Other State Dallas Officer Kills Man After Walking Into Wrong Apartment: Police

[Ratfink]

Courts have become "knee-jerks" as of late (since the King fiasco) and justice has little to do with the out come.
I busted a guy for selling crack withing 100 yds of a school. Found guns and more crack at his house. Jury bought his defense "I'm trying to support my family and stay off welfare". Not guilty. Friggin bleeding hearts....

 

[American123]

Wouldn't want anyone to give someone a chance to make a fair point or anything. Nope. Wrongthink is just trolling.

Ok: let's take a step back here a moment and consider the implications of this notion which I will temporarily consider to be potentially an idea of merit.

"Disarm the police" outcomes:
- populace is not disarmed, but police are so now every aggressive encounter the police face they will likely die, they will be shot, stabbed, literally beat to death unless the policeman is a superior physical specimen and it's only a 1 v 1 scenario. Every policewoman is now going to lose effectively every violent encounter she ever has (genetics being considered). Beyond that the criminal element of our society will be emboldened because they know the police don't have the means to stop them. (Not that they are that intimidated by the police as it is when they are armed). If doubtful of this notion, watch the videos of about 10 UK police struggling to apprehend 1 man with a knife because they aren't armed.

- this type of scenario adds more fuel to the fire of why Americans should be disarmed, if police are disarmed, and they can't do their job because the populace is disarmed, the natural leftist next step is to disarm the populace to "keep the kids safe."

So now, let me come back to reality, I'm not disparaging your statement of "disarm the police" because it is a different idea, I'm disparaging it because it is a terrible idea. Part of having good conversations with people is being able to accept that not every idea is a great one, but being willing to discuss it (if only momentarily) anyway. Part of being a well functioning person is to also accept that sometimes ideas are proven to be not that great, and in those instances, taking it personally instead of just moving on is childish and ignores logic or reasoning that has demonstrated the idea to be 'not that great.'

Now is the time to move on.

 

[Ratfink]

Ok: let's take a step back here a moment and consider the implications of this notion which I will temporarily consider to be potentially an idea of merit.

"Disarm the police" outcomes:
- populace is not disarmed, but police are so now every aggressive encounter the police face they will likely die, they will be shot, stabbed, literally beat to death unless the policeman is a superior physical specimen and it's only a 1 v 1 scenario. Every policewoman is now going to lose effectively every violent encounter she ever has (genetics being considered). Beyond that the criminal element of our society will be emboldened because they know the police don't have the means to stop them. (Not that they are that intimidated by the police as it is when they are armed). If doubtful of this notion, watch the videos of about 10 UK police struggling to apprehend 1 man with a knife because they aren't armed.

- this type of scenario adds more fuel to the fire of why Americans should be disarmed, if police are disarmed, and they can't do their job because the populace is disarmed, the natural leftist next step is to disarm the populace to "keep the kids safe."

So now, let me come back to reality, I'm not disparaging your statement of "disarm the police" because it is a different idea, I'm disparaging it because it is a terrible idea. Part of having good conversations with people is being able to accept that not every idea is a great one, but being willing to discuss it (if only momentarily) anyway. Part of being a well functioning person is to also accept that sometimes ideas are proven to be not that great, and in those instances, taking it personally instead of just moving on is childish and ignores logic or reasoning that has demonstrated the idea to be 'not that great.'

Now is the time to move on.

Well said! So let's just say a traffic stop becomes violent and gun-fire erupts. So the cop must wait for a tactical unit? Or should the police just stop making traffic stops which is where, by the way, most arrest stem from capturing wanted fugitives.
Or the cop who is called to a in-progress shooting at a school amd arrives first. Under your "scenario" the cop must wait while innocent lives are lost....No sir, time is of the essence in these cases. Bad idea.

 

[Alexx1401]

Just said she got convicted of Murder

 

[CountryGent]

Indeed: Amber Guyger convicted of murder in wrong-apartment killing of innocent man

She's looking at between 5 and 99 years in the joint.

 

[awshoot]

Worth reading, while it's still available: Decisive Evidence in "Wrong Apartment" Murder Trial Points to Acquittal – Law of Self Defense

 

[User 1234]

Even if she had reasonably believed that he was in her apartment, he was sitting on the couch eating ice cream. IfI came home and saw an intruder sitting on my couch eating ice cream I would not open fire at that alone.

