Police officer enters wrong apartment ,shoots tenant

[SC Tiger]

On 9/14/2018 at 3:15 PM, willie-pete said:

If the story is changing; somebody is lying; I don't think it is the dead guy.

Well, technically..........Though I guess the right word is laying.......

(My HS English teacher would kill me for not knowing this)

20 hours ago, DieselMcBadass said:

Seems everyone is accusing each other of being cop bashers or race baiters. Maybe our bias is actually being against being shot in our own homes? 

 

I'm definitely against THAT.

19 hours ago, Wyzz Kydd said:

Even if it is #1, which is what it sounds like to me, the dude is dead, she shot him, in his apartment where she had no right to be. Those facts aren’t contested.

He had no duty to follow her commands, he may not have even realized she was a LEO. Had that been me she would have had a bunch of .45 caliber holes in her and some of the same people making excuses for her would be calling for my head. I guarantee you I wouldn’t have walked around free for days while local PD gave me the benefit of the doubt.

LE or not, if you’re going to carry a gun you have a duty to act responsibly and exercise due care. Clearly she didn’t, at least not based on the currently established facts. She needs to do time and never again be allowed to carry a gun,  period!

I will say - this is a great reason to consider not only if you are LEGAL to shoot someone, but also if you NEED to shoot them.  Had she not shot him this could all be just an embarassing **** up that ends with an apology.

And Dana Loesh brought up a similar point - if he had been armed then we have one of two scenarios:

1)  He gets killed, and he gets blamed for it because "he pointed a gun at me."

2)  She gets killed and his life is ruined.

This is a mess.  My question is - was she fucked up on something to stay awake, if she worked a 15-hour shift (or whatever it was)?

Edited September 17, 2018 by SC Tiger

[TBO]

4 hours ago, Wyzz Kydd said:

Just for clarity, what do those of you who are defending her actions (or at least appear to be) think the consequences should be based on the facts as known right now? Patchman are arguing she should walk, no charges? TBO (not sure you’re arguing FOR her) but should she be charged with a crime and convicted?

A big what if for you as well, what if he had shot and killed her? His house, dark, unknown intruder yelling at him. You want someone in that situation charged?

She has been arrested and needs to go through the criminal justice system. This case fits that to a tee.

What people mix and match is based on their feelings and lack of understanding of both the criminal and civil systems.

As you have pointed out I have never given or a pass or argued for it. I point out when someone is off course in the narrative they are pushing, or lack of logic/critical thinking in their postings. 

This matter will be resolved in one of two ways, a plea of guilty by the defendant or a jury verdict. 

Edited September 17, 2018 by TBO

[TBO]

7 hours ago, willie-pete said:

 

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/crime/article218333735.html

 

An arrest affidavit released Monday says Guyger’s apartment is directly below Jean’s at the South Side Flats, 1210 South Lamar.

The affidavit, written by Officer David L. Armstong of the Texas Rangers, is based on what Guyger told the officer happened. It says she “inserted a unique door key, with an electronic chip, into the door key hole. The door, which was slightly ajar prior to Guyger’s arrival, fully opened under the force of the key insertion.”

Here is an example of willful intent on your part. 

I'll quote the entire applicable part of the article you listed. 

Quote

 

The affidavit, written by Officer David L. Armstong of the Texas Rangers, is based on what Guyger told the officer happened. It says she “inserted a unique door key, with an electronic chip, into the door key hole. The door, which was slightly ajar prior to Guyger’s arrival, fully opened under the force of the key insertion.”

It then says that the door being opened alerted Jean to Guyger’s presence. It says Guyger described the apartment as being dark and she thought “she had encountered a burglar, which was described as a large silhouette, across the room in her apartment.”

Guyger drew her firearm, “gave verbal commands that were ignored by (Jean),” and then she fired two shots. Jean was shot once and died.

 

Nowhere in there does it say that Guyger thought her apartment had been the subject of a burglary and tipped off to it by a door that was ajar. Nowhere.

 

Neither I nor you, nor anyone on this board knows what she thought. Did she even know it was slightly ajar, the text from the article is a literal description (which would cover the investigation uncovering HOW the door opened to a key that wasn't the right one). 

As such the vast majority of your postings are pure speculation without basis.

 

Myself, I can see various scenarios of how she entered, what she saw/didn't see, thought/felt or didn't.... but it wouldn't add anything to this discussion.

We are going to have to wait for court or her attorney to add some information. 
 

Also, keep in mind that some people are trying to bring clarity to certain points, and are not defending anyone's actions. 

 

Sincerely

[willie-pete]

If the door was " slightly ajar " as per the affidavit; then she must have known it to report it.

[TBO]

3 hours ago, willie-pete said:

If the door was " slightly ajar " as per the affidavit; then she must have known it to report it.

The affidavit doesn't say either:

-she knew it was ajar

-if known to be ajar that it was suspcious

You seem very willing to make assumptions toward a seemingly preferred narrative. 

[willie-pete]

49 minutes ago, TBO said:

The affidavit doesn't say either:

-she knew it was ajar

-if known to be ajar that it was suspcious

You seem very willing to make assumptions toward a seemingly preferred narrative. 

It is was reported that the door was ajar and she is the only one alive , at that point, to talk to the Rangers; It is not a very long leap to make an assumption that she was the one that reported the door was ajar. At that point she was the only living witness.

 

How many ajar doors - that should have been closed - have you walked by that you did not deem suspicious?

 

No preferred narrative; just trying to understand how this happens.  The only narrative I believe right now is that

1. somehow she parked on the wrong floor,

2.  she walked to an apartment that should have been obvious to her that it was not her's. ( red floor mat plus wrong number )

3. Basically " pushed " open a door that should have been locked which did not raise alarm bells to her.

4. And fired into a darkened room that was too dark to allow her to distinguish it was not her's, but light enough to determine he did not comply with her commands.

 

Are any of these facts disputed by anyone?

 

The only real assumption I have made so far is that this person is not cut out to be in law enforcement.

[TBO]

38 minutes ago, willie-pete said:

It is was reported that the door was ajar and she is the only one alive , at that point, to talk to the Rangers; It is not a very long leap to make an assumption that she was the one that reported the door was ajar. At that point she was the only living witness.
 
How many ajar doors - that should have been closed - have you walked by that you did not deem suspicious?
 
No preferred narrative; just trying to understand how this happens.  The only narrative I believe right now is that
1. somehow she parked on the wrong floor,
2.  she walked to an apartment that should have been obvious to her that it was not her's. ( red floor mat plus wrong number )
3. Basically " pushed " open a door that should have been locked which did not raise alarm bells to her.
4. And fired into a darkened room that was too dark to allow her to distinguish it was not her's, but light enough to determine he did not comply with her commands.
 
Are any of these facts disputed by anyone?
 
The only real assumption I have made so far is that this person is not cut out to be in law enforcement.

One answer to the question: "How did she enter the apartment w/o a key for it and no forced entry" ...... would be:

When asked, she said she pushed her key in and pushed on the handle.

Anything else I can assist you with?

Sent from my Jack boot using Copatalk
 

Edited September 17, 2018 by TBO

[racerford]

Let me point out that she is the only direct witness to what occurred that can tell the story of what happened, and she made sure of it.  How do we know she gave verbal commands that he ignored. Would it be a surprise if a person who's home is being invaded would not comply with the commands of the home intruder? Would you?

 

The dead man deserves justice. So does the officer, but probably not the justice she is asking for.

As an officer, shouldn't she have called for back up before entering? She was certainly in a position to stop their escape if it was a burglar, so need to go in alone. She knew she wasn't inside "her own" apartment being hurt, so no one to save.

 

[TBO]

3 minutes ago, racerford said:

As an officer, shouldn't she have called for back up before entering? She was certainly in a position to stop their escape if it was a burglar, so need to go in alone. She knew she wasn't inside "her own" apartment being hurt, so no one to save.

