designed; maybe this door stuck a bit. I'm sure investigators are looking at that too.

I'm prepared to believe this.

However, the complaint is clear. She says that when she inserted her electronic key into the unsecured door, the force of this - alone - caused the door to "fully open", allowing her to see inside. It says that she only made entry into the apartment after discharging her pistol, in a heroic attempt to render aid.

This claim was an obvious bid to minimize her exposure to a criminal trespass charge, to avoid any argument about whether or not she had the right to be where she was when lethal force was used, and to avoid any awkward observations that Jean could have killed her the silhouette entering his apartment instead and had the law on his side.

It is also impossible. The door would have simply budged and then tried to shut itself again before it got very far. If this is what happened, she obviously barged right through the door.

So two points come out of this:

1) That's the kind of lie that would give a prosecutor some room to run to attack her credibility on the stand. You would expect that this interview was recorded and can be used to impeach her testimony - even if she tells the truth on the stand, she has already committed to a self-serving lie, signed by a Texas Ranger, and it will sew all kinds of confusion and doubt.

2) Depending on exactly what took place in the moment she encountered Jean, Guyger may have been engaged in criminal trespass while carrying a firearm. In Texas, by my reading, you do have a duty to retreat before resorting to lethal force if you do not have the right to be present or if you are engaged in any other criminal conduct. Since there was no struggle, Jean was standing across the room, and she claims she did not even enter the apartment, it would seem clear that she had every opportunity to retreat.

Post: #103

White Sharia now.

Post: #104

It makes no difference if it was her "usual duty" or not, a cop sitting at a diner having lunch while he is off duty isn't allowed to pretend he doesn't see the place getting robbed if he is in a position to do something about it. Similarly, if she comes back to her place at the end of her shift and sees evidence of a crime committed or in progress (a burglary), she can and would be expected to react accordingly. That she was later proven to be mistaken does not take away from that obligation.

Moreover, I think it is unlikely she engaged in criminal trespass with a firearm since she was acting as a sworn officer under the belief that she was stopping a crime in progress. That she was proven to be mistaken later does not take away from her belief, so long as it can be shown that it was a reasonable one. That question is a matter of fact for the jury to decide.

Based on the facts so far, however, I can't imagine a scenario where she demonstrates a reasonable belief that her life was in danger to the point where deadly force was justifiable.

Post: #105

(09-19-2018 09:34 PM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  From what I've seen, the doors will indeed close (one resident posted a youtube video) if allowed to swing from fully open position. But will they close fully from just barely closed? Maybe that's how they were designed; maybe this door stuck a bit. I'm sure investigators are looking at that too.

We have no idea what they are required to do for backup, but I bet I know what most cops would do - they'd push against the ajar door of their "own apartment" and take a look. As for calling backup because she's 5'3 and female, that feeds into the commonly known but rarely publicly acknowledged reality that too many female cops are not fit to be cops from a physical standpoint and rely too quickly on lethal force where a guy might be able to grapple his way out of it. The media will be careful to avoid spotlighting that inconvenient truth.

Whether dealing or mere possession, he's an immigrant in Texas and a black man - we're repeatedly told by the left that this is exactly the guy who should be afraid of the cops targeting him daily. So when a cop actually shows up in his door one night, he panics and tries to hide his pot. Yet we are pretending this is an unrealistic reaction for him. Why?

Any assumption that they searched the whole apartment is simply not based on fact or law. Search warrants are issued with particularity.

Quote:Particularity.—“The requirement that warrants shall particularly describe the things to be seized makes general searches under them impossible and prevents the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another. As to what is to be taken, nothing is left to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant.”132 This requirement thus acts to limit the scope of the search, as the executing officers should be limited to looking in places where the described object could be expected to be found.133 The purpose of the particularity requirement extends beyond prevention of general searches; it also assures the person whose property is being searched of the lawful authority of the executing officer and of the limits of his power to search. It follows, therefore, that the warrant itself must describe with particularity the items to be seized, or that such itemization must appear in documents incorporated by reference in the warrant and actually shown to the person whose property is to be searched.

