Man shot, killed by off-duty Dallas police officer who walked into wrong apartment p3

theprestige said:
On the subject of prosecuting a "mistake": As a kid, I'd sometimes have this kind of exchange with my mom:

"I didn't mean to!"

"I need you to mean NOT to."

And then I'd get consequences. Not so much for the mistake as such, but for not doing my due diligence and avoiding the mistake.

It makes a lot of sense to me that even though Guyger never intended to kill Jean in his home, and even though doing so was a horrible mistake, she was criminally negligent in allowing circumstances to progress to the point where the mistake was made.
Click to expand...

To me, if you are going to carry a gun then it is your responsibility to be pretty damn sure about when and where you use it. In other words, I would put a higher level of due diligence on someone who carries a gun, especially if they do it every day.
 
Dr. Keith said:
To me, if you are going to carry a gun then it is your responsibility to be pretty damn sure about when and where you use it. In other words, I would put a higher level of due diligence on someone who carries a gun, especially if they do it every day.
Click to expand...


And this touches on the main reason why I, despite having grown up with firearms and having been shooting since I was nine, have never owned a firearm for the purpose of self defense, and have never even considered getting a permit to carry. I don't think my judgement is sharp enough in the "is it legal and moral to kill this person in front of me" area, and if the person in front of me does intend me harm then my hesitation would most likely end up with them taking my gun and shooting me with it.

I simply do not want to have to make such grave calculations in such critical circumstances. Then again I've also never felt the need to broadcast what a thin blue line badass I am on social media.
 
Thermal said:
This one has the makings of a new Knox thread at this point

Eta: your edit: same answer, I think
Click to expand...

Not even close. The Knox thread has been going on for a decade and is still going. Much to my chagrin.
 
Joe Random said:
And this touches on the main reason why I, despite having grown up with firearms and having been shooting since I was nine, have never owned a firearm for the purpose of self defense, and have never even considered getting a permit to carry. I don't think my judgement is sharp enough in the "is it legal and moral to kill this person in front of me" area, and if the person in front of me does intend me harm then my hesitation would most likely end up with them taking my gun and shooting me with it.

I simply do not want to have to make such grave calculations in such critical circumstances. Then again I've also never felt the need to broadcast what a thin blue line badass I am on social media.
Click to expand...

Sounds like my reasoning for the same.

Teaching my kids gun safety and the rules of hunting was enough stress that I really don't have much need to be around guns anymore. But, I still like to eat venison, so I will likely shoot another few deer before I give up completely.
 
Belz... said:
Could still be manslaughter, no?
Click to expand...

I think it could've been manslaughter, but I don't pretend to understand Texas law.

Overall, I think it was an acceptable result because the Jean family seemed okay with it. I care only about them, really.
 
Dr. Keith said:
Sounds like my reasoning for the same.

Teaching my kids gun safety and the rules of hunting was enough stress that I really don't have much need to be around guns anymore. But, I still like to eat venison, so I will likely shoot another few deer before I give up completely.
Click to expand...

But you will make reasonable efforts to be sure that it really is a deer, not grandma in her shabby brown coat, right?
 
theprestige said:
Talk about what? It's not too early to make a prediction.
Click to expand...

I don't think so.

There were 3 trials and three separate appeals and 3 separate rulings from Italy's highest court each overturning the previous ruling. The European Court of human rights even got involved and said Italy violated Knox's civil rights. The legal wrangling went on for a dozen years and still isn't done. There was talk of orgies, seduction, rape and more. Laws from three different countries, and subjects of different races so race became a factor. Then there were questions about whether the US would extradite her. And people took sides to an absurd degree.

People say you can't predict the future. That is nonsense. We do it all the time. We're not always right but if I could I'd bet the farm that this thread peters out long before it is broken up into ten parts let alone making it to 30.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
....
People say you can't predict the future. That is nonsense. We do it all the time. We're not always right but if I could I'd bet the farm that this thread peters out long before it is broken up into ten parts let alone making it to 30.
Click to expand...

Not much can be compared to the Knox case. But it's a safe bet that Guyger's lawyers will pursue appeals, and every step will be treated as newsworthy. There will also be news about the pending civil suit. Plenty to debate.
 
Bob001 said:
Not much can be compared to the Knox case. But it's a safe bet that Guyger's lawyers will pursue appeals, and every step will be treated as newsworthy. There will also be news about the pending civil suit. Plenty to debate.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think that there really isn't that much to debate, but that won't stop people from debating it anyway.
 
Bob001 said:
Not much can be compared to the Knox case. But it's a safe bet that Guyger's lawyers will pursue appeals, and every step will be treated as newsworthy. There will also be news about the pending civil suit. Plenty to debate.
Click to expand...

It just doesn't have the variety of elements. Hell, it doesn't even have any real question of fact. For me, I see legitimate discussions about race and how we sentence suspects not to forget the issues regarding police. But beyond that, there is nothing to keep people passionately arguing.
 
