Texas Cop Who Fatally Shot Man After Entering Wrong Apartment Identified

Very unlikely that it is deemed admissable.... it is highly prejudicial.

 

#1 Have you been living in a cave? It isn't baffling at all that the police are coming to her aid. That is arguably the biggest problem with the relationship between the police and the public. Consider this......... have you seen videos of obvious police misconduct, for example excessive force. Be it an officer drop kicking a suspect, a police dog attacking someone in a cell.... etc. We know that sometimes when there is video evidence a review board will have an officer suspended or even terminated..... but have you EVER seen a video where an officer confronts the officer exercising excessive force?.... or do they all just act like they did not see it.

#2 Bad government workers saved by unions? Is that really what you have gotten out of all of this? Are the unions on the juries and in the DA offices? Also, when I go into the post office I do not see particularly lazy or inefficient workers. It isn't any worse than waiting in line at a grocery store, and is a hell of a lot better than talking to a credit card company, or insurance company.

 

Absolutely right. We all know Stand Your Ground laws only apply when the black person ends up full of bullets, not the other way around.

 

How heartbreaking...

"The information received yesterday, to me, was worse than the call that I got on the morning of Friday, Sept. 7," Allison Jean said. "To have my son smeared in such a way, I think shows that the persons who are really nasty, who are really dirty and are going to cover up for the devil, Amber Guyger."

Here you have the mother who just lost her 26 year old son, saying that hearing the smear campaign of her son was actually worse than her getting the call to tell her that her son was murdered.

Let that sink in, what ruthless animals we have living among us. Have a modicum of decency, please.

This post is not directed to anyone on this board, I just hope that justice is served in this situation, after all of the [unbiased] facts are let out.

 

That's pointless....I know the norms of my country.

 

It always better to review the relevant section in full
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31 ;  and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force;  or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;  or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used;  and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

The self defense false apart cos she had no right to enter his apartment and can be said to have provoked him by entering his apartment unlawfully.

Her situation does not meet the minimum requirements. That she believed it to be er apartment does not give her the right to enter it e.g. driving away in car that is same color as yours is still theft

 

An interesting possibility that could connect them would be noise complaint or similar neighbor disturbance issues.

 

'Interesting that would explain a lot. She came home, he was making a lot of noise, she went up their to get him to quiet down, he open the door and said FU, and she shot him.

 

She seems to not like black people. Articles posted in this thread have yet to show a single picture of her with a black person - albeit, I have read the entire thread. The guy opens HIS door unarmed and likely greets the officer friendly. She shoots and kills him. I don't buy her story about his not cooperating with her orders. She also seems to have a history of a quick trigger. Were her other victims also non-white ?

Second degree murder sounds just, but I doubt it happens. Jean seems like a great guy too. Very sad occurrence.

 

Fair enough.

This is where intent comes into play, there was no intent to provoke, she was attempting to arrest what she believed to be an intruder.

This really is the state's strongest case for it being murder, but it is complicated by her being a police officer and the door according to her being left slightly ajar....a possible sign of a burglary, or at least that argument could be made to avoid criminal trespass charges which would mean that she had the right to be present at the location where the deadly force was used, that she didn't provoke the person, and that she wasn't engaged in criminal activity at the time. The rules are slightly different for police officers, even when they are off-duty....that's why this case is so odd. In a normal case, the trespassing would be a class B misdemeanor which would affect the self defense claim.....but she was a cop and that's potentially a factor.

I do like that you are making much better arguments now than you were before, that's progress. Keep it up.

 

Wait, so they found drugs 24 hours after he was killed in his own apartment, they got a search warrant for HIS apartment, not the murderer......and she had many sound complaints against the guy.

DD

 

It won’t. There isn’t a Judge that would let it in. It was released by the police to win public perception... which is absurd, but it is enough for the Fox crowd to call him a “thug” and move onto some other outrage perpetrated by poor people, black people, gay people or immigrants.

 

The law clearly does not require intent to provoke - but only if her action can be interpreted as an act of provocation. She has not stated that she entered in her capacity as a cop (i.e. declared herself) and thus her entering his apartment armed can be seen as an act of provocation

She cant eat her cake and have it. Even though she is a cop, she needs to be acting either in a her capacity as a cop or as a private citizen. She cant be both. She cannot claim that she entered the apartment cos she thought it was her own and then also justify her being there cos she is a cop and thought a potential burglary was in progress. She needs to pick one.

In the first case, it was not her apartment and thus she has no right to be there. Her believe is not of any use here otherwise the law would have been framed as "reasonable believe to have a right". She either has the right or does not, and in this case, she has no right. Also from the video of the apartment, it would have been easy for her to see it wasnt hers once she stepped in.

In the second case, she would have to claim to be acting in her capacity as a cop, and the door being ajar is not sufficient evidence to suspect a burglary in progress as she didnt say she saw any evidence of forced entry. It is a rented apartment and thus the property managers have a right to entry. Imagine a scenario where it was indeed her apartment, and a maintenance guy had gone in to fix an emergence gas/water leak in her apartment. She still wouldn't have a justification to shoot him unless she can show that at some point the maintenance guy became aggressive unprovoked.

At the end of the day, it would be a case of murder vs manslaughter, but there is really no basis for a self defense case. Being a cop does not give her (or anyone else) a license to kill.

Just stick to your usual propaganda posts.

 

Is bobthementalmidget defending the cop?

 

Did you see HP's post?

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/index.php...tment-identified.293306/page-10#post-11959315

 

Yes, but that proves nothing, with those types of doors if you give it that much room to gain momentum then they slam, but that doesn't mean that they can't be left ajar, it just means that they can't be left wide open.

That part of her story IMO is the most likely, she didn't have a key and he was pretty far in his apartment when shot so it's unlikely that he opened the door for her, walked back further into his apartment, turned around, and then was shot. Another possibility is that it was merely left unlocked and she's claiming it was slightly ajar but that's impossible to prove one way or the other unless you can prove that the door functioned so well that there's literally no way it was left ajar and in my experience with those types of doors, you can leave it slightly ajar if you don't just let the door slam back shut.

I think the most likely scenario is that the door was unlocked but closed, but good luck proving that.

 

According to an article I read dated yesterday, it's not known if they searched her apartment. But yes, they searched the scene of the murder.

Where did you read that there were many sound complaints by her?. Making up **** isn't helpful. I did read where she had things in her hands like her lunch box, duty bag and vest that indicated she was headed to her apartment not someone else's.

I read there were complaint's about mar1juana smell in the hallway that day. Maybe the PD was trying to rule in or out if that was a reason that she went to his door. Who knows. Maybe that's why she went there and maybe she did bang on the door as witnesses said. She could have thought her I was in the wrong apt excuse beat I shot a dude over weed smell in the hallway.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/14/us/botham-jean-dallas-shooting-amber-guyger.html