Even if they searched the entire apartment I would expect more items of his versus mostly her crap piled up - bigger place, more to search. I am not a cop, but it doesn't sound logical that they'd need to go check his nightstand drawer, medicine cabinet, etc. They are investigating the circumstances surrounding a shooting, not a financial crime or drug investigation. The drugs found were likely found right there.

IF she reasonably believed (again, will depend upon door investigation above, and other factors) that it was her place being burglarized she did indeed have the authority to command. There is no "right to resist" in that situation or whatever else at that moment even if later the cop is proven to be mistaken. BLM has really fucked up the public understanding of what a cop is allowed to do.

Hate to burst the bubble but white guys get shot a lot more often by cops of all genders and colors than do black guys - it just never gets any attention from the race hustlers.

Per capital it looks like blacks are being slaughtered, but of you actually look more deeply at crime rates and such (as well as ghetto blacks being taught to hate the police from birth, leading to resisting etc) the police probably killed a disproportionate number of whites.

I haven't looked into deeply, and I'm against promoting victim hood, so someone correct me if I'm misguided.

Post: #106

(09-20-2018 10:23 PM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  It makes no difference if it was her "usual duty" or not, a cop sitting at a diner having lunch while he is off duty isn't allowed to pretend he doesn't see the place getting robbed if he is in a position to do something about it. Similarly, if she comes back to her place at the end of her shift and sees evidence of a crime committed or in progress (a burglary), she can and would be expected to react accordingly. That she was later proven to be mistaken does not take away from that obligation.

I get where you're coming from, but policies vary by department and an armed robbery is slightly different from "I saw a silhouette that maybe might of..."

As near as I can tell, this is the current rule from DPD, General Order 906: http://www.dallaspolice.net/reports/Shar...er-906.pdf

It is explicit that officers are not to use deadly force in defense of property, and that while off-duty officers have the same right to defend their personal property under Texas law as any private citizen, they will be acting solely as a private citizen, not as law enforcement. This has presumably come up before, and DPD does not want their officers claiming the uniform as legal cover for it.

In addition, the model policy published by the Public Agency Training Council lists, states that an off-duty officer may intervene, but because they might be mistaken for a suspect themselves or otherwise make it worse, their obligations are fulfilled fully by reporting it so that on-duty officers may intervene. Step 1: "First, go to a safe location and call 911."

http://www.patc.com/weeklyarticles/off-duty.shtml

Quote:Moreover, I think it is unlikely she engaged in criminal trespass with a firearm since she was acting as a sworn officer under the belief that she was stopping a crime in progress. That she was proven to be mistaken later does not take away from her belief, so long as it can be shown that it was a reasonable one. That question is a matter of fact for the jury to decide.

This was my point, though: the sequence of events. The initial search warrant for Jean's apartment said Guyger was confronted "at the door", which did not occur. Jean was shot across the room, near his couch, where he was likely watching football.

Guyger's official explanation in the later affidavit is still tailored to avoid admitting that she had entered the home before she claims she observed the "silhouette". The door conveniently swung open "fully", long enough to allow her her to look inside, draw a conclusion that a burglary was underway, give verbal commands to the person, aim her pistol and fire it twice, and then, only then, enter the apartment - solely to save Jean's life.

This doesn't add up. The doors in the building have closers installed. If she tried to put her key in it and the door was not secured, you'd expect it to move an inch or two. If she pushed it so hard as to fully open it, it would then likely swing back in her face and try to slam shut and lock.

I think it's pretty reasonable to infer that she crafted this alternative set of facts because she, and/or her attorney, realized the actual facts are not helpful.

Texas law appears to be that you are engaged in criminal trespass as soon as you are given verbal notice that you are not authorized to be there, and it doesn't appear to matter whether or not you believe it, just that you were given due notice and it is factually true. If Guyger entered the apartment without thinking, she and Jean surprised each other, and they then exchanged words (her "verbal commands" - vague, and there are limits on what constitutes a lawful police order) and Jean tried to tell her that this is his apartment but she didn't listen because she was tired and surprised, that would be an unhelpful set of facts. An obvious reason to lie about being inside is because you're afraid someone might have heard what was said, but are banking on there being no witnesses who can testify to where you were actually standing.