 

1. According to what's available so far she entered what she believed was her home.

2. There's nothing available that says she saw/knew the door was unlocked or ajar and she suspected a burglary.

 

What's out there so far is she used her key and walked into what she believed was her home, and immediately she saw an intruder walking toward her, felt in fear of her life, drew her firearm and gave verbal commands which were ignored, and fired when she felt in fear of death or great bodily harm.

We will all have to wait for more to come out through the court, lawyers, and trial. 

[racerford]

14 minutes ago, TBO said:

1. According to what's available so far she entered what she believed was her home.

2. There's nothing available that says she saw/knew the door was unlocked or ajar and she suspected a burglary.

 

What's out there so far is she used her key and walked into what she believed was her home, and immediately she saw an intruder walking toward her, felt in fear of her life, drew her firearm and gave verbal commands which were ignored, and fired when she felt in fear of death or great bodily harm.

We will all have to wait for more to come out through the court, lawyers, and trial. 

What is Jean's side of the story? Oh wait we get to hear that.

 

Maybe it was something like, "I heard someone trying to get into my apartment, I went to make sure the door was secure, when it was forced open. I asked them to get out of my apartment, and they shot me."

 

He was legally entitled to be in the apartment, she was not. He was shot by her. At the very least it should be Criminally Negligent Homicide.

 

She would need a better story than she has now, and some corroborating evidence to convince me, based on the available information.

[TBO]

Just now, racerford said:

What is Jean's side of the story? Oh wait we get to hear that.

 

Maybe it was something like, "I heard someone trying to get into my apartment, I went to make sure the door was secure, when it was forced open. I asked them to get out of my apartment, and they shot me."

 

He was legally entitled to be in the apartment, she was not. He was shot by her. At the very least it should be Criminally Negligent Homicide.

 

She would need a better story than she has now, and some corroborating evidence to convince me, based on the available information.

Are you aware the shooter has been arrested/charged and will stand trial?

[PATCHMAN]

11 hours ago, Wyzz Kydd said:

Just for clarity, what do those of you who are defending her actions (or at least appear to be) think the consequences should be based on the facts as known right now? Patchman are arguing she should walk, no charges? TBO (not sure you’re arguing FOR her) but should she be charged with a crime and convicted?

 

She's been arrested and will go to trial.  That's not going to change.

I believe that because a number of posters here are cop-haters to one degree or another, what I have offered to explain what might have happened will appears to them as a defense of her.  I can't help how someone's reaction to my posts when the reaction is based on personal bias and emotions.  It's a lot more satisfying for cop haters to call for her head than to soberly acknowledge she walked into that apartment thinking it was "her" apartment.  

An example of reacting emotionally that's been posted goes something like "I've never walked into the wrong apartment so she must be found guilty of murder."  Well, the truth is, your personal experiences does not constitute the universe of what-may-be's.  There are many things I've never personally done or experienced but can see how it might happen.           

 

[racerford]

18 minutes ago, TBO said:

Are you aware the shooter has been arrested/charged and will stand trial?

I am not aware that final charges have been brought by the grand jury. She will stand trial if final charges are brought and she does not plead out. Your words make it sound like a simple self defense, which she will no doubt claim. I am just saying she will need a better story and more evidence than her words.

[PATCHMAN]

11 hours ago, Wyzz Kydd said:

A big what if for you as well, what if he had shot and killed her? His house, dark, unknown intruder yelling at him. You want someone in that situation charged?

Here's a big what-if for you.  Many have already posted that the fact she shot in the dark, without identifying the target, etc... is grounds enough to charge her with murder.  Remember that she believed she was in her "own" apartment and she knew there should be no one inside.  You present the reverse side of the coin, where he is in his apartment and knows there should be no one else inside.  He shoots.  The light condition remains the same...        

 

I will point out that what's good for the goose should be good for the gander.   

Edited September 18, 2018 by PATCHMAN

[SevenSixtyTwo]

21 minutes ago, PATCHMAN said:

She's been arrested and will go to trial.  That's not going to change.

I believe that because a number of posters here are cop-haters to one degree or another, what I have offered to explain what might have happened will appears to them as a defense of her.  I can't help how someone's reaction to my posts when the reaction is based on personal bias and emotions.  It's a lot more satisfying for cop haters to call for her head than to soberly acknowledge she walked into that apartment thinking it was "her" apartment.  

An example of reacting emotionally that's been posted goes something like "I've never walked into the wrong apartment so she must be found guilty of murder."  Well, the truth is, your personal experiences does not constitute the universe of what-may-be's.  There are many things I've never personally done or experienced but can see how it might happen.           

 

Yet this is the most emotionally charged, accusatory, biased post in the thread.

[PATCHMAN]

1 minute ago, SevenSixtyTwo said:

Yet this is the most emotionally charged, accusatory, biased post in the thread.

Naw, you're just reading it that way.  

[Wyzz Kydd]

1 hour ago, PATCHMAN said:

Here's a big what-if for you.  Many have already posted that the fact she shot in the dark, without identifying the target, etc... is grounds enough to charge her with murder.  Remember that she believed she was in her "own" apartment and she knew there should be no one inside.  You present the reverse side of the coin, where he is in his apartment and knows there should be no one else inside.  He shoots.  The light condition remains the same...        

 

I will point out that what's good for the goose should be good for the gander.   

I’m certainly not a cop hater by any stretch, feel free to read some of my LE related posts on GT if my word isn’t good enough. 

Having said that the situation is not a goose/gander comparison. He would have KNOWN he was in his own apartment while she only BELIEVED she was in her apartment. 

Did she have a duty to KNOW rather than BELIEVE?

Texas code for criminally negligent homicide:

Sec. 19.05. CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE. (a) A person commits an offense if he causes the death of an individual by criminal negligence.

Code for Criminal Negligence:

6.03d  A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur.  The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

« Prev

The fact that she caused the death isn’t disputed. So should she have been aware that the circumstance existed (in the wrong apartment, he’s not an intruder)? Did her failure to perceive that she was in the wrong apartment and he was not an intruder constitute a gross deviation from the standard of care an ordinary person would exercise?

 

I’m not an attorney, nor have I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express lately but Manslaughter seems to be a reach to me, so the DA charges her with that then she pleas down to Criminally Negligent Homicide which seems like a much easier charge to prove in this instance and based on the facts as reported thus far an appropriate outcome.

Edited September 18, 2018 by Wyzz Kydd

[PATCHMAN]

51 minutes ago, Wyzz Kydd said:

I’m certainly not a cop hater by any stretch, feel free to read some of my LE related posts on GT if my word isn’t good enough. 

Having said that the situation is not a goose/gander comparison. He would have KNOWN he was in his own apartment while she only BELIEVED she was in her apartment. 

Did she have a duty to KNOW rather than BELIEVE?« Prev

The fact that she caused the death isn’t disputed. So should she have been aware that the circumstance existed (in the wrong apartment, he’s not an intruder)? Did her failure to perceive that she was in the wrong apartment and he was not an intruder constitute a gross deviation from the standard of care an ordinary person would exercise?

 

Texas case law will determine whether someone, at the time of an incident and who believes XYZ as fact, carries the same weight as actually knowing XYZ as fact.

     

Edited September 18, 2018 by PATCHMAN

[PATCHMAN]

45 minutes ago, Wyzz Kydd said:

I’m not an attorney, nor have I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express lately but Manslaughter seems to be a reach to me, so the DA charges her with that then she pleas down to Criminally Negligent Homicide which seems like a much easier charge to prove in this instance and based on the facts as reported thus far an appropriate outcome.

 

It smacks a bit like political correctness on the DA's part where the DA has to charge in order to appease the community.  It's a political decision on the DA's part.      

[Wyzz Kydd]

I think the statutes, which I’ve quoted above, will also be involved. Case law will be used as examples of how those statutes have been interpreted in the past.

[PATCHMAN]

1 hour ago, Wyzz Kydd said:

I’m certainly not a cop hater by any stretch, feel free to read some of my LE related posts on GT if my word isn’t good enough. 

Having said that the situation is not a goose/gander comparison. He would have KNOWN he was in his own apartment while she only BELIEVED she was in her apartment. 

Did she have a duty to KNOW rather than BELIEVE?

The fact that she caused the death isn’t disputed. So should she have been aware that the circumstance existed (in the wrong apartment, he’s not an intruder)? Did her failure to perceive that she was in the wrong apartment and he was not an intruder constitute a gross deviation from the standard of care an ordinary person would exercise?

 

 

20 minutes ago, PATCHMAN said:

Texas case law will determine whether someone, at the time of an incident and who believes XYZ as fact, carries the same weight as actually knowing XYZ as fact.

     

 

Here's my question to you.  Regardless of Texas case law, in your heart, do you think that if someone believes XYZ is fact (at the time of an incident), that it should weight less than knowing it as fact?   

 

(BTW, I'm using the sober, reasonable person standard.  That is to say, if a sober, reasonable person believed XYZ is fact...)

Edited September 18, 2018 by PATCHMAN

[Silentpoet]

51 minutes ago, PATCHMAN said:

 

 It's a political decision on the DA's part.      

A DA making political decisions? Next thing you will tell me water is wet.

[Wyzz Kydd]

58 minutes ago, PATCHMAN said:

 

It smacks a bit like political correctness on the DA's part where the DA has to charge in order to appease the community.  It's a political decision on the DA's part.      

Now you’re doing what others in this thread have been accused of doing: assuming.

Perhaps that decision was political and perhaps not.

From what I saw, negligent homicide was at the bottom in terms of severity with manslaughter just above it.  Going with manslaughter leaves room to negotiate.

In terms of your question, if I’m shooting someone in “my” house in the dark I want to know they’re an intruder, believing isn’t enough.

Silentpoet nailed it with the politics and DA comment. DAs make political decisions all the time.

 

[PATCHMAN]

8 hours ago, PATCHMAN said:

 

It smacks a bit like political correctness on the DA's part where the DA has to charge in order to appease the community.  It's a political decision on the DA's part.      

 

6 hours ago, Wyzz Kydd said:

Now you’re doing what others in this thread have been accused of doing: assuming.

Perhaps that decision was political and perhaps not.

Silentpoet nailed it with the politics and DA comment. DAs make political decisions all the time.

 

You make a statement declaring DAs make political decisions "all the time."  But when I say this particular case the DA's decision to charge her smacks a bit like a political decision, I'm assuming?    

[SC Tiger]

14 hours ago, willie-pete said:

It is was reported that the door was ajar and she is the only one alive , at that point, to talk to the Rangers; It is not a very long leap to make an assumption that she was the one that reported the door was ajar. At that point she was the only living witness.

 

How many ajar doors - that should have been closed - have you walked by that you did not deem suspicious?

 

No preferred narrative; just trying to understand how this happens.  The only narrative I believe right now is that

1. somehow she parked on the wrong floor,

2.  she walked to an apartment that should have been obvious to her that it was not her's. ( red floor mat plus wrong number )

3. Basically " pushed " open a door that should have been locked which did not raise alarm bells to her.

4. And fired into a darkened room that was too dark to allow her to distinguish it was not her's, but light enough to determine he did not comply with her commands.

 

Are any of these facts disputed by anyone?

 

The only real assumption I have made so far is that this person is not cut out to be in law enforcement.

This is one of those things that is either a) really bad or b) really really bad.

So far the involved agencies seem to be doing the right things here.  But if they screw up it will be all over the news.

And the public at large won't accept a not-guilty verdict.  That puts the prosecutors in a real pickle here.