Dallas officer enters apartment she mistakes for her own, fatally shoots man inside

[ttwtt78640]

True? So what do you think was the motive for her to park her car on the wrong floor and to go to the apartment immediately over her's and murder the tenet?

She stated it herself - self-defense to an alleged attack. Her claim that he had disobeyed her commands (I have no idea what she allegedly said) and charged (attacked?) her is what she must convince a jury actually happened with some evidence beyond her (this is my one and only hope) word. A guy sitting on his couch, watching TV and eating ice cream suddenly decided to charge (attack?) an armed police officer while she was issuing commands.

 

[Lursa]

How many lights were on in the apartment and what wattage were they and how many lights were in the hallway and what wattage were they? How close to Amber Guyger were the lighting fixtures in the hallway and in the apartment?

Doubling down on the facts that you cant know doesn't help your argument. I posted what 'we did know' and the basic speculation based on those 2 facts (darkened room, she was backlit).

I'll just stick with this:

Also agreed, so any assumptions that he knew that he was facing a uniformed police officer pointing a gun at him are also speculation. .

 

[SLC]

She stated it herself - self-defense to an alleged attack. Her claim that he had disobeyed her commands (I have no idea what she allegedly said) and charged (attacked?) her is what she must convince a jury actually happened with some evidence beyond her (this is my one and only hope) word. A guy sitting on his couch, watching TV and eating ice cream suddenly decided to charge (attack?) an armed police officer while she was issuing commands.

I asked you what YOU thought her motive was not what she said her motive wash

 

[SLC]

Doubling down on the facts that you cant know doesn't help your argument. I posted what 'we did know' and the basic speculation based on those 2 facts (darkened room, she was backlit).

I'll just stick with this:

So you are speculating. :lol:

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I asked you what YOU thought her motive was not what she said her motive wash

You know, she might just not have had "a motive" for killing the man.

It's just possible that she had "a motive" for going to his apartment (that "motive" being "I'm going to show that 'uppity N****r' that he can't get away with annoying me - a COP - by playing his music so loud.". I don't say that that WAS her "motive" for going to his apartment and acting in a bellicose manner, but it IS POSSIBLE that it was.

After that, the situation got out of hand and she allowed her WILLINGNESS to kill over a trivial matter to prevail.

She went to his apartment - that is established fact.

She confronted the deceased in a bellicose manner - that is established fact.

She was prepared to kill - that is established fact.

She did kill - that is established fact.

At the very least this woman should NEVER be allowed to have access to firearms (not even if living with someone who has the legal right to "keep and bear arms") for the rest of her life.

PS - I believe that, in the US, many people consider that a life-time ban on gun ownership/possession is WORSE than a death sentence.

 

[SLC]

You know, she might just not have had "a motive" for killing the man.

It's just possible that she had "a motive" for going to his apartment (that "motive" being "I'm going to show that 'uppity N****r' that he can't get away with annoying me - a COP - by playing his music so loud.". I don't say that that WAS her "motive" for going to his apartment and acting in a bellicose manner, but it IS POSSIBLE that it was.

After that, the situation got out of hand and she allowed her WILLINGNESS to kill over a trivial matter to prevail.

She went to his apartment - that is established fact.

She confronted the deceased in a bellicose manner - that is established fact.

She was prepared to kill - that is established fact.

She did kill - that is established fact.

At the very least this woman should NEVER be allowed to have access to firearms (not even if living with someone who has the legal right to "keep and bear arms") for the rest of her life.

PS - I believe that, in the US, many people consider that a life-time ban on gun ownership/possession is WORSE than a death sentence.

. :lol: I didn't ask for your opinion because I knew it would be worthless tripe.. And it was :roll:

 

[Lursa]

So you are speculating. :lol:

As I wrote in each of my responses :roll:

Just more realistically than you.

 

[SLC]

As I wrote in each of my responses :roll:

Just more realistically than you.