"Oh my God, why did you do that?"

Post: #107

Check out the rep Garamendi video re. Kavanaugh.

Post: #108

Also, Guyger apparently forgot to delete her Pinterest until the Dallas Observer found it. There were some gems mixed in with her wedding plans:

https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/dall...t-11139874

Post: #109

(09-19-2018 09:00 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 08:47 PM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  Assume she really did think it was her place. Assume also that the door was opened a crack and she pushed it in, pistol drawn, which would be my reaction walking into my own place with the door opened for no reason with nobody home.

The problem with this is if she arrived at her door and saw it ajar she should have called for backup before entering.

Why?

...because at 5'2'' and 135lb or so her only choices in any confrontation are 0 to deadly force. There's almost zero chance of a non lethal force solution because she knows that if it gets physical a man, any man, he will likely take her gun from her and kill her. She went in there knowing shed likely have to kill someone

If the truth is she saw the door was ajar at what she thought was her apartment then her narcissism combined with her poor judgement killed an innocent man

In Freakonomics, they actually graphed exactly how many extra shootings each woman hired costs a department.

Post: #110

(09-21-2018 05:39 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 09:00 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 08:47 PM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  Assume she really did think it was her place. Assume also that the door was opened a crack and she pushed it in, pistol drawn, which would be my reaction walking into my own place with the door opened for no reason with nobody home.

The problem with this is if she arrived at her door and saw it ajar she should have called for backup before entering.

Why?

...because at 5'2'' and 135lb or so her only choices in any confrontation are 0 to deadly force. There's almost zero chance of a non lethal force solution because she knows that if it gets physical a man, any man, he will likely take her gun from her and kill her. She went in there knowing shed likely have to kill someone

If the truth is she saw the door was ajar at what she thought was her apartment then her narcissism combined with her poor judgement killed an innocent man

In Freakonomics, they actually graphed exactly how many extra shootings each woman hired costs a department / in lives.

There is, what I believe, a great resource for information on police shootings at

Whashington Post's "Deadly Force"

The site, since Jan 1 2015, has cataloged each and every death at police hands. What I like best about it is that it allows the user to query facts on a case by case basis based on several criteria: race , gender, state, age, weapon (or not), mental illness (or not), fleeing the scene, etc.

Whats striking to me is the consistency of the numbers. There have been between 950 and 990 police lethal force incidents each year. As of today ther ithat that there have been 723.

Of those male, black, unarmed, no mental illness, not resisting / fleeing has consistently been around 2% (unarmed white victims of police shootings with the same criteria is 3%)

Interestingly and unfortunately the utility does NOT allow for queries based on the race or gender of the officer in the shooting

Post: #111

New search warrants:

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/New-Se...70061.html

Police are trying to get cloud-storage video from the Ring and ADT cameras from other apartment buildings on the block which were pointed toward Jean's door.

In case you needed it, there's your friendly reminder that wherever you are, there's probably a camera now.

Post: #112

(09-22-2018 08:03 AM)Jetset Wrote:  In case you needed it, there's your friendly reminder that wherever you are, there's probably a camera now.

This is so true. Even private homes are covered with cameras these days. There's those doorbells with cameras--cameras covering every inch of the home's property. Modern technology has made it so easily affordable. It should probably be rule #1 in the planning phase of anyone even thinking about doing anything sketchy. Also, rule #1 if you suspect someone has done something sketchy to you. Even if you don't have them yourself, chances are some of your neighbors will have recorded valuable information to police who are conducting an investigation.

Post: #113

(09-22-2018 12:02 AM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

(09-21-2018 05:39 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 09:00 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 08:47 PM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  Assume she really did think it was her place. Assume also that the door was opened a crack and she pushed it in, pistol drawn, which would be my reaction walking into my own place with the door opened for no reason with nobody home.

The problem with this is if she arrived at her door and saw it ajar she should have called for backup before entering.

Why?

...because at 5'2'' and 135lb or so her only choices in any confrontation are 0 to deadly force. There's almost zero chance of a non lethal force solution because she knows that if it gets physical a man, any man, he will likely take her gun from her and kill her. She went in there knowing shed likely have to kill someone

If the truth is she saw the door was ajar at what she thought was her apartment then her narcissism combined with her poor judgement killed an innocent man

In Freakonomics, they actually graphed exactly how many extra shootings each woman hired costs a department / in lives.

There is, what I believe, a great resource for information on police shootings at

Whashington Post's "Deadly Force"

The site, since Jan 1 2015, has cataloged each and every death at police hands. What I like best about it is that it allows the user to query facts on a case by case basis based on several criteria: race , gender, state, age, weapon (or not), mental illness (or not), fleeing the scene, etc.

Whats striking to me is the consistency of the numbers. There have been between 950 and 990 police lethal force incidents each year. As of today ther ithat that there have been 723.

Of those male, black, unarmed, no mental illness, not resisting / fleeing has consistently been around 2% (unarmed white victims of police shootings with the same criteria is 3%)

Interestingly and unfortunately the utility does NOT allow for queries based on the race or gender of the officer in the shooting

Just for a little background...every woman hired costs a department extra shootings, but the extra shootings weren't coming from the women. This sounds extremely odd unless you know how police departments function. You have a 30, sometimes 40 year career (frequently with a lot of injuries if you work a busy city). You generally don't put a grandpa with a bad hip on street patrol, they gravitate towards desk jobs after putting in their street years. This also gives you a "reserve" force of very experienced (if not young) guys you can put on the street for major events or when shit hits the fan. Most young male cops WANT to be street cops, and are actually embarrassed to take "soft" jobs while they're young and fit. Women don't have the same compunctions, and 95+% are riding a desk within 5 years. They're not causing the extra shootings directly, because they're generally not even interacting with criminals the same way their male peers are. What they are doing is pushing all the elderly grandpas and less physically fit/competent males back out on the street by taking all the soft desk jobs. The less physically capable an officer is arresting someone without resorting to a firearm, the more likely a shooting is.

Most women that want to be cops don't plan on being a glorified secretary, but the first time she gets into some real fights with men and is getting ragdolled, even by kids in high school, the Hollywood fantasy of the badass supercop quickly fades and they realize how helpless they can be sometimes. It puts a whole new complexion on things.

And criminals don't have an HR department to lodge complaints to, a female cop may get a ton of shit even beyond what a similarily small and weak male cop might get, and there just isn't much they can do about it, as demonstrated in the video below -

Post: #114

One more thing to add. A really good sergeant once said to me "A lot of people think police leadership is waiting till a guy fucks up and then hammering him without mercy. That's the wrong way to do it, because when we fuck up, that means someone got hurt. True leadership is reaching the guy BEFORE he fucks up, BEFORE anyone get's hurt.".

A lot of guys that ended up on those hide away desk jobs were suffering some kind PTSD, major personal problem, horrible divorces, or were just plain dickheads to begin with. If he doesn't work with the public, the only people he can be a dickhead to is other cops (who are better equipped to deal with his crap).

People will say "Well, you should have just fired those guys" but again, you can't fire someone until they've actually done something, and in our profession, that means someone got hurt. Also these guys are veterans of the system, and often have skills at getting away with shit equal to a rich guy with a very good lawyer, so even if something happens, in the American legal system, you have good chance of getting away with it unless the prosecution/Internal Affairs got lucky enough to have you dead to rights with an enormous amount of evidence. And the science of psychology is simply not advanced enough right now to catch a moderately clever guy giving the right answers, so that's not an option either.

You're better off just having a place to put them where they can still contribute, but can't hurt anybody until their issues are resolved. 20 years of stellar police work, but he's going through a terrible divorce, lost everything and is suddenly snapping at people in ways completely out of character for him? Why not have him teach at the Academy for a while, where the drill instructors are supposed to be mean to you anyway? Or any other desk job where the only people he can snap at are other cops? When he gets his shit together, you can put him back out there, and if he doesn't get his shit together, he never gets out there again.

However, when every position that doesn't interact with the public has been monopolized by female officers that couldn't hack street work, your organization not longer has the flexibility to do this, and everything has to go the hard way....wait till someone fucks up and someone get hurt, so you can take a guys job and freedom, and hand the taxpayers a hefty bill, for something that was completely avoidable to begin with. The hidden costs of "diversity".