When I turned on the TV to watch the news, I saw the last few minutes of a Dr. Phil show. He had been interviewing the Jury members from this case. I did hear them speak for a moment about this being a "landmark case". I brought this up early on in this discussion, and as I recall, there were some who questioned if that was correct, others I believe, agreed, or didn't comment. But I do see this has a type of harbinger that will effect Law Enforcement and help protect future victims in a positive way.

I believe the show with the jury will air again Monday a.m., and I would like to see it in its entirety.
 
wasapi said:
When I turned on the TV to watch the news, I saw the last few minutes of a Dr. Phil show. He had been interviewing the Jury members from this case. I did hear them speak for a moment about this being a "landmark case". I brought this up early on in this discussion, and as I recall, there were some who questioned if that was correct, others I believe, agreed, or didn't comment. But I do see this has a type of harbinger that will effect Law Enforcement and help protect future victims in a positive way.
Click to expand...

No chance, and here's why: If Guyger had been on duty, gone to the wrong apartment while serving warrants, and shot an innocent, unarmed black man, it would never have gone to trial. The only reason she lost out on the standard cop benefit of doubt is that she wasn't on duty.
 
Dr. Keith said:
To me, if you are going to carry a gun then it is your responsibility to be pretty damn sure about when and where you use it. In other words, I would put a higher level of due diligence on someone who carries a gun, especially if they do it every day.
Click to expand...

This. When you strap on a gun, you assume responsibility for the safety of everyone in the max kinetic range of that bullet and none of them get a say in that. So yes everyone else has a right to expect more from you than the average person.
 
Craig4 said:
This. When you strap on a gun, you assume responsibility for the safety of everyone in the max kinetic range of that bullet and none of them get a say in that. So yes everyone else has a right to expect more from you than the average person.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup: Very well said.

But a person carrying a firearm is still human and humans make mistakes.
 
acbytesla said:
:thumbsup: Very well said.

But a person carrying a firearm is still human and humans make mistakes.
Click to expand...

Indeed. But when deciding to toss a life ending tool around, there is no margin for error. They should be treated essentially the same as someone who murders with intent.

No innocent should be viewed as an inevitable whoopsie, when that gun did not need to be fired AT ALL FOR ANY REASON. This was not a battlefield where collateral damage must be expected. This was an elective shooting. You play with the lives of others, you pay.
 
Another point that I'm not sure has been discussed: If police officers are allowed (or even required) to carry their weapons even when off duty, then they must also be required to follow department procedure even when off duty. So the fact that "I was off duty; it was my home" is no excuse for the fact that she didn't call for backup before going in and engaging the "intruder."

Further, another point that I don't recall having seen mentioned is the fact that her apartment was on the third floor meant that the "intruder" wasn't going anywhere; it's not like he could run out the back door. So she really had no excuse at all.
 
SpitfireIX said:
Another point that I'm not sure has been discussed: If police officers are allowed (or even required) to carry their weapons even when off duty, then they must also be required to follow department procedure even when off duty. So the fact that "I was off duty; it was my home" is no excuse for the fact that she didn't call for backup before going in and engaging the "intruder."

Further, another point that I don't recall having seen mentioned is the fact that her apartment was on the third floor meant that the "intruder" wasn't going anywhere; it's not like he could run out the back door. So she really had no excuse at all.
Click to expand...

They are allowed but definitely not required. My best friend is a cop, his sister is a cop, his father in law is a cop and two brothers in law are cops and none of them carry when off duty. My best friend either leaves his firearm in his locker at the station or in a gun safe at home.

Some officers do carry when off duty though.
 
acbytesla said:
They are allowed but definitely not required. My best friend is a cop, his sister is a cop, his father in law is a cop and two brothers in law are cops and none of them carry when off duty. My best friend either leaves his firearm in his locker at the station or in a gun safe at home.

Some officers do carry when off duty though.
Click to expand...


It depends on the agency. Some do require off-duty carry; including most federal law-enforcement agencies.
 
SpitfireIX said:
It depends on the agency. Some do require off-duty carry; including most federal law-enforcement agencies.
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of that. Do you have any references for that? I do know that Police officers in New York going to and from their job are often in uniform and are armed when they are. But I know a few FBI officers too, in fact I play golf regularly with one and he's never packing. I can't see how they can make it mandatory when you're not working.
 
SpitfireIX said:
Another point that I'm not sure has been discussed: If police officers are allowed (or even required) to carry their weapons even when off duty, then they must also be required to follow department procedure even when off duty. So the fact that "I was off duty; it was my home" is no excuse for the fact that she didn't call for backup before going in and engaging the "intruder."

Further, another point that I don't recall having seen mentioned is the fact that her apartment was on the third floor meant that the "intruder" wasn't going anywhere; it's not like he could run out the back door. So she really had no excuse at all.
Click to expand...


Well we mow know she liked posting violent memes on social media, which might have been considered posturing but when she'd already shot one person in a situation where other police officers saw no need to, and where she'd also made racist comments in text, it suggests she'd have welcomed the chance to shoot - especially if they were black.
 
Witness murdered.

From CNN, a witness for the prosecution in this case was murdered at his home, which is across the hall from the earlier victim. Today. Shot several times, including in the mouth.
 
wasapi said:
From CNN, a witness for the prosecution in this case was murdered at his home, which is across the hall from the earlier victim. Today. Shot several times, including in the mouth.
Click to expand...