Jurors are suppose to decide on facts not speculation. Sorry but you are short on facts.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I asked you what YOU thought her motive was not what she said her motive wash

I see no reason to doubt her stated intent to aim center mass and shoot to kill - the evidence supports that did, in fact, occur. The tale of confusion as to her location (wrong floor of the apartment complex) does not matter because her allegation is that she was charged (violently attacked?) by the person that she shot in self-defense.

You cannot argue that you intentionally shot a person in self-defense and simultaneously argue that manslaughter or negligent homicide are appropriate "compromise" charges (verdicts?). That is precisely why her lawyer did not want her to testify - she took any charge but murder 1 or 2 off the table when she accused the person she intentionally shot with initiating an attack requiring her to use deadly force no less.

It is my contention that she anticipated an attack (thus anything he did to confirm her preconceived bias was his final, and soon to be fatal, mistake) since she had presupposed him to be a burglar (dangerous and desperate criminal?) in her home and had her gun already drawn and at the ready. He may have simply set his ice cream aside, arisen from the couch and said "hey, hey, hey" and that shocking reaction to her (alleged) commands by a dangerous criminal who had broken into "her" home was plenty of justification to shoot to kill.

After all, who would not expect a trained police officer to know exactly how to deal with a home invader or burglar caught in the act - especially if that big, black and really scary looking criminal allegedly had also violently attacked her while she was in uniform and had a gun pointed at him.

Of course, it's OK to kill a criminal who had broken into "her" home and violently attacked her. Why can't this jury of her peers understand that, even if that was simply only what was going on in her very confused mind? He may be dead by her mistake but a bigger mistake would be not letting her go to claim an early PTSD disability retirement from the terrible trauma caused by her mistaken shooting of that (innocent?) man.

 

[Lursa]

Jurors are suppose to decide on facts not speculation. Sorry but you are short on facts.

No...I provided facts...darkened room, backlit in doorway

We both speculated...but I'm the one that based mine on the actual facts provided and did not expand into fantasy.

 

[justabubba]

The odds of her picking "I knew damn well that it wasn't my apartment and was the apartment of the scumbag who kept annoying me by playing his stereo too loud when I went there with the intention of confronting and cowing him with my uniform and handgun." out of

"Now tell me; which of these two statements is correct:

• "I honestly thought that I was entering my own apartment and that there was a burglar inside, a burglar that I had to be prepared to use deadly force to protect myself from. Gosh I'm sorry he's dead, but these things happen you know."; or
• "I knew damn well that it wasn't my apartment and was the apartment of the scumbag who kept annoying me by playing his stereo too loud when I went there with the intention of confronting and cowing him with my uniform and handgun. Gosh I'm sorry he's dead, but these things happen you know."

are roughly the same as the odds are that Mr. Obama will be elected President of the United States of America in 2020.

emphasis added by bubba to ask what evidence is there of a noise complaint by the shooter against the victim

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

emphasis added by bubba to ask what evidence is there of a noise complaint by the shooter against the victim

Please read "I knew damn well that it wasn't my apartment and was the apartment of the scumbag who kept annoying me by playing his stereo too loud when I went there with the intention of confronting and cowing him with my uniform and handgun. Gosh I'm sorry he's dead, but these things happen you know." again and get back to me when you find the words "that I had complained to the apartment management about" (or the equivalent) in it.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

. :lol: I didn't ask for your opinion because I knew it would be worthless tripe.. And it was :roll:

Maybe you'd like to tell me what "motive" Nicolas Elliott had?

 

[SLC]

I see no reason to doubt her stated intent to aim center mass and shoot to kill - the evidence supports that did, in fact, occur. The tale of confusion as to her location (wrong floor of the apartment complex) does not matter because her allegation is that she was charged (violently attacked?) by the person that she shot in self-defense.

You cannot argue that you intentionally shot a person in self-defense and simultaneously argue that manslaughter or negligent homicide are appropriate "compromise" charges (verdicts?). That is precisely why her lawyer did not want her to testify - she took any charge but murder 1 or 2 off the table when she accused the person she intentionally shot with initiating an attack requiring her to use deadly force no less.

It is my contention that she anticipated an attack (thus anything he did to confirm her preconceived bias was his final, and soon to be fatal, mistake) since she had presupposed him to be a burglar (dangerous and desperate criminal?) in her home and had her gun already drawn and at the ready. He may have simply set his ice cream aside, arisen from the couch and said "hey, hey, hey" and that shocking reaction to her (alleged) commands by a dangerous criminal who had broken into "her" home was plenty of justification to shoot to kill.

After all, who would not expect a trained police officer to know exactly how to deal with a home invader or burglar caught in the act - especially if that big, black and really scary looking criminal allegedly had also violently attacked her while she was in uniform and had a gun pointed at him.

Of course, it's OK to kill a criminal who had broken into "her" home and violently attacked her. Why can't this jury of her peers understand that, even if that was simply only what was going on in her very confused mind? He may be dead by her mistake but a bigger mistake would be not letting her go to claim an early PTSD disability retirement from the terrible trauma caused by her mistaken shooting of that (innocent?) man.

SO my understanding of your somewhat rambling response is that you think she is telling the truth. That she was confused and mistook his apartment for his apartment. When she saw him it scared her nd she shot and killed him due to mistaken identity (she mistook him for a burglar). Is that correct?

 

[ttwtt78640]

SO my understanding of your somewhat rambling response is that you think she is telling the truth. That she was confused and mistook his apartment for his apartment. When she saw him it scared her nd she shot and killed him due to mistaken identity (she mistook him for a burglar). Is that correct?

Basically yes, but proving his (her?) mistaken identity is not the same as proving that he actually posed a deadly threat to her. Her assertion is that his rising off of his couch and saying "Hey, hey, hey" was justification for her "self-fefense" intentional shooting of him (center mass and multiple times?) is likely to be rejected by the jury.

 

[Crosscheck]

This case on the surface may be better suited for a manslaughter charge. But she has screwed the pooch with her lying on the stand.

She lied stating she rendered aid to the victim but there was not one drop of blood on her uniform and instead was texting on her cellphone. So if jurors knows that is a lie then everything else she says is questionable to the truth of it.
Her defense team has mismanaged her.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

This case on the surface may be better suited for a manslaughter charge. But she has screwed the pooch with her lying on the stand.

She lied stating she rendered aid to the victim but there was not one drop of blood on her uniform and instead was texting on her cellphone. So if jurors knows that is a lie then everything else she says is questionable to the truth of it.
Her defense team has mismanaged her.

If she is acquitted, no one will care.

If she is convicted, then that is grounds for appeal, after appeal, after appeal, after appeal, after appeal, after appeal, after appeal, after appeal, after appeal, after appeal, after appeal, after appeal, after appeal, after appeal, after appeal, after appeal, after appeal, after appeal, ... .

After all, that's "The American Way".

 

[Desert Storm]

Looks like jury deliberations will start this week

 

[dcsports]

This case on the surface may be better suited for a manslaughter charge. But she has screwed the pooch with her lying on the stand.

She lied stating she rendered aid to the victim but there was not one drop of blood on her uniform and instead was texting on her cellphone. So if jurors knows that is a lie then everything else she says is questionable to the truth of it.
Her defense team has mismanaged her.

They are probably doing the best they can with what they have. The problem is that the facts aren't in dispute. She was clearly in the wrong, and the case falls under manslaughter (or greater). The DA probably didn't offer herher anything less than manslaughter as a plea - given the visibility of the case, they didn't have a choice. The defense team's only option at that point was to go to trial, hoping they could get a sympathetic jury. It's a manslaughter conviction, vs a possiblity of getting a deadlocked jury to try for a better deal (or a longshot aquittal).

I would have expected her to be better prepared, but they likely didn't have much to work with. They had to put her on the stand to humanize her, and appeal to the jury's emotions. Her best hope is to push the narrative of being an exhausted hero overworked by the city. The facts about her lapsing into 'cover your bases' mode instead of helping the victim aren't going to get any better.

 

[Atomic Kid]

They are probably doing the best they can with what they have. The problem is that the facts aren't in dispute. She was clearly in the wrong, and the case falls under manslaughter (or greater). The DA probably didn't offer herher anything less than manslaughter as a plea - given the visibility of the case, they didn't have a choice. The defense team's only option at that point was to go to trial, hoping they could get a sympathetic jury. It's a manslaughter conviction, vs a possiblity of getting a deadlocked jury to try for a better deal (or a longshot aquittal).

I would have expected her to be better prepared, but they likely didn't have much to work with. They had to put her on the stand to humanize her, and appeal to the jury's emotions. Her best hope is to push the narrative of being an exhausted hero overworked by the city. The facts about her lapsing into 'cover your bases' mode instead of helping the victim aren't going to get any better.

She also didn't do herself any favors by answering 'yes' to prosecutor's question on whether she had intended to kill him when she opened fire on Jean.

 

[dcsports]

She also didn't do herself any favors by answering 'yes' to prosecutor's question on whether she had intended to kill him when she opened fire on Jean.

I haven't heard that question / response, but I'm not sure how she would have answered otherwise. Any police officer would tell you that this is a part of their training. You don't shoot to wound or disarm someone. Anything other than 'yes' and the prosecutor would push her, and she would sound like she's lying or evasive.

 

[Atomic Kid]

I haven't heard that question / response, but I'm not sure how she would have answered otherwise. Any police officer would tell you that this is a part of their training. You don't shoot to wound or disarm someone. Anything other than 'yes' and the prosecutor would push her, and she would sound like she's lying or evasive.

The proper answer would be she shot to stop or end the threat. Yes, officers are trained to aim 'center mass' because no one who is under duress is going to suddenly turn into Annie Oakley and purposely wing an assailant. And a center mass hit is much more likely to result in effectively ending the threat.

 

[Crosscheck]

They are probably doing the best they can with what they have. The problem is that the facts aren't in dispute. She was clearly in the wrong, and the case falls under manslaughter (or greater). The DA probably didn't offer herher anything less than manslaughter as a plea - given the visibility of the case, they didn't have a choice. The defense team's only option at that point was to go to trial, hoping they could get a sympathetic jury. It's a manslaughter conviction, vs a possiblity of getting a deadlocked jury to try for a better deal (or a longshot aquittal).

I would have expected her to be better prepared, but they likely didn't have much to work with. They had to put her on the stand to humanize her, and appeal to the jury's emotions. Her best hope is to push the narrative of being an exhausted hero overworked by the city. The facts about her lapsing into 'cover your bases' mode instead of helping the victim aren't going to get any better.

Her and the defense narrative of being an exhausted hero got shot down with the revelation she was awake enough to sext with a married co worker at the very time of this encounter. The sexting was so bad that her and the married officer quickly deleted pics they had sent each other.

She has not seen as someone you would like to be friends with.

 

[dcsports]

The proper answer would be she shot to stop or end the threat. Yes, officers are trained to aim 'center mass' because no one who is under duress is going to suddenly turn into Annie Oakley and purposely wing an assailant. And a center mass hit is much more likely to result in effectively ending the threat.

That is an answer she could have used, and she might have. Again, I didn't see the exchange. But the prosecutor would have followed that line of questioning, "What do you mean by 'end the threat?' Kill him?" and it would have gotten to the same place.

 

[Lursa]

If she is acquitted, no one will care.

I disagree. There may be grounds for the parents to bring a civil suit. Esp if there are grounds to go after the police dept as well.

But in any case, IMO many people will care if she is acquitted. She killed a man out of, at minimum, gross negligence, and the rest of us civilians would never get away with that.