Post: #115

^I'd always suspected this was the case about female police hires, generally speaking. Ann Coulter pointed this out in an article once after a female deputy had her gun taken away and got killed by a suspect. Coulter was pilloried for the observation, though the criticism mainly came from the media, police union heads and chiefs, who have to toe the political line, as she pointed out:

Quote:...Mostly what you find on Nexis are news stories quoting police chiefs who have been browbeaten into submission, all uttering the identical mantra after every public safety disaster involving a girl cop. It seems that female officers compensate for a lack of strength with "other" abilities, such as cooperation, empathy and intuition....

Hard to hide from the objective physical realities no matter who tries to dress it up.

Post: #116

(09-22-2018 01:45 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  What they are doing is pushing all the elderly grandpas and less physically fit/competent males back out on the street by taking all the soft desk jobs. The less physically capable an officer is arresting someone without resorting to a firearm, the more likely a shooting is.

Glad to hear this from the inside.

I also suspect, every time I see some woman as a flagger on a road crew, really overdoing it with the bossing around aspect of the job, probably telling herself she is in *construction,* well, yeah, good for you, but what happens to the older men who get injured on the job who used to get the flagger job?

Probably at home, making due on meager social security payments, eating tomato soup that is ketchup and crushed saltines, all so some useless female can tell herself she can do anything a man can.

I am certain, in almost every profession, there are hidden costs like this, to the men on the job, and to the customers, that are passed on to everyone but the women, and all because we rolled over and let feminism pat our belly.

Post: #117

It looks like Dirty Harriet got fired yesterday.

Post: #118

(09-25-2018 09:30 AM)Chowder Head Wrote:  It looks like Dirty Harriet got fired yesterday.

Took long enough. Even with procedural rules for protection, a felony indictment is supposed to mean fired.

Post: #119

They didn't say it was for the indictment, they said it for her behavior during the arrest, but they refused to specify.

Post: #120

So she murdered an innocent man in his own home not even on the clock and she's not even catching a charge? Fuck. I guess a badge really is a license to kill.

Post: #121

(09-25-2018 10:47 AM)General Stalin Wrote:  So she murdered an innocent man in his own home not even on the clock and she's not even catching a charge? Fuck. I guess a badge really is a license to kill.

She is charged with manslaughter, but that was not the reason the department gave for firing her. They said she was fired because of "something" she did during her arrest.

Post: #122

(09-25-2018 10:30 AM)Dulceácido Wrote:  They didn't say it was for the indictment, they said it for her behavior during the arrest, but they refused to specify.

Might be safer. If they fire her for the indictment, if she get an NG she might be able to get her job back.

Post: #123

(09-25-2018 10:49 AM)Dulceácido Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 10:47 AM)General Stalin Wrote:  So she murdered an innocent man in his own home not even on the clock and she's not even catching a charge? Fuck. I guess a badge really is a license to kill.

She is charged with manslaughter, but that was not the reason the department gave for firing her. They said she was fired because of "something" she did during her arrest.

Some people are speculating that this means her drug test came back positive

Post: #124

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.

Post: #125

(09-25-2018 10:49 AM)Dulceácido Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 10:47 AM)General Stalin Wrote:  So she murdered an innocent man in his own home not even on the clock and she's not even catching a charge? Fuck. I guess a badge really is a license to kill.

She is charged with manslaughter, but that was not the reason the department gave for firing her. They said she was fired because of "something" she did during her arrest.

Thats good to hear then. I'm just going off the first page and the last page of this thread so pardon my TL;DR.

With all the blown up police brutality and abuse of authority shit we're seeing in the news and on social media it's good to see departments taking some accountability when these fucked up scenarios arise. We bestow a lot of responsibility onto police officers, and even give them the power to decide to end someone's life if they see fit so I think heavy scrutiny is more than fair. Furthermore, if you a shitty irresponsible police officer who abuses their power or fucks up in a big way then you should not be protected by the "good 'ole boys glub" treatment. Law enforcement officers are supposed to be model citizens and examples of law abiding and just people.