 

[DB is Here]

Even if she had reasonably believed that he was in her apartment, he was sitting on the couch eating ice cream. IfI came home and saw an intruder sitting on my couch eating ice cream I would not open fire at that alone.

She had no business in that line of work...

 

[Ratfink]

I'm stunned!!!! But, she is an idiot. But MURDER? That usually means intent. I can't find that in this story. Stupidity? Yes, but intent? NO!

 

[RVTECH]

Was there ever a reason (or cause) given for her 'mistake' of entering the wrong apt?

 

[awshoot]

I'm stunned!!!! But, she is an idiot. But MURDER? That usually means intent. I can't find that in this story. Stupidity? Yes, but intent? NO!

She got gummed up by saying that when she shot, she meant to kill (*). I wonder if the outcome would have been different if she said she shot to stop.


(*) I haven't actually watched any of this trial and am relying on news articles -- take this underlying factual statement as almost certainly false.

 

[tac]

It works for the Bobbies, sorta.

Do you mean British police?

Armed confrontations here in UK are VERY rare, and usually end badly for the BG. Unlike the USA where they are, sadly, a many-times daily event. Over in Northern Ireland, where the beat police officer has been routinely armed since around 1969, armed confrontations - excluding terrorism - are incredibly rare. Most confrontations here involve operations with multiple armed police, not one-on-ones.

 

[Hueco]

Worth reading, while it's still available: Decisive Evidence in "Wrong Apartment" Murder Trial Points to Acquittal – Law of Self Defense

I believe the author gets this point incorrect: ...the second question is, was her mistake in entering the wrong apartment, believing it to be her own, a reasonable mistake?

Evidence showed that the building was sufficiently confusing enough for people to attempt entry, and possibly gain entry, into other's apartments. So be it.

Upon entry, how long would it take you to realize that you're not in the right place? It's not your artwork on the wall, not even your paint color, not your lighting, not your entry table or shoe stand, not your TV. And when you see all of these not-your-things in combination with a stranger...I believe it more reasonable for the average person to understand that they are in the wrong place...

Still, I am surprised that murder stuck. Texas code outlines:

Sec. 19.02. MURDER. (a) In this section:

(1) "Adequate cause" means cause that would commonly produce a degree of anger, rage, resentment, or terror in a person of ordinary temper, sufficient to render the mind incapable of cool reflection.

(2) "Sudden passion" means passion directly caused by and arising out of provocation by the individual killed or another acting with the person killed which passion arises at the time of the offense and is not solely the result of former provocation.

(b) A person commits an offense if he:

(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;

(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual; or

(3) commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.

(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.

(d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he caused the death under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree.

I'm having trouble seeing how either Adequate Cause or Sudden Passion were met in this case. Manslaughter, sure. Murder...? I wonder if the jury had a left leaning bias here...

 

[HA556]

She had no business in that line of work...

I have to concur with this!^^^

After spending a good portion of my adult years in the military, and I know law enforcement are trained in somewhat the same manner, I have to wonder where was her situational awareness?!

 

[titsonritz]

Do you mean British police?

Yes

 

[Ratfink]

Our judicial system is no longer based upon justice, it's based upon public opinion and reaction to a verdict. If there's a possibility of a riot to a verdict, then the court will be swayed.

 

[tac]

'Bobbies'? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

 

[bbbass]

The audio in the 911 call has her saying repeatedly that she didn't mean to... but then she said she shot to kill???

IDK, I think murder is an overcharge and not reasonable based on my reading. I think it will be overturned on appeal.

Was there ever a reason (or cause) given for her 'mistake' of entering the wrong apt?

Apparently she parked on the wrong level in the parking garage and everything looks the same. Others testified that they had also gotten confused in the same manner.

It works for the Bobbies, sorta.

Well, we're not the UK. Too many armed criminals here on the streets!!!

 

[RVTECH]

Apparently she parked on the wrong level in the parking garage

So she made TWO mistakes then.

 

[User 1234]

The evidence that came out at trial was that she had been having a rapid exchange of sexually explicit text messages with her duty partner while she was driving home and walking into the building, so she was so focused on "rooster" she was not paying attention to her surroundings. Texting and sex led to an innocent guy getting blown away. Imagine his final thoughts as a cop walks into his apartment and pulls a gun on him while he is eating ice cream. RIP.