Texas cop goes home to wrong address, shoots occupant

First topic message reminder :

Newshub wrote:Texas cop enters wrong house, shoots man dead
08/09/2018

A Texas police officer returning home from work walked into the wrong apartment and shot the occupant dead, believing it was her own place.

The officer called dispatch to report that she had shot the man Thursday night, Dallas police said.

She told responding officers she believed the victim's apartment was her own when she entered it.

The responding officers administered first aid to the victim, whom the Dallas County medical examiner's office identified as 26-year-old Botham Jean, a native of the Caribbean island country of St Lucia who attended college in Arkansas and worked for accounting and consulting firm PwC.

Mr Jean, who was black, was taken to a hospital and pronounced dead.

Police haven't released the name or race of the officer, who arrived home in-uniform and wasn't injured. She will be placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation, police said.

Authorities haven't said how the officer got into Mr Jean's home, or whether his door was open or unlocked. The apartment complex is just a few blocks from Dallas' police headquarters.

At a Friday morning news conference, Sgt Warren Mitchell acknowledged there are many questions about what happened that he couldn't answer.

"We still have a lot to do in this investigation. So there's a lot of information I understand you guys want but this is all we can give you at this time," Mitchell said.

When asked if anyone else had witnessed the shooting, Warren replied, "We have not spoken to anyone else at this time."

APTN / Newshub.

So now they are breaking into private homes and killing innocent residents?

And why won't the Dallas Police release the name of the cop? (Authorities identify the cop as female, tho they won't identify by name)  They release names in every other criminal report.  What are the they trying to cover up?

Why did they wait for the responding police to administer first aid?  If the killer was a proper policeman, as alleged, why did the cop let the guy die?  Why no immediate first aid?  Did she know the guy?  Did she want him dead?  Smells like rotten fish in Texas.

Southerners!!

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:I am having big doubts, espcially as she called in the shooting herself

Haha...WTF was she going to do?  They have the forensics on her handgun.

Didge, you wouldn't even make a good criminal.

 

I am not denying she shot him, what I am doubting is the hyperbole being made claiming she went with intent to murder based on racism

That has zero evidence and why she has not been charged with a hate crime, but manslaughter

You can read again if you like and start by actually presenting a case based on facts, that you think she had intent to murder based on racism?

The Dallas police officer who killed 26-year-old Botham Jean in his own apartment got inside because the door wasn’t locked, a law enforcement official said Sunday.

Officer Amber Guyger had just ended a 15-hour shift when she parked on the wrong level of the South Side Flats garage— the fourth floor instead of the third, where she lived, according to the official who has direct knowledge of the case but is not authorized to discuss it publicly.

Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings also said Sunday that Guyger parked on the wrong floor.

She went to the door she thought was hers but was one floor too high. The four floors of the South Side Flats in the Cedars look the same, with concrete floors and tan doors. A light fixture to the side of each door displays the apartment number.

Guyger, 30, was arrested Sunday on a manslaughter charge and was booked into the Kaufman County Jail. The Texas Rangers are investigating the case at the request of Dallas Police Chief U. Renee Hall. In the last year, juries have sentenced two police officers in Dallas County to prison time after convicting them of murder.

The night of the shooting, Guyger didn’t notice that Jean's door had a red doormat in front of it, the official said. Her entrance didn’t have one.

Guyger, who was still in uniform, put her key in the door, which was unlocked, and the door opened, the official said. The lights were out. She saw a figure in the darkness and thought her apartment was being burglarized, the official said. Guyger pulled her gun and fired twice.

When she turned on the lights, she realized she was in the wrong apartment. Jean, who worked for PricewaterhouseCoopers, was shot once in the chest.

Authorities have said Guyger and Jean, a native of Saint Lucia in the Caribbean, did not know each other. Guyger, a nearly five-year veteran of the Police Department, had recently moved into the complex.


https://www.dallasnews.com/news/dallas-police/2018/09/09/botham-jeans-door-unlocked-amber-guyger-mistook-apartment-official-says

One things is for sure Quill, your claim of racist intent, is not going to stand up in court, based on the known views of the case.

Original Quill wrote:It's a highly flawed story.  Too many holes.  Either the Texas authorities are admitting that they a placing ill-prepared and dangerous policemen on the street, or it's just a fabrication.

You mean with the many holes that your claims have?

At leasd I am looking at this objectively and have stated there could be many possibilities

What you do is hold an immediate racial bias

Now I do not see you actually address any of the points I made

All you did was claim a woman premditated a murder, based on no evidence. This person is known to have worked a 15 hour shift

That is a fact

She parked on the floor above where she lived

That is a fact

She called the emegency servies after knowing what had happend and they were there in 4 minuites

He was rushed to the hospital, but prenounced dead on arrival

That in no way sounds like someone looking to murder someone or looking to get away with it

The evidence comes from the investigation, that she had worked a 15 hour shift which is not unusual for people in the Police, hospitals etc

Where do you get this notion of a warrant?

She enter an apartment thinking it was hers, with the door unlocked.

That would ring alarm bells

She then sees someone inside what she perceives to be her flat and she is a woman the officer, believeing there is an intruder in her flat

She recently moved to the flats also

All seems very possible that she went to the wrong flat, being as she only just moved there and like I say was tired

As I say you cannot think outside the box and have already made up in your mind, she went there with the intent to murder this man because he was black. Though had served four years, without murdering anyone black

So I have presented many views

All we have been reduced to on this forum, is hyperbole by you on racism

Now she has been charged with manslaughter

Not a hate crime

It could be a plan, if she knew him already and wanted rid of him but he wouldn't be told, drive onto the wrong floor, apparently confuse the apartment, having previously arranged to meet him at his apartment so he leaves the door unlocked for you. As soon as you shoot him call emergency services and sound distraught. Then bank on the fact of being a police officer having worked long hours and be very contrite and hope you convince everyone.

Vintage wrote:It could be a plan, if she knew him already and wanted rid of him but he wouldn't be told, drive onto the wrong floor, apparently confuse the apartment, having previously arranged to meet him at his apartment so he leaves the door unlocked for you. As soon as you shoot him call emergency services and sound distraught. Then bank on the fact of being a police officer having worked long hours and be very contrite and hope you convince everyone.

Interesting but to me sounds far fetched.

I mean if you really want to kill him, the view would be not to get caught or at least make it look like self defense by causing a confrontation

You could be right, but again there is no indication they knew each other and she had only just recently moved there

I guess more will come out in the court case

Didge wrote:Guyger, who was still in uniform, put her key in the door, which was unlocked, and the door opened...

That's two different stories.  Was the door open, or did she have a key which fit the lock?  Dallas PD can't even get the inside story straight.

Finally, some neighbors provided the independent truth:

Heavy.com wrote:...“the police officer’s key was found in the lock of the door of the apartment belonging to the deceased, after she tried unsuccessfully to open it.”

Then a witness said:

Heavy.com wrote:Caitlin Simpson, a 20-year-old resident of the apartment building, told the Dallas Morning News she heard a lot of noise Thursday night. “It was, like, police talk: ‘Open up! Open up!'” she told the newspaper.
https://heavy.com/news/2018/09/botham-shem-jean/

"Like police talk..."  So Guyger knew she was being denied entry.  Wouldn't that give a normal person pause to consider whether this wasn't a bit irregular?  If she knew there was someone inside, it means she knew aforethought that she was going to encounter and kill someone.

That would explain the other question: why was she going in using deadly force, without any question?  The ‘wrong apartment’ theory begins to fray.  Looks more and more like an assassination.

Obviously, she broke in as if she knew what she was doing.  This looks a lot like an assassin relying on police training, demanding entry.  I honestly think if it was a normal citizen who had done this, he would still be in jail.

The fact that she is free on lite bail indicates some sort of collusion with the authorities.

Let's get back to who the victim, Jean, is?  He is an accountant for Price Waterhouse Cooper, a Big-8 international accounting firm.  Price Waterhouse has big forensic accounting departments in each office, which investigate just like a legal team.  Was he investigating the police, or someone affiliated?  Someone should be looking into what accounts and files he was working with...Ben?

I don't want to speculate too much, but if this happened in Detroit, Chicago or New York, it would have organized crime written all over it.  The police can't be counted to look into their own, but media can.  Hmmm...

Yep If we was a forensic Accountant with PWC then this is Very Suspicious and what ever he was working on needs a closer look

Why was she even armed -- with a loaded and cocked weapon, no less ?

Over here, off-duty police don't carry loaded weapons on their person..

She forced her way into that apartment, after finding that her key didn't fit ?

Why did she shoot him ?

A cold-blooded execution, by an assassin who was prepared and ready..

Why did the Dallas police try and cover up her crime, over those first few hours ???

Seems like the Dallas police are cut from the same pattern as those in Minneapolis..

So her key was found in the lock

Why would she use her own house key in the wrong appartment?

That furthers proves to me, its based on exhuastion

The resident that claims Police chat

Could be when the other police arrive, as if you watch the video, of this. She is seen calling in the emergency services and goes back into the flat

This is all on tape

Sorry but one person in such confusion does not fit the facts nor does the next door neighbour who is another witness make such a claim

So quill your post is based on that conjecture

To me the her own key in the door will be key here, no pun intended

There is no evidence of a breakin

That is again conjecture on your part Quill

No evidence of any hearing an argument

All you have is one witness which could have heard when the other police and emergency services arrive

I suggest you watch the video that was caught by one of the neighbours

So the problem I have with the racist murder hypothesis is this.

Did she even know that a black person lived there or even know him and why single this person out for execution? If based on wanting to murder a black person. That makes the least sense here altogether. Espically as she had already served nearly 5 years. If this person was really racist with intent to kill black people. Why wait all that time? To then plan to shoot someone. In the present day where such shootings, become immediate media mass stories and think they could get away with this. With this officer even phoning the emergency services. It makes little sense.

If it was murder and this was predmeditated. Then this would be more down to either they were lovers, had a previous altercation etc. Was this even an organised hit, by another group, which this cop was part of a bigger criminal element?

I am not going to rule out anything, but the notion to view this immediatelly as a racist execution, seems the least likely, based on what is known.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Why was she even armed --  with a loaded and cocked weapon, no less ?

Over here, off-duty police don't carry loaded weapons on their person..

She forced her way into that apartment, after finding that her key didn't fit ?

Why did she shoot him ?

A cold-blooded execution, by an assassin who was prepared and ready..

Why did the Dallas police try and cover up her crime, over those first few hours  ???

Seems like the Dallas police are cut from the same pattern as those in Minneapolis..

Yes wolf, there are several things that don't work about her story. The 'I got lost on the way home' excuse is about as lame as can be. I would be afraid to use that one on my wife, let alone for a murder.

There are several problems with the lock and key. And what about the neighbor who heard her talking to the occupant of the apartment, the victim. And you are right, her firearm was all to ready.

The big question is, why does a trained police officer, with four years experience on the force, opt for lethal force in the first instance. A rookie might pee his pants, but not an experienced cop. Nothing fits.

But something sure does smell. I would investigate what the accountant victim was working on. He may have uncovered some siphoning of funds, or perhaps some drug money laundering. Police departments in border state cities are easily bought. The film Sicario is about that. It clearly looks like a hit.

Well I guess some people cannot think outside the box or use actual emphathic intelligence here.

She just finished an 15 hour shift, which is more than likely why she was still in uniform, going straight home.

To claim an experinced officer would not opt for leathal force. Again is not factoring many aspects here.

The fact she is a cop and in her claim, has walked into her flat, which she finds the door unlocked and believes she sees an intruder.

She being a woman and cop, clearly felt in fear for her life or even being raped and along with exhusation open fire. The fact she fired two shots and is trained to shoot and only one hit the target, again proves to me panic in firing her weapon.

Like I said, if people walked into their homes and then saw somebody who is not meant to be there, then the adrenaline is going to kick in. Whether you are an officer or trained to use weapons. With fight or flight. On top of this its known she has worked a 15 hour shift, would add to this heightened situation, she claims to have faced. Exhaustion can play havoc with the human mind, which again someone working a 15 hour shift will be extremely tired.

I suggest people look at other cases where residents hve shot intruders found in their homs and then come back and say this is not what would happen. Again I am basing this on her claim. So the argument saying she would not shoot, does not understand humans in fear and the adrenaline kicking in when people face an intruder. Whether trained or not.

That seems very feesible to me, more than some far fetched claim this was a premeditated racist execution. Of which there is zero evidence for.

Didge wrote:Well I guess some people cannot think outside the box or use actual emphathic intelligence here.

She just finished an 15 hour shift, which is more than likely why she was still in uniform, going straight home.

To claim an experinced officer would not opt for leathal force. Again is not factoring many aspects here.

The fact she is a cop and in her claim, has walked into her flat, which she finds the door unlocked and believes she sees an intruder.

She being a woman and cop, clearly felt in fear for her life or even being raped and along with exhusation open fire. The fact she fired two shots and is trained to shoot and only one hit the target, again proves to me panic in firing her weapon.

Like I said, if people walked into their homes and then saw somebody who is not meant to be there, then the adrenaline is going to kick in. Whether you are an officer or trained to use weapons. With fight or flight. On top of this its known she has worked a 15 hour shift, would add to this heightened situation, she claims to have faced. Exhaustion can play havoc with the human mind, which again someone working a 15 hour shift will be extremely tired.

I suggest people look at other cases where residents hve shot intruders found in their homs and then come back and say this is not what would happen. Again I am basing this on her claim. So the argument saying she would not shoot, does not understand humans in fear and the adrenaline kicking in when people face an intruder. Whether trained or not.

That seems very feesible to me, more than some far fetched claim this was a premeditated racist execution. Of which there is zero evidence for.

You're the last person who should be claiming "empathic intelligence" on here, Dodgey...

Indeed, you're on pretty shaky ground claiming any type of inherent "intelligence"..

You jump to the defence of crooked cops shooting innocent people;   yet when someone launches a violent attack in public these days, you're up there with the likes of Tommy, Raggamuffin and co. screaming "terrorists" and "Islamists" before the dust have even settled, and the picture becomes clearer.            Your bigotry shines like a beacon, doddery Dodger..

P.S.   I also notice that you are either too stupid, or too gullible, as to ask yourself why she was still in uniform, with a loaded gun in her hand at the ready  !?!        

P.P.S.    Who has claimed "racism"  behind her crime  ???   What Quill and I have both suggested is criminal behaviour on her part..     The suggestion of racism/bigotry/favourtism would be in regards to the subsequent behaviour of the Dallas Police department, in trying to cover up her actions, while downplaying and devalueing the seriousness of those actions.

1) I am making reasonable possible outcomes to the claims made on the case, without a racist bias. As my views on this case would be the same if the victim was white with the same scenario. Though I doubt the claims made here would be the same, if the victim was white by some.

2) Quill in his earlier posts has placed this down to a racial conspiracy by the Police, even though its Chief is a Black women. Never made any assertion you said Racism

3) So more lies, now dragging Tommy and Rags into this when they are not here. Can you show a terrorist attack, where I have been wrong about the attack and attackers? Its not even a valid comparrison you have made and is simple poor point scoring off  lie.

4) It shows you did not read why I said she was in uniform and many officers in the US carry loaded guns. The point is to have the safety on. You think they load them confonting an armed situation? They would be dead if they did. She may have gone home straight from her shift, being the fact she had worked 15 hours straight. The majority of cops go home in their uniform. Plus many weapons are bought and purchased by US Police officers. Thus they are their own personal firearms. So I am basing this on a real reality of the situation around US Police officers, of which being as Quill is American he should know.

So the only thing uninformed here is your claims

Original Quill wrote:

Newshub wrote:Texas cop enters wrong house, shoots man dead
08/09/2018

A Texas police officer returning home from work walked into the wrong apartment and shot the occupant dead, believing it was her own place.

The officer called dispatch to report that she had shot the man Thursday night, Dallas police said.

She told responding officers she believed the victim's apartment was her own when she entered it.

The responding officers administered first aid to the victim, whom the Dallas County medical examiner's office identified as 26-year-old Botham Jean, a native of the Caribbean island country of St Lucia who attended college in Arkansas and worked for accounting and consulting firm PwC.

Mr Jean, who was black, was taken to a hospital and pronounced dead.

Police haven't released the name or race of the officer, who arrived home in-uniform and wasn't injured. She will be placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation, police said.

Authorities haven't said how the officer got into Mr Jean's home, or whether his door was open or unlocked. The apartment complex is just a few blocks from Dallas' police headquarters.

At a Friday morning news conference, Sgt Warren Mitchell acknowledged there are many questions about what happened that he couldn't answer.

"We still have a lot to do in this investigation. So there's a lot of information I understand you guys want but this is all we can give you at this time," Mitchell said.

When asked if anyone else had witnessed the shooting, Warren replied, "We have not spoken to anyone else at this time."

APTN / Newshub.

So now they are breaking into private homes and killing innocent residents?

And why won't the Dallas Police release the name of the cop?  (Authorities identify the cop as female, tho they won't identify by name)  They release names in every other criminal report.  What are the they trying to cover up?

Why did they wait for the responding police to administer first aid?  If the killer was a proper policeman, as alleged, why did the cop let the guy die?  Why no immediate first aid?  Did she know the guy?  Did she want him dead?  Smells like rotten fish in Texas.

Southerners!!

Hi Quill, how are ya, darling.   

On the balance of probabilities this was most likely a genuine error & accident, imo. 
I'm not ready to start suspecting conspiracy theories here, until I get stronger evidence.
 
But I'll say this much: Lady, you cannot have it both ways! If you want the privilege of being able to swagger around with a very deadly weapon 24/7, you need to have the common sense that should go with such a privilege

''Loaded gun'' & ''thick-as-pigshit'' are two things that should not mix. 

I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt for now . . . . cos when I lived on a university campus,  drunken students (always male)returning from a night out kept wandering into each others flats. 
You'd wake up from your sleep and there'd be a silhouette of a guy in your room!!   


It was always alarming but I never feared rape, they were usually as drunk as skunks,  they could hardly stand upright, let alone .. ahem ... ''stand to attention '' (IYKWIM)   


This happened to a lot of women students and in the morning in the cold light of day we would always name & shame the drunken  intruders!

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

It is Texas...

She breaks into someone's home and executes him..

They should give her a lethal injection, if they uphold Texas law.

And, I would expect Tommy, gelico and Raggamuffin all to be supporting her possible death sentence, going on their previous stances on home invasions..

For the record, i don't support the death sentence

Jules wrote:On the balance of probabilities this was most likely a genuine error & accident, imo.
I'm not ready to start suspecting conspiracy theories here, until I get stronger evidence.

Jules wrote:I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt for now . . . . cos when I lived on a university campus, drunken students (always male)returning from a night out kept wandering into each others flats.

But never forget that a well-planned conspiracy tries to emulate such innocent situations. The art of a conspiracy (to break the law) is to structure events and settings to look exactly like the innocent situation. With the bad guy’s own alibi, and lack of an obvious motive, you can get away with it.

My point is, they cop’s story must be considered as equally implausible. Killing another human being is frowned upon…and she did do it. If this were a drug hit, or the victim had uncovered some scam, the culprits would plan this to look like something similar to the cop’s story. It’s distraction: look over there, don’t look over here. Otherwise, the bad guys invite the inquiry to focus on them.

I realize I’m being the skeptic, however having been a prosecutor I can attest that skepticism is the art of proper investigations.

Why would she go in and immediately open fire ?
Was the victim pointing a gun at her ?

gelico wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

It is Texas...

She breaks into someone's home and executes him..

They should give her a lethal injection, if they uphold Texas law.

And, I would expect Tommy, gelico and Raggamuffin all to be supporting her possible death sentence, going on their previous stances on home invasions..

For the record, i don't support the death sentence

But also for the record, Texas loves the death sentence. Texas kills more humans than any other state in the Union.

But that is beside the point. Southerners are authoritarians...they've been conditioned to hate civil rights of any kind. The counter-point is to love cops and people with authority. That is why using a uniformed cop as a hit-man is a perfect set-up.

The state will only charge up to manslaughter, and most likely the jury will acquit her anyway. In fact, there are other factors at play here. Jurors are far less likely to convict a woman. They will never convict a cop. And southern juries will always favor a white over a black.

If this is a cover-up, the conspirators chose well.

nicko wrote:Why would she go in and immediately open fire ?
Was the victim pointing a gun at her ?

No, the victim was caught totally unawares.

You've hit on the most important point, nicko.  It's not as if no attention is paid to use of lethal force in cop-training.  Having taught at Police Academies, I know that cops are drilled on the very limited circumstances when you pull the trigger.  Only when one is certain one's own life, or the life of another is threatened, is lethal force justified.

And this police officer had four years experience too boot!

That a cop, who knows someone is inside, knowingly or unknowingly breaks in to a dwelling not her own, and her first option is to pull a trigger...that's murder with malice aforethought.

That's why the Omygosh, wrong apartment...never mind, doesn't really work. It's up to her to explain why she broke the cardinal rule.

No, that is someone being naturally in fear.

There is no malice in that and why she has been charged with manslaughter

To say a woman, on entering a house to find an intruder would not fear her life was in danger or that she could be raped. Simple do not know what they are talking about. Espically with the crime rate in the US. Espically someone who has just worked a 15 hour shift. Again when people face a situation, adrenaline kicks in and its fight or flight.

This is even more aparant when you watch the actually video and see this release with her being upset on the phone calling emergency services.

Its seems very clear to me. The very fact she was new to the appartments. Being cleary very tired after working 15 hours. Being that she parked on the wrong floor. This was a terrible mistake by the officer. You certainly do not call the emergency services when there is malice.

Hence the views being made by Quill, simple have little sense and only do with a complete bias against the Police and especially the southern Police

Like I said, there is countless occasions where intruders have been shot in homes, by the owners. Because people are in fear of their lives.

The claim on conspiracy also has no bases and in fact this officer could still be charged with murder. The reality is, this seems like a dreadful mistake. Which I think the Police force as a whole should take some responsibility. If officers are having to work such long hours. Its how mistakes happen in hospitals when nurses and doctors work such long hours.

To me a look to ensure no officer works more than 10 hours a day, should be common practice.

Didge wrote:No, that is someone being naturally in fear.

There is no malice in that and why she has been charged with manslaughter

To say a woman, on entering a house to find an intruder would not fear her life was in danger or that she could be raped. Simple do not know what they are talking about. Espically with the crime rate in the US. Espically someone who has just worked a 15 hour shift. Again when people face a situation, adrenaline kicks in and its fight or flight.

This is even more aparant when you watch the actually video and see this release with her being upset on the phone calling emergency services.

Its seems very clear to me. The very fact she was new to the appartments. Being cleary very tired after working 15 hours. Being that she parked on the wrong floor. This was a terrible mistake by the officer. You certainly do not call the emergency services when there is malice.

Hence the views being made by Quill, simple have little sense and only do with a complete bias against the Police and especially the southern Police

Like I said, there is countless occasions where intruders have been shot in homes, by the owners. Because people are in fear of their lives.

The claim on conspiracy also has no bases and in fact this officer could still be charged with murder. The reality is, this seems like a dreadful mistake. Which I think the Police force as a whole should take some responsibility. If officers are having to work such long hours. Its how mistakes happen in hospitals when nurses and doctors work such long hours.

To me a look to ensure no officer works more than 10 hours a day, should be common practice.

But in this case she was the intruder and she shot the person who was in his own home.

I wonder if she has been tested for alcohol.....it just doesnt sound like a thing a normal intelligent person would do.

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:No, that is someone being naturally in fear.

There is no malice in that and why she has been charged with manslaughter

To say a woman, on entering a house to find an intruder would not fear her life was in danger or that she could be raped. Simple do not know what they are talking about. Espically with the crime rate in the US. Espically someone who has just worked a 15 hour shift. Again when people face a situation, adrenaline kicks in and its fight or flight.

This is even more aparant when you watch the actually video and see this release with her being upset on the phone calling emergency services.

Its seems very clear to me. The very fact she was new to the appartments. Being cleary very tired after working 15 hours. Being that she parked on the wrong floor. This was a terrible mistake by the officer. You certainly do not call the emergency services when there is malice.

Hence the views being made by Quill, simple have little sense and only do with a complete bias against the Police and especially the southern Police

Like I said, there is countless occasions where intruders have been shot in homes, by the owners. Because people are in fear of their lives.

The claim on conspiracy also has no bases and in fact this officer could still be charged with murder. The reality is, this seems like a dreadful mistake. Which I think the Police force as a whole should take some responsibility. If officers are having to work such long hours. Its how mistakes happen in hospitals when nurses and doctors work such long hours.

To me a look to ensure no officer works more than 10 hours a day, should be common practice.

But in this case she was the intruder and she shot the person who was in his own home.

I wonder if she has been tested for alcohol.....it just doesnt sound like a thing a normal intelligent person would do.

I agree she was the intruder, but is it the case because she was tired and going to the wrong flat, she thought it was her home?

She is being tested for drugs and alcohol

I mean Syl I am open to many theories on this, though have reasoned my views as to what I think has happened. I could well be wrong, but I find arguments made from bias by one poster here,  very poor.

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:


But in this case she was the intruder and she shot the person who was in his own home.

I wonder if she has been tested for alcohol.....it just doesnt sound like a thing a normal intelligent person would do.

I agree she was the intruder, but is it the case because she was tired and going to the wrong flat, she thought it was her home?

She is being tested for drugs and alcohol

I mean Syl I am open to many theories on this, though have reasoned my views as to what I think has happened. I could well be wrong, but I find arguments made from bias, poor.

Its an unusual case thats for sure.

How long had she lived in that apartment, has it said?
There are also conflicting stories on whether the apartment door was open or unlocked, or whether she did put her key in the lock....if she did she would have had trouble opening the door, so how did she get in?

Also, it's a bit odd not to notice a red doormat outside ….she didnt have a doormat.

I think a sober person, no matter how tired they are, would have been alerted to an open door...or a door that wouldnt open with their door key, and a red mat that wasnt hers.

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


I agree she was the intruder, but is it the case because she was tired and going to the wrong flat, she thought it was her home?

She is being tested for drugs and alcohol

I mean Syl I am open to many theories on this, though have reasoned my views as to what I think has happened. I could well be wrong, but I find arguments made from bias, poor.

Its an unusual case thats for sure.

How long had she lived in that apartment, has it said?
There are also conflicting stories on whether the apartment door was open or unlocked, or whether she did put her key in the lock....if she did she would have had trouble opening the door, so how did she get in?

Also, it's a bit odd not to notice a red doormat outside ….she didnt have a doormat.

I think a sober person, no matter how tired they are, would have been alerted to an open door...or a door that wouldnt open with their door key, and a red mat that wasnt hers.

I think I read she had lived there a month

I agree there is conflicting accounts on whether the door was open, or her key in the lock

Its easy for people to say in hindsight why something like a doormat was not seen, and why I take into account the fact she had worked a 15 hour shift.

Its known she did park on the floor above her appartment. If she is tired and this was the first mistake, driving up one extra floor. Its not then impossible for her to have gone to the wrong flat.

Hence my view is over wanting to know how many longs shifts she had worked. People tired can play havoc and now why we have laws on long distance lorry drivers. Only allowed to drive 10 hour stints a day with breaks

If the dorr was open, I think this could have alerated her more to a fear, thinking it was her own home. To then see someone inside then has the mass rush of adrenaline kick in fear.

In reality she should have backed away and called for back up

It could also be a conspiracy for example a woman in Ireland became fed up of her husband, not exciting enough for her, so she spent her married life seeing other men,
One day, her husband's birthday she suddenly became very loving and took him out for drinks, he didn't drink much but she kept plying him with drinks. When they got home two men burst in and attacked the husband tying him up and as it turned out was suffocated with a plastic bag and his body stuffed into the car and disposed off. The wife was supposedly tied up but managed to pull the phone down and call the police, she was
apparently frantic then quiet when she thought the operator had gone then back to hysterical when it turned out she hadn't. It turned out she was the one that put the bag on her husband's head and had told her lover horror stories of how badly her husband treated her and had beaten her so badly she'd lost her lover's twin babies, all lies, he had got his friend to help out but she was the mastermind. Her story was mistaken identity by a drug gang. Once the police really began investigating the story just fell apart, must have seemed like a great idea at the time. Once her phone was investigated that was it.

Vintage wrote:It could also be a conspiracy for example a woman in Ireland became fed up of her husband, not exciting enough for her, so she spent her married life seeing other men,
One day, her husband's birthday she suddenly became very loving and took him out for drinks, he didn't drink much but she kept plying him with drinks. When they got home two men burst in and attacked the husband tying him up and as it turned out was suffocated with a plastic bag and his body stuffed into the car and disposed off. The wife was supposedly tied up but managed to pull the phone down and call the police, she was
apparently frantic then quiet when she thought the operator had gone then back to hysterical when it turned out she hadn't. It turned out she was the one that put the bag on her husband's head and had told her lover horror stories of how badly her husband treated her and had beaten her so badly she'd lost her lover's twin babies, all lies, he had got his friend to help out but she was the mastermind. Her story was mistaken identity by a drug gang. Once the police really began investigating the story just fell apart, must have seemed like a great idea at the time. Once her phone was investigated that was it.

There is loads of possibilities Vintage and that is a very interesting case. Though here, there seems to be no evidence that they knew each other. Again she had only moved there a month ago. Unless she was paid to assassinate him, but then why would any one want him dead?

Too many unawsered questions and sometimes the simplest explanations like exhaustion end up being the real reason

Who knows, but I will look with interest when this case goes to court

So is this apartment directly above her own?

If it is and the corridors are identical, and the door was open or unlocked, and she did fail to see a red doormat outside....yes, putting myself in her shoes in the middle of the night I can see how she would be so scared she would draw out her gun.
But she shot an unarmed man....one who it seems posed no threat to her.
I did read she had shot and killed a man previously, maybe that case should be looked at closely too.

edit….just checked, the man she shot in 2017 survived.

Didge wrote:No, that is someone being naturally in fear.

It doesn’t matter. The law mandates that to have a weapon, one has an affirmative duty not fire solely out of fear, or any other irrational mental state.

In fact, the law imposes an affirmative duty on one with a firearm to only fire when there is clear, demonstrable evidence providing grounds to fear for your life, or the life of another.

That is why she is being charged with murder. In the US there are three kinds of murder: (1) with malice aforethought; (2) fit of passion; (3) manslaughter. The fact that she knew someone was in there, and fired without hesitation, means she murdered with malice afore thought. She is being under-charged with manslaughter, favoring her undoubtedly due to being a cop.

You might remember the Oscar Pistorius case, where he tried to argue that he wasn’t guilty because the wrong person was shot? The court said, it doesn’t matter. Someone died, and his firing the gun caused it. When Pistorius argued that he fired in fear, the court said it didn’t matter.

I was wondering why my Wife kept filling up my glass the other night !

nicko wrote:I was wondering why my Wife kept filling up my glass the other night !

Fortunately for you, the other guys kept nipping sips too.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:No, that is someone being naturally in fear.

It doesn’t matter.  The law mandates that to have a weapon, one has an affirmative duty not fire solely out of fear, or any other irrational mental state.

In fact, the law imposes an affirmative duty on one with a firearm to only fire when there is clear, demonstrable evidence providing grounds to fear for your life, or the life of another.

That is why she is being charged with murder.  In the US there are three kinds of murder: (1) with malice aforethought; (2) fit of passion; (3) manslaughter.  The fact that she knew someone was in there, and fired without hesitation, means she murdered with malice afore thought.  She is being under-charged with manslaughter, favoring her undoubtedly due to being a cop.

Actually you are incorrect. An officer has a right to fire, if in fear of their lives

And this would be a very good ground to fear, if as believed, she felt she was in her appartment and there was an intruder there. You cannot discount the factor of fear with somebody in belief there are in their own flat and there is an intruder there. Also its claimed she did call out and he did not respond and she fired. To me due to exhusation and adrenaline, she paniced. You can train soldiers and police to the best possible standards, but you can never account for how they will act when faced with a possible threat. Its is why officers are generally given the benefit of the doubt in such situations. As they should be.

She is not being charged with murder but manslaughter

In this case she is guilty of manslaughter, as she is in the wrong flat. What has to be assertained as why she ended up there.

Didge wrote:Actually you are incorrect. An officer has a right to fire, if in fear of their lives

Isn't that what I just said???

The fact is, she had no grounds to fear for her life or the life of another. Reasonable apprehension, or a fearful state of mind doesn't work. You must have factual grounds to have the fear, and the fear must be for your life, or the life of another.

She knew she was murdering someone, and had no articulated grounds.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Actually you are incorrect. An officer has a right to fire, if in fear of their lives

Isn't that what I just said???

The fact is, she had no grounds to fear for her life or the life of another.  Reasonable apprehension, or a fearful state of mind doesn't work.  You must have factual grounds to have the fear, and the fear must be for your life, or the life of another.

She knew she was murdering someone, and had no articulated grounds.

But that is your subjective opinion, never facing the conditions of this situation that she claims to have faced

I mean look at the bias from you throughout this entire debate Quill.

You have ignored the reality of exhuastion working a 15 hour day.

That is an actual fact from this case

You seem to declare how and what people fear when faced with a possible threat, when it will be different dependent on the individual each time. Hence why any judge will factor in fear and how it effects people very differently. 

You do not factor in adrenaline. Nobody can control their adrenaline

You simple have made up your mind from the start this is murder and have done so on no evidence but conjecture and from a bias agaisnt the Police

Didge wrote:But that is your subjective opinion, never facing the conditions of this situation that she faced

Nope, it's the law in the US.

Law Enforcement: deadly force wrote: The statutory standards allow an officer to use deadly physical force when the officer reasonably believes it is necessary to (1) defend himself or herself or a third person from the use or imminent use of deadly physical force or (2) arrest or prevent the escape of someone the officer reasonably believes has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the infliction or threat of serious physical injury,

General fear doesn't cut it.  At best, here apprehenseion goes to a burglary in progress...burglary is larceny, not physical injury.

Despite America's affinity for guns, the authorities take murder quite seriously.  You'd better have your facts lined up if plan one.  Her facts don't align.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:But that is your subjective opinion, never facing the conditions of this situation that she faced

Nope, it's the law in the US.

Law Enforcement: deadly force wrote: The statutory standards allow an officer to use deadly physical force when the officer reasonably believes it is necessary to (1) defend himself or herself or a third person from the use or imminent use of deadly physical force or (2) arrest or prevent the escape of someone the officer reasonably believes has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the infliction or threat of serious physical injury,

General fear doesn't cut it.  At best, here apprehenseion goes to a burglary in progress.
Burglary is larceny, not physical injury.

Despite America's affinity for guns, the authorities take murder quite seriously.  You'd better have your facts lined up if plan one.  Her facts don't align.

That backs up what I have been saying and why generally the benefit of the doubt is given to officers when they fire their weapons, from a view to be in fear of their lives.

So again you are being subjective on fear.

Now can you discount the possibility that a woman on finding an intruder in their home would not be in fear of their life or even to be raped?

Yes or no?

You cannot, as again nobody can predict how a person is going to react in such a situation and why again the home owner is given the benefit of the doubt when an intruder is shot in a home by the home owner

So it really does not matter what your subjective views on fear are.

What matters is the fear values of the individual

The biggest fault in your whole argument here, is she was not on duty and thus not acting as a cop, but as a civillian, who claimed to be in fear.

If something sounds unlikely and causes too many questions, it’s usually not totally true.

Didge wrote:That backs up what I have been saying and why generally the benefit of the doubt is given to officers when they fire their weapons, from a view to be in fear of their lives.

There is no "doubt" or deference when it comes to murder. Well, perhaps perhaps there is in the UK. I can well imagine a Bobby saying S'cuse me, while mowing down a crowd.

But, in the US one must have articulated facts to back up a fear. That is the exact meaning of "reasonable" fear: reason means facts to substantiate:

Wiki wrote:Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard of proof in United States law that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch'"; it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts"...

The Dallas cop knew she was murdering someone, and had no basis in fact for her fear.

Didge wrote:That backs up what I have been saying and why generally the benefit of the doubt is given to officers when they fire their weapons, from a view to be in fear of their lives.

You want to commit murder, and plead benefit of the doubt??  You sound just like that spoiled brat, Oskar Pistorius, who pleaded honest mistake.

I know, while you plead benefit of the doubt, suppose we give you the lethal injection and the crowd chants oops, oops, oops, my bad...in unison?  

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:That backs up what I have been saying and why generally the benefit of the doubt is given to officers when they fire their weapons, from a view to be in fear of their lives.

There is no "doubt" or deference when it comes to murder.  Well, perhaps perhaps there is in the UK.  I can well imagine a Bobby saying S'cuse me, while mowing down a crowd.  

But, in the US one must have articulated facts to back up a fear.  That is the exact meaning of "reasonable" fear: reason means facts to substantiate:

Wiki wrote:Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard of proof in United States law that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch'"; it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts"...

The Dallas cop knew she was murdering someone, and had no basis in fact for her fear.

Yes I know they have ideas on fear and why officers tend to be given the benefit of the doubt

Again an intruder in a home, is going to place resonable fear in the home owner

That is beyond dispute

This would be the case, if for example the victim here had instead of shot the officer when entering his home

And I bet if that was the case, you would have backed the view of this man being in fear of his life and not based off hindsight in this case

You then end with conjecture again based on a bias and no matter how many times you say it. Does not mean that is the case

At least I keep an open mind on this, where you have immediately assumed guilt, not on the known facts of the case, but skin colour and a bias of the police

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:That backs up what I have been saying and why generally the benefit of the doubt is given to officers when they fire their weapons, from a view to be in fear of their lives.

You want to commit murder, and plead benefit of the doubt??  You sound just like that spoiled brat, Oskar Pistorius, who pleaded honest mistake.

I know, while you plead benefit of the doubt, suppose we give you the lethal injection and the crowd chants oops, oops, oops, my bad...in unison?  

So this another fine example of you lying and mud slinging

Which means you cannot counter my points and resort to infantile tactics

I warned you what would happen when you do this

You are now out of the debate with me

When you wish to rejoin and act with maturity, let me know

Thanks for your input

"Majurity?" I'll stick with the minurity, thank you.

Awww...wassamatta, did Oskar get caught pulling nuggy? He wants to commit murder, and get the benefit of the doubt?

Sorry pal, the law only works one way. No special exceptions for Oski, or anyone else.

eddie wrote:If something sounds unlikely and causes too many questions, it’s usually not totally true.

What do you based that on Eddie?

There is generally loads of questions to criminal acts committed

I think in this case, the reason is, there has been so little information, being as most of the information has come from the offender.

Didge wrote:

eddie wrote:If something sounds unlikely and causes too many questions, it’s usually not totally true.

What do you based that on Eddie?

There is generally loads of questions to criminal acts committed

I think in this case, the reason is, there has been so little information, being as most of the information has come from the offender.

This is the email I sent to Dallas PD the morning after the shooting. I have yet to receive any reply:

Good morning, I have some questions about this incident, which I understand is under investigation:

* Can you identify the officer yet?

* Can you release information about where she was/ what she was doing before entering the apartment?

* Can you release information about approximately how long she was inside the apartment before the shooting happened?

* Has the officer explained how she made entry into an apartment that wasn't hers at 10 p.m.?

* Has the officer explained how she got confused about which apartment was hers?

* Can you release information regarding whether the officer knew the man she shot?

Keep on it Ben.  I'm proud of you.  If they give you evasive, or non-answers, you'll at least confirm their desire to cover up.

Now, let's do a parallel list of questions on what Mr. Jean was working on at Price Waterhouse Cooper.  Do they know?  Have the police looked into it?  If not, why not?  You needn't inform Dallas PD why you want to know...they will quickly understand.  If they refuse, or say it's irrelevant, you will know something is amiss.

Then, you might go ask Price Waterhouse Cooper themselves...you may get surprised.  Contact the family's lawyer, S. Lee Merritt...he may have already done some of the leg-work.  Remember the advice in the novel Sand Pebbles, hammer, hammer, hammer...

In any event, watch your back.  I always worked with Peter Lewis, of the Seattle Times, when I did something like this.  Also SA Tim Healy, of the FBI.  He looked after my back on every adventure.  

Original Quill wrote:Keep on it Ben.  I'm proud of you.  If they give you evasive, or non-answers, you'll at least confirm their desire to cover up.

Now, let's do a parallel list of questions on what Mr. Jean was working on at Price Waterhouse Cooper.  Do they know?  Have the police looked into it?  If not, why not?  You needn't inform Dallas PD why you want to know...they will quickly understand.  If they refuse, or say it's irrelevant, you will know something is amiss.

Then, you might go ask Price Waterhouse Cooper themselves...you may get surprised.  Contact the family's lawyer...he may have already done some of the leg-work.  Remember the advice in the novel Sand Pebbles, hammer, hammer, hammer...

In any event, watch your back.  I always worked with Peter Lewis, of the Seattle Times, when I did something like this.  Also SA Tim Healy, of the FBI.  He looked after my back on every adventure.  

It would be a fun adventure but alas, we work shifts and at our editor's direction, and he took me off of this one after I broke it and gave it to somebody else. It was okay, though, I got to spend the rest of the day in one of my favorite places, the Fort Worth Stockyards.

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Keep on it Ben.  I'm proud of you.  If they give you evasive, or non-answers, you'll at least confirm their desire to cover up.

Now, let's do a parallel list of questions on what Mr. Jean was working on at Price Waterhouse Cooper.  Do they know?  Have the police looked into it?  If not, why not?  You needn't inform Dallas PD why you want to know...they will quickly understand.  If they refuse, or say it's irrelevant, you will know something is amiss.

Then, you might go ask Price Waterhouse Cooper themselves...you may get surprised.  Contact the family's lawyer...he may have already done some of the leg-work.  Remember the advice in the novel Sand Pebbles, hammer, hammer, hammer...

In any event, watch your back.  I always worked with Peter Lewis, of the Seattle Times, when I did something like this.  Also SA Tim Healy, of the FBI.  He looked after my back on every adventure.  

It would be a fun adventure but alas, we work shifts and at our editor's direction, and he took me off of this one after I broke it and gave it to somebody else. It was okay, though, I got to spend the rest of the day in one of my favorite places, the Fort Worth Stockyards.

What are you going to do about that? It wouldn't hurt to have a conversation with the Jean family attorney, S. Lee Merritt...off the record, of course.

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:

Didge wrote:


What do you based that on Eddie?

There is generally loads of questions to criminal acts committed

I think in this case, the reason is, there has been so little information, being as most of the information has come from the offender.

This is the email I sent to Dallas PD the morning after the shooting. I have yet to receive any reply:

Good morning, I have some questions about this incident, which I understand is under investigation:

* Can you identify the officer yet?

* Can you release information about where she was/ what she was doing before entering the apartment?

* Can you release information about approximately how long she was inside the apartment before the shooting happened?

* Has the officer explained how she made entry into an apartment that wasn't hers at 10 p.m.?

* Has the officer explained how she got confused about which apartment was hers?

* Can you release information regarding whether the officer knew the man she shot?

Is this not the same for all the media sources?

I think you will find it is.

Maybe you should have tried the Texas Rangers, who were investigating the case?

It was handed off to the Texas Rangers because they wanted to put a lid on it. Trust me.

Ben, is your editor against a little free-lancing? I've always worked alone, anyway. Or do you think the paper has been told to shut it down in no uncertain terms. That would make me even more suspicious.

Original Quill wrote:It was handed off to the Texas Rangers because they wanted to put a lid on it.  Trust me.

Ben, is your editor against a little free-lancing?  I've always worked alone, anyway.  Or do you think the paper has been told to shut it down in no uncertain terms.  That would make me even more suspicious.

Conjecture based on zero evidence and also not supported by the facts

As she has now been charged with manslaughter

Amber Guyger Fallout: How Common Is Police Crime?

The federal government doesn’t track incidents, but I do.

In the latest shooting to outrage the nation, Amber Guyger, an off-duty Dallas police officer, claims she walked into the wrong apartment in the building where she lives and pointed her gun at Botham Shem Jean, thinking that he was an intruder. Guyger then shot and killed Jean. By all accounts, Jean was doing nothing wrong. He was simply at home minding his own business.

As a country, we used to ignore police crime. That changed in August 2014, when an officer in Ferguson, Missouri, killed Michael Brown, an unarmed teenager. Yet the government hasn’t caught up to public interest. Former FBI Director James Comey went so far as to say in 2016 that “Americans actually have no idea” how often police use force, because the federal government has not bothered to collect the relevant data. Although the FBI now plans to track the number of people killed by police across the United States, by early 2018 only 1,600 of the more than 18,000 state and local law-enforcement agencies had agreed to submit data for the project. And initial data collection had not yet commenced.

More than a decade ago, I decided to start my own research database on crime by law-enforcement officials. It’s expansive. It includes information on more than 12,000 policemen and policewomen arrested for one or more crimes since 2005. Some of the crimes are serious felonies, such as robberies, rapes, and murders. Many are less serious misdemeanors, such as disorderly conduct. (A searchable version of the database is publicly available for the years 2005 to 2013.) My student research assistants use media reports and court records to track incidents and outcomes—that is, whether the officers are found guilty and what consequences they face, if any. The database isn’t comprehensive, but it’s better than nothing—which is what the federal government offers.

A prominent policing scholar once wrote that “law enforcement is exempt from law enforcement,” meaning that police officers do not like to arrest other police officers. In my experience, most people assume that police crime is rare. Occasionally they read an article in their hometown newspaper or watch a story on the evening news about a local police officer who’s been charged with a crime. It seems unusual. What they don’t realize is that, every night, people across the country encounter similar stories. Only when we aggregate police crime from all over the United States does the extent of the problem become apparent.

So, what are we dealing with?

More than 900 police officers are arrested each year, and roughly 60 percent of all crimes for which police are arrested occur while they’re off duty, as Guyger was when she shot Jean. Nationwide, there were 5,475 cases of officers arrested for off-duty crimes in the years 2005 to 2013. (That case number includes officers arrested more than once during the study years.)

More than half of off-duty crimes are violent (52 percent), and a large number of them are alcohol-related offenses (42 percent). Off-duty police officers commonly carry a handgun, so perhaps it’s not surprising that a significant number of the cases in my database (11 percent) involve an officer who used a firearm in the commission of an off-duty crime. In some of the cases, an off-duty officer used a police-issued firearm to settle an otherwise nonviolent dispute with family members, friends, or neighbors.  

More police officers are arrested each year for murder or manslaughter resulting from off-duty shootings than from on-duty shootings. That of course doesn’t mean that police are more likely to shoot someone while off duty, just that off-duty shootings are more likely than on-duty shootings to be considered criminal.

In the years 2005 to 2013, there were 56 police officers charged with murder or manslaughter resulting from an off-duty shooting, and 41 (73 percent) were convicted. During the same nine-year period, there were just 41 officers charged with murder or manslaughter resulting from an on-duty shooting, and only 21 (51 percent) were convicted.


The data suggest that we should discourage off-duty police from carrying guns. I used to work in law enforcement, and I know from experience that officers are socialized into a police subculture that is built around an us-versus-them mentality: Everyone but “us” is a potential threat. And police can’t just turn off this way of seeing when they go off duty. Perhaps that’s natural, and there’s nothing we can do about it—but our environment would be a lot safer for “them,” for the Botham Shem Jeans of the world, if cops seeing red didn’t carry guns.


https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/amber-guyger-fallout-how-common-is-police-crime/569950/



I am glad this criminologist has taken the time to gather this information


As it shows officers are actuallly convicted for a number of crimes. More than the media leads us to believe. It also shows that justice is being done in a number of case. It also shows that many of these shootings happen when officers are off duty.