Other sources say he was living in another apartment five miles away, and was ambushed in the parking lot
 
Thank you for the clarification. It seems less and less that this was connected to the trial. If not for the fact his name is tied to the case, he would just be another statistic of gang violence.
 
BTW the claims that he was shot in the mouth are disputed and there has been no claim from authorities that it was gang related (other than the not so meaningful use that multiple shooters could be referred to as a "gang"). News reports describe this victim as a college educated former football player turned entrepreneur managing multiple Airbnb properties.
 
acbytesla said:
I'm not aware of that. Do you have any references for that? I do know that Police officers in New York going to and from their job are often in uniform and are armed when they are. But I know a few FBI officers too, in fact I play golf regularly with one and he's never packing. I can't see how they can make it mandatory when you're not working.
Click to expand...


I have to admit that my information may be out of date. I have a friend from high school who was an ATF agent, and then an armed Postal Inspector's agent. He told me he was required to carry off duty, unless on vacation or leave. This was about 10 years ago, however.

I'll see if I can find some authoritative sources.
 
acbytesla said:
I'm not aware of that. Do you have any references for that? I do know that Police officers in New York going to and from their job are often in uniform and are armed when they are. But I know a few FBI officers too, in fact I play golf regularly with one and he's never packing. I can't see how they can make it mandatory when you're not working.
Click to expand...

Well here is a case involving if off duty cops are legally allowed to threaten people with guns with out consequence like on duty cops.

https://www.deseret.com/2018/4/30/20644213/firearm-case-could-affect-all-utah-police-officers

This permits the carry everywhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safety_Act

As for required, that would be agency policy. So you could get fired for not carrying but would not likely be open to criminal charges.
 
Belz... said:
I was looking for a non-facetious answer, actually. I'm not a Texas attorney.
Click to expand...

The way that Texas law is written, manslaughter is not appropriate. Manslaughter, in Texas, is "recklessly or carelessly" causing death, like an accident. Murder is "intentionally causing death".

Simply put, there is nothing accidental about pointing a gun at someone, intentionally firing, and causing death. The death was intentional. So the choice is between Murder or some valid self-defense claim, which failed. The law is not really written to allow hedging with manslaughter. The legally rigorous interpretation would be either Murder, or acquittal.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
The way that Texas law is written, manslaughter is not appropriate. Manslaughter, in Texas, is "recklessly or carelessly" causing death, like an accident. Murder is "intentionally causing death".

Simply put, there is nothing accidental about pointing a gun at someone, intentionally firing, and causing death. The death was intentional. So the choice is between Murder or some valid self-defense claim, which failed. The law is not really written to allow hedging with manslaughter. The legally rigorous interpretation would be either Murder, or acquittal.
Click to expand...

Yea the only way to have made a case for manslaughter would be to argue that the gun fired with out her intent to fire it. That she was merely intending to threaten him with it as is legal for the police but not regular citizens. But even she wasn't trying to argue this.

I mean I guess she could make the argument that she thought he was an escaped gorilla but again not likely to go over all that well.

To be manslaughter she would have had to not intentionally be firing at a person, and that isn't what happened and to stretch the case to make it just becomes ridiculous.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
The way that Texas law is written, manslaughter is not appropriate. Manslaughter, in Texas, is "recklessly or carelessly" causing death, like an accident. Murder is "intentionally causing death".

Simply put, there is nothing accidental about pointing a gun at someone, intentionally firing, and causing death. The death was intentional. So the choice is between Murder or some valid self-defense claim, which failed. The law is not really written to allow hedging with manslaughter. The legally rigorous interpretation would be either Murder, or acquittal.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
The way that Texas law is written, manslaughter is not appropriate. Manslaughter, in Texas, is "recklessly or carelessly" causing death, like an accident. Murder is "intentionally causing death".

Simply put, there is nothing accidental about pointing a gun at someone, intentionally firing, and causing death. The death was intentional. So the choice is between Murder or some valid self-defense claim, which failed. The law is not really written to allow hedging with manslaughter. The legally rigorous interpretation would be either Murder, or acquittal.
Click to expand...

Which was why some of us were sweating that Mistake of Fact angle, and the jury instruction to find not guilty if it was accepted to be reasonable that she went to the wrong apartment and thought Jean was an intruder.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Well here is a case involving if off duty cops are legally allowed to threaten people with guns with out consequence like on duty cops.

https://www.deseret.com/2018/4/30/20644213/firearm-case-could-affect-all-utah-police-officers

This permits the carry everywhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safety_Act

As for required, that would be agency policy. So you could get fired for not carrying but would not likely be open to criminal charges.
Click to expand...


It was an interesting article. I do think the article did make a false statement when it said "most" officers carry when they are off duty. I'm sure some do, but I don't think the author knew this...in fact, I don't know how anyone could know. My experience with officers is they like to put their job away when they're not working and packing a firearm would be a reminder.

We had an incident in the Seattle area where an off duty King County Detective pulled and even pointed his gun at a motorcycle rider. They suspended him for all of 5 days. The man should have been fired.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom