Cont: Man shot, killed by off-duty Dallas police officer who walked into wrong apartment p2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Distracted1 said:
Like The Constitution?

Any two Judges reading the text would come to the same conclusion as to its' meaning?
Click to expand...

Who said anything about the same conclusion?

Treating your analogy with more grace than it remotely deserves, we don't demand that only the people who debated the wording, wrote the final draft, and ratified it with a vote; be allowed to interpret the Constitution and rule on its meaning.

No, we agree that any reasonably competent and experienced jurist can render their own professional, expert opinion of the document.

Same thing here.
 
plague311 said:
They're going over trajectory and this angle is pretty tough to explain away. I mean, he had to be leaning over almost completely at the waist.

Holy ****

ETA: It really, really, really, really looks like he was starting to stand up.
Click to expand...

Or maybe heading down to the ground to duck?
 
plague311 said:
They're going over trajectory and this angle is pretty tough to explain away. I mean, he had to be leaning over almost completely at the waist.

Holy ****

ETA: It really, really, really, really looks like he was starting to stand up.
Click to expand...

Yep exactly the kind of thing that makes police fear for their lives.
 
plague311 said:
Bullet trajectory said he was shot as he was getting up, and then he took a few steps before collapsing. She was in the doorway and shot him in front of his TV, which was on and emitting light.

As tough as this witness is, he's still only getting her to the door. It doesn't rationalize what happened afterwards.
Click to expand...

They covered this last night in the recap. Botham fell backwards towards the couch i.e. his head was nearest to the couch with his feet furthest away. So it appears he did make some steps towards the door. Given the testimony I think Guyger shot him when his was getting up and he made a few steps before collapsing backwards.
 
plague311 said:
That could be possible, but the way it sounds the shots were fired too quick for him to have a reaction (all witnesses say bang, bang).

The defense is bringing up the ducking right now.
Click to expand...


There was also a witness(cited earlier in the thread) who heard Botham yell "what did you do that for?"
 
Elagabalus said:
They covered this last night in the recap. Botham fell backwards towards the couch i.e. his head was nearest to the couch with his feet furthest away. So it appears he did make some steps towards the door. Given the testimony I think Guyger shot him when his was getting up and he made a few steps before collapsing backwards.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much what the ME said as well.

The defense was going for, what I think Dr. Keith was saying, that he charged towards her, saw the gun, ducked, got shot and fell backwards. The ME kind of implied that if he had forward movement as to be rushing someone he wouldn't have fallen backwards. The "oompf" of the bullet wouldn't have been enough to throw a 247 lbs. 6' 1" man backwards if he had forward momentum.

Crime Scene Analyst on the stand now.
 
Elagabalus said:
They covered this last night in the recap. Botham fell backwards towards the couch i.e. his head was nearest to the couch with his feet furthest away. So it appears he did make some steps towards the door. Given the testimony I think Guyger shot him when his was getting up and he made a few steps before collapsing backwards.
Click to expand...

I was skeptical that Murder was really a reasonably possible outcome, but if they can convince the jury that Guyger shot him while he was standing up, that might be enough to bump a lesser charge up to something substantial.

Even bootlickers aren't going to like the idea of a cop gunning down a man on his own couch.
 
Prosecutor just pointed out that the TV and the laptop were emitting light directly at Jean (was mentioned earlier, confirmed by the analyst now).
 
Prosecutor showed a picture of Guyger with all of her gear on taken after she was arrested. First thing he shows is that she has a taser on her gear belt. Defense objected, got sustained, but the prosecutor rephrased and brought it up again. Just pointed out the pepper spray but can't get the witness to say it's pepper spray.
 
plague311 said:
Prosecutor showed a picture of Guyger with all of her gear on taken after she was arrested. First thing he shows is that she has a taser on her gear belt. Defense objected, got sustained, but the prosecutor rephrased and brought it up again. Just pointed out the pepper spray but can't get the witness to say it's pepper spray.
Click to expand...

What was the basis for the objection, and for sustaining it? I could imagine the prosecutor saying "Ma'am, were you wearing your full uniform and equipment?" "Yes." "What would that consist of?" What's the problem?
 
Bob001 said:
What was the basis for the objection, and for sustaining it? I could imagine the prosecutor saying "Ma'am, were you wearing your full uniform and equipment?" "Yes." "What would that consist of?" What's the problem?
Click to expand...

Objection because the defense claimed the prosecutor was testifying for the witness on the stand. He rephrased by circling items on Guyger's belt and asking the witness to identify them rather than him saying what they are.

"Can you tell this is a taser?" Objection, sustained.

_______________________________________________________

"Can you tell me what the circled item is?"

"It's a taser"
 
Prosecutor is basically walking the crime scene analyst through each and every little detail that's different between Guyger's apt and Jean's apt.

Jean liked red. There's a bright red stand in his apt as well.
 
plague311 said:
Prosecutor is basically walking the crime scene analyst through each and every little detail that's different between Guyger's apt and Jean's apt.

Jean liked red. There's a bright red stand in his apt as well.
Click to expand...

I'd like to know where the light switch is. I have never lived in or even stayed in a place that didn't have a light switch just inside the entrance. If most people thought something wasn't right as they entered their home, they would either back out or flip on the lights. Pulling a gun and opening fire is not -- usually -- the default action.
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
I'd like to know where the light switch is. I have never lived in a place that didn't have a light switch just inside the entrance. If most people thought something wasn't right as they entered their home, they would either back out or flip on the lights. Pulling a gun and opening fire is not -- usually -- the default action.
Click to expand...

They said that there was a light switch right inside.

Looking at the TV it looks like Jean was watching youtube rather than football. The conspiracy grows.
 
plague311 said:
They said that there was a light switch right inside.

Looking at the TV it looks like Jean was watching youtube rather than football. The conspiracy grows.
Click to expand...

Ah well, that changes everything. Maybe he was watching a video about how to be a burglar.
 
plague311 said:
That's pretty much what the ME said as well.

The defense was going for, what I think Dr. Keith was saying, that he charged towards her, saw the gun, ducked, got shot and fell backwards. The ME kind of implied that if he had forward movement as to be rushing someone he wouldn't have fallen backwards. The "oompf" of the bullet wouldn't have been enough to throw a 247 lbs. 6' 1" man backwards if he had forward momentum.

Crime Scene Analyst on the stand now.
Click to expand...

Nah, I was just saying if someone barged into my apartment I would stand up, but if they pulled a gun I would drop. Small target. That is all I would be thinking.

I agree with the ME that there is no way a pistol held by her would knock back a man his size if he had any forward momentum.
 
plague311 said:
They said that there was a light switch right inside.

Looking at the TV it looks like Jean was watching youtube rather than football. The conspiracy grows.
Click to expand...

The highlights are usually up on YouTube about 10 minutes after the game. Could've been watching those.
 
theprestige said:
Who said anything about the same conclusion?

Treating your analogy with more grace than it remotely deserves, we don't demand that only the people who debated the wording, wrote the final draft, and ratified it with a vote; be allowed to interpret the Constitution and rule on its meaning.

No, we agree that any reasonably competent and experienced jurist can render their own professional, expert opinion of the document.

Same thing here.
Click to expand...
Yet it would be preferable, if possible, to have the intent expressed directly from the mouth of the writer when in doubt, no?
 
Elagabalus said:
There was also a witness(cited earlier in the thread) who heard Botham yell "what did you do that for?"
Click to expand...
Was that the report?
I remember the discussion, but it is a lot of thread to comb through.
I remember someone reported hearing "why did you do that!?" Or a very similar question, but I don't remember if it was reported wether the voice was identified as a man's or a woman's'.
The event seems to lend credence to it being uttered by either of them.
 
Elagabalus said:
There was also a witness(cited earlier in the thread) who heard Botham yell "what did you do that for?"
Click to expand...

Have either of the Babbs sisters testified?

I suggested earlier in the thread that Bunny didn't really help because she essentially made her video and testimony something that the prosecution wouldn't want to touch.
 
Have they brought up the ice cream bowl?

Before the trial there was a picture and video that showed the bowl on an ottoman. My previous theory was that Jean stepped forward and was putting the bowl down and Guyger couldn't see what he was doing behind the counter and thought he was reaching for a gun. But that was based on the wrong apartment layout where there the living room is enclosed with a wall. And I haven't heard about anything at trail where Guyger claims she though he was reaching for a weapon.

But I'm curious where the bowl ended up. If it was on the ottoman, I think it was more likely that Jean stood and placed it there before he was shot.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
Have they brought up the ice cream bowl?

Before the trial there was a picture and video that showed the bowl on an ottoman. My previous theory was that Jean stepped forward and was putting the bowl down and Guyger couldn't see what he was doing behind the counter and thought he was reaching for a gun. But that was based on the wrong apartment layout where there the living room is enclosed with a wall. And I haven't heard about anything at trail where Guyger claims she though he was reaching for a weapon.

But I'm curious where the bowl ended up. If it was on the ottoman, I think it was more likely that Jean stood and placed it there before he was shot.
Click to expand...
This is some serious Kremlinological bull crap right here.
 
quadraginta said:
Is there some reason the jury can't find for a lesser offense?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure. Lesser offenses are often included, but either side could object to having those allowed. Many news reports say the jury will decide among murder or lesser charges, but I don't trust the news. I have not heard anything on whether the court has actually ruled on that issue.

Has the court ruled on any instructions to the jury regarding mistake of fact, self-defense, or castle law? I haven't heard anything, so I'm not sure if that was addressed in a previous hearing or if they are waiting until after evidence to address that.
 
plague311 said:
The defense was going for, what I think Dr. Keith was saying, that he charged towards her, saw the gun, ducked, got shot and fell backwards.
Click to expand...

That's different from he defense's opening argument. They said he could not have been crouching. They said he was bending over at the waist looking down at the gun.

But Jean ducking down is at least possible. Guyger walks in. Jean sees her as the door closes. She's in the dark. He doesn't see her uniform or gun. He starts walking toward her to confront her. When he gets close enough, he see the gun. He crouches down to duck out of the way. So when she shoots the bullet enters at a downward trajectory.

But Guyger shot him in the heart. I assume that is where she was aiming. That would mean that she shot him after he ducked. He was crouching down. In a defensive position. Not coming at her. Not threatening her life.

plague311 said:
The "oompf" of the bullet wouldn't have been enough to throw a 247 lbs. 6' 1" man backwards if he had forward momentum.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is any "oompf" from a bullet. The movies always show a bullet hitting someone and they going flying backward. That doesn't happen in real life. A bullet has almost no backward force compared to a person. Mythbusters did a show on that.
 
My guess is Jean was sitting with his ice cream on the couch. He has his earbuds in, listening to whatever (the tv in the crime scene video showed a JFK show I think), and he sees the light start coming in the door. At this point, Guyger has tried the lock (which Jean didn't hear because of the earbuds) and is pushing the door open, noticing it's ajar. She pulls her gun as she opens the door, she sees Jean in the living room (the tv and laptop both had light that would cause her to look in his direction immediately (I'm not positive here, laptop could have been in "sleep" mode and dark but the family said he played fantasy. He could have been checking his team)). By this time he's put his ice cream down and pushes himself forward as he starts to stand up. She shoots, hits him and causes him to stagger and take a step forward, which results in her missing the second shot. He crouches as he collapses, sliding backwards at the same time.

The issues I have, start with that there was a light directly over Jean's door. As she opened the door there's no reason the light wouldn't have lit the big mess from behind her, forward. There's also a red stand, no endtable with bright flowers and a few other things in the background. She's 5'2" and the light was up top. It would have filled his apartment in front of her, that's basic lighting. No matter what happened before... this specific point should have made her stop and take inventory. She would have light shining on at least 30% of the room and Jean was a straight up slob.

The prosector should continue to downplay how she got to the wrong place and play up her actions once at the door big time.

I ESPECIALLY liked the repeated times the prosecutor pointed out she had a taser and pepper spray.
 
Last edited:
plague311 said:
.....
The issues I have, start with that there was a light directly over Jean's door. As she opened the door there's no reason the light wouldn't have lit the big mess from behind her, forward.
....
Click to expand...

It should be noted that from Jean's perspective, Guyger would have been silhouetted by the light behind her. He would have seen her shape, but probably not her uniform and maybe not her upraised gun. So when a stranger burst into his apartment screaming "Don't move! Put your hands up! Get on the ground! Put your hands behind your head!," etc., if that's really what she did, his natural reaction would have been to stand up and say "What the hell..?" Bang, bang.
 
I have a terrible suspicion that pondering.. satire is going to be proven rather close to the bone. I think her being a police officer is going to be used to explain why she didn't react the way we would expect a reasonable non police officer to act. Her "training" took over because she thought it was a hostile situation, whereas thee and me may have hesitated in such a situation and therefore had time to think, her incredibly honed reactions as part of her police training meant she was like a coiled viper, instantly ready to act in a hostile situation.
 
Darat said:
I have a terrible suspicion that pondering.. satire is going to be proven rather close to the bone. I think her being a police officer is going to be used to explain why she didn't react the way we would expect a reasonable non police officer to act. Her "training" took over because she thought it was a hostile situation, whereas thee and me may have hesitated in such a situation and therefore had time to think, her incredibly honed reactions as part of her police training meant she was like a coiled viper, instantly ready to act in a hostile situation.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately tend to agree tbf


****** up if it happens
 
Darat said:
I have a terrible suspicion that pondering.. satire is going to be proven rather close to the bone. I think her being a police officer is going to be used to explain why she didn't react the way we would expect a reasonable non police officer to act. Her "training" took over because she thought it was a hostile situation, whereas thee and me may have hesitated in such a situation and therefore had time to think, her incredibly honed reactions as part of her police training meant she was like a coiled viper, instantly ready to act in a hostile situation.
Click to expand...

I would hope that the prosecution is aware of this strategy and drives home the point that lethal action is not the first step in police training - which I think is being done by pointing that she had other means at hand. Should continue to point out that other means were available and that her training should have allowed her to better assess the situation before immediately going for her gun.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I mean... maybe.

Again I'm still of the mindset that if (g)we accept she missed the floor, floor number, door mat, and flowers then... hell she could have walked fully into the apartment, made a snack, took a quick shower, and still not realized it wasn't her apartment.
Click to expand...

Yeah, mistake of fact is a powerful drug.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom