ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old Yesterday, 02:44 PM   #2321
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 22,230
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
Here it seems possibly to be about statements made? Possibly during booking?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slvKflzvAWU
I've watched this a couple of times and that definitely seems to be the case.

It sounds to me like the police chief is saying that Guyger made statements at some point that were initially kept from the principal case investigators due to legal protections against self-incrimination, but have since been given to them, and this firing is a consequence of that?

If those statements were made during booking, after her arrest on September 9, then perhaps it is something about these statements that was found to have been the "adverse conduct". Perhaps she lied, or changed her story?
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002

Last edited by Checkmite; Yesterday at 02:46 PM.
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:05 PM   #2322
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,649
Originally Posted by CNN
An internal affairs investigation concluded that Guyger "engaged in adverse conduct when she was arrested for manslaughter" on September 9, according to a statement released on DPD's verified Twitter account. Dallas Police Department spokesman Sgt. Warren Mitchell later specified that the "adverse conduct" was the arrest itself.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/24/us/da...ean/index.html

This suggests that simply being arrested for manslaughter is enough to fire a cop.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:22 PM   #2323
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,440
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
If the jury believes her side of the story, plus this being Texas, I really really doubt she's convicted.
Although, as far as I can tell, Texas has no exceptions to at-will employment, so if she isn't, she probably won't be able to sue for unfair dismissal.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:12 PM   #2324
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 14,710
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
I've watched this a couple of times and that definitely seems to be the case.

It sounds to me like the police chief is saying that Guyger made statements at some point that were initially kept from the principal case investigators due to legal protections against self-incrimination, but have since been given to them, and this firing is a consequence of that?

If those statements were made during booking, after her arrest on September 9, then perhaps it is something about these statements that was found to have been the "adverse conduct". Perhaps she lied, or changed her story?
I too suspect that some of her statements subsequently made available to the police department are what led to her firing. And the standards to remain a police officer are typically higher than those required to simply avoid a criminal conviction. I believe a majority of the police implicated in the many recent accusations of unjustified shootings have been fired even though very few have suffered criminal penalties.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:23 PM   #2325
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,649
Could delays in arresting her and/or firing her have any relation to the exact timing of when her Miranda Rights were read?

I don't really know how that all works but some articles are now talking about self-incriminating statements. There must have been some of those before her Miranda Rights.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:49 PM   #2326
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,649
Originally Posted by CNN
Guyger was fired during a hearing Monday, Dallas Police Chief Ulysha Renee Hall said. Jean's mother, Allison, learned of Guyger's termination during a Sunday evening conference call with Hall, family attorney S. Lee Merritt said Monday.

"She also offered an explanation of why it took so long, explaining that she had to consider Ms. Guyger's Fifth Amendment protections specifically so that her termination action wouldn't compromise the criminal matter and lead to, really, the criminal allegations being thrown out altogether," he told CNN.

The Fifth Amendment prohibits self-incrimination and double jeopardy, and guarantees due process for those accused of crimes...
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/24/us/da...ean/index.html

This suggests to me that she couldn't be fired until they were certain that she had not incriminated herself.

I can't find anything suggesting that she was fired because she lied at any point. In reality, it may be that investigators believe that everything she ever said about this is true. They may now have the data from the door locks and it looks like her testimony is true. But they just had to make absolutely certain that she had not self-incriminated because if she did and they proceed they could lose everything against her.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:06 PM   #2327
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 29,098
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/24/us/da...ean/index.html

This suggests to me that she couldn't be fired until they were certain that she had not incriminated herself.

I can't find anything suggesting that she was fired because she lied at any point. In reality, it may be that investigators believe that everything she ever said about this is true. They may now have the data from the door locks and it looks like her testimony is true. But they just had to make absolutely certain that she had not self-incriminated because if she did and they proceed they could lose everything against her.
I'm not sure self incrimination actually works that way. People have the right not to self incriminate but they can choose to do so anyway. If it's an informed choice, then it can be used against them in court.

The whole point of the Miranda warning is to prevent the defendant from claiming in court that they were unaware of the right and didn't make an informed choice.

But it's hard for a police officer, accustomed to issuing the warning, to claim that she was unaware of her rights when she made her statements.

ETA: In fact, I seem to remember a judge recently ruling that Miranda is now so embedded in the popular culture that suspects can be reasonably expected to know their rights even without the customary warning.

Last edited by theprestige; Yesterday at 05:08 PM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:10 PM   #2328
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 20,308
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
Wasn't the victim's laptop broken? That would be one way that could happen without him having got it repaired or binned..
I speculated way back in the thread, due to a news report, that her other bullet hit the laptop.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:12 PM   #2329
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 20,308
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/24/us/da...ean/index.html

This suggests to me that she couldn't be fired until they were certain that she had not incriminated herself.

I can't find anything suggesting that she was fired because she lied at any point. In reality, it may be that investigators believe that everything she ever said about this is true. They may now have the data from the door locks and it looks like her testimony is true. But they just had to make absolutely certain that she had not self-incriminated because if she did and they proceed they could lose everything against her.
If that were the case, then it would seem like they would not charge her...
They must believe that she believed she was at her own front door.

The Grand Jury has the final say anyway, so why charge her and book her?
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:14 PM   #2330
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,649
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
I speculated way back in the thread, due to a news report, that her other bullet hit the laptop.
The only silver lining for me in this whole thing is the idea that she may have also shot and killed Windows 10.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:14 PM   #2331
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 20,308
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/24/us/da...ean/index.html

This suggests to me that she couldn't be fired until they were certain that she had not incriminated herself.

I can't find anything suggesting that she was fired because she lied at any point. In reality, it may be that investigators believe that everything she ever said about this is true. They may now have the data from the door locks and it looks like her testimony is true. But they just had to make absolutely certain that she had not self-incriminated because if she did and they proceed they could lose everything against her.
How can they be certain that she has not implicated herself? They can't know what evidence or witnesses Jean's attorneys may have.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:16 PM   #2332
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 20,308
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
The only silver lining for me in this whole thing is the idea that she may have also shot and killed Windows 10.
I've been a Win10 beta tester for a long time now and I absolutely love it.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:16 PM   #2333
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,649
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
If that were the case, then it would seem like they would not charge her...
They must believe that she believed she was at her own front door.

The Grand Jury has the final say anyway, so why charge her and book her?
Not charge her? Well maybe they believe that her story is true and that her story describes a manslaughter.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:19 PM   #2334
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 20,308
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Not charge her? Well maybe they believe that her story is true and that her story describes a manslaughter.
How does it look if the GJ differs, though?

It won't look good if the GJ differs either way with a charge.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:25 PM   #2335
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 22,181
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
I've been a Win10 beta tester for a long time now and I absolutely love it.

Be careful not to stand silhouetted in your apartment. At least with the door ajar.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:32 PM   #2336
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,649
LTC, I don't know how to answer your questions. I don't know much about self-incrimination and how it relates to pursuing prosecution and the details about firing a cop. But it does seem from my article reading, that it was very important to get the ducks in a row before firing her.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:24 PM   #2337
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 22,992
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
I wonder why didn't empty her gun into the guy as cops sometimes do. Maybe after the second shot she realized her mistake?
I'm guessing this too, though of course it's all speculation. I suspect that she came into the apartment with gun at the ready, gave the bewildered victim no reasonable time to respond, shot him hastily, and then tuned in a bit to the surroundings and realized too late that she was in the wrong place.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:38 PM   #2338
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,649
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
I'm guessing this too, though of course it's all speculation. I suspect that she came into the apartment with gun at the ready, gave the bewildered victim no reasonable time to respond, shot him hastily, and then tuned in a bit to the surroundings and realized too late that she was in the wrong place.
I think that in this scenario she has to secretly pray that he doesn't survive and go on to testify at her trial.

Or, does she not have to pray or even care if he survives and contradicts her because Castle Doctrine combined with mistake-of-fact lets her just kill him immediately and it doesn't matter if she lied about it?

I don't know. But I think that if she is telling a pack of lies to 911 and the first responders she is also hoping that he doesn't survive.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:43 PM   #2339
Thermal
Illuminator
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 4,163
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Okay this has approached level of absurdity that shouldn't t be possible.

You're not talking intent or even motivation but some vague concept of what they hoped would happen.

So the apologetics now being applied to this case AND THIS CASE ONLY WHICH TOTALLY ISN'T A FACTOR AND DON'T YOU DARE BRING IT UP is that she shot at the defenseless guy sitting in the (variable level of dark) in his own home with the full expectation that that would probably kill him but if we got a goddamn Care Bear up here to look into her soul she didn't want the guy to die which means... something.
...

wut?

Quote:
So basically at this point "She took an action that any reasonable person would know would most probably result in death but didn't want him to die?" is where we are at?
Hilited is straw. What you want is irrelevant; you may want the attacker to be slow roasted with his testicles in his mouth. It is what you actally try to do that is significant, whether trying to simply stop him, or intentionally trying to end his life.

There is a reason why US law bends over backwards to not say 'you can kill someone'. Instead, they say 'use force, including lethal force/force which may be lethal'. You can suggest that with a wink-wink it really means kill at will, but I think the distinction is important. Yes, a reasonable person knows that the force may very well be fatal, but the distinction between 'may/likely to be fatal' and 'imma make sure it is fatal' is no hair-split. It's intent, which is the difference between an unintended and a deliberate killing.
__________________
I am looking for other websites; you suck. -banned buttercake aficionado yuno44907
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:47 PM   #2340
Thermal
Illuminator
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 4,163
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Yet again: in most cases these two outcomes are coincident. Shooting a person enough to stop them from attacking is highly likely to lead directly to their death, and in fact does so a substantial amount of the time - enough to make an attacker's death the most reasonably expected outcome of self-defense with a gun. I don't know why you so adamantly refuse to acknowledge the truth of this; but it remains true.
Yes, it is likely. But if it was not the intent, it is excusable under all laws I am aware of. If it was the intent, it's another crime.

Ask a cop, or a lawyer, when a civilian is legally allowed to kill with intent. The answer is 'never'
__________________
I am looking for other websites; you suck. -banned buttercake aficionado yuno44907
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:27 PM   #2341
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,528
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Yes, it is likely. But if it was not the intent, it is excusable under all laws I am aware of. If it was the intent, it's another crime.
....
What's excusable? Shooting somebody deliberately is intent to kill. That's how somebody's whose victim survives would be charged. You don't get to say "I shot him because I was mad/scared/confused, but I never wanted him to die!" This cop intended to kill the guy as she squeezed the trigger.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:57 PM   #2342
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,073
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
What's excusable? Shooting somebody deliberately is intent to kill. That's how somebody's whose victim survives would be charged. You don't get to say "I shot him because I was mad/scared/confused, but I never wanted him to die!" This cop intended to kill the guy as she squeezed the trigger.
And why people are charged with attempted murder when their victim survives a gunshot.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:07 PM   #2343
DevilsAdvocate
Illuminator
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,862
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/24/us/da...ean/index.html

This suggests to me that she couldn't be fired until they were certain that she had not incriminated herself.

I can't find anything suggesting that she was fired because she lied at any point. In reality, it may be that investigators believe that everything she ever said about this is true. They may now have the data from the door locks and it looks like her testimony is true. But they just had to make absolutely certain that she had not self-incriminated because if she did and they proceed they could lose everything against her.
I think you are reading way too much into it. This strikes me as a case where everybody wants her fired and a lawyer has to waffle around to find some justification. They have a conflict where an internal investigation would require the government to compel her to testify about the incident, but she has a constitutional right not to testify against herself in a criminal trial. Compelled testimony for an internal investigation could leak into the criminal investigation because the people involved with the internal investigation are also involved with the criminal investigation.

My guess is that some lawyer came up with a Byzantine house-of-cards justification for the firing that hinged on the arrest in some legally technical way.

I interpret it as: The city wanted to fire her and this is what was needed to do that legally. I doubt we can read any more into it than that.
__________________
Heaven forbid someone reads these words and claims to be adversely affected by them, thus ensuring a barrage of lawsuits filed under the guise of protecting the unknowing victims who were stupid enough to read this and believe it! - Kevin Trudeau
DevilsAdvocate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 01:14 AM   #2344
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,073
I think the police force was wrong to fire her at this stage. The internal investigation should also have been postponed until after the issue of a criminal prosecution is determined and until after any trial.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 02:00 AM   #2345
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,528
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I think the police force was wrong to fire her at this stage. The internal investigation should also have been postponed until after the issue of a criminal prosecution is determined and until after any trial.
Why? Suppose she's found at trial to be not criminally responsible? You think she should keep her job? The police dept. can certainly say "We don't want someone on the force who kills people so easily." The can say "We can't employ a cop who's been charged with manslaughter." Her fitness for duty is separate from whether she goes to prison. The police can fire her for exaggerating her overtime or sleeping on the job. They can certainly fire her for killing somebody.

Last edited by Bob001; Today at 02:01 AM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:39 AM   #2346
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,073
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Why? Suppose she's found at trial to be not criminally responsible? You think she should keep her job? The police dept. can certainly say "We don't want someone on the force who kills people so easily." The can say "We can't employ a cop who's been charged with manslaughter." Her fitness for duty is separate from whether she goes to prison. The police can fire her for exaggerating her overtime or sleeping on the job. They can certainly fire her for killing somebody.
If she is found not guilty of manslaughter/negligence etc. by a court then she should not lose her job on those grounds. It is not for a HR department to disagree with a court of law.

There may be other reasons why she could be sacked, for instance she may not have been meant to be carrying her work gun home and so on.

I'd like to know on what grounds she was sacked.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:49 AM   #2347
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 16,919
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I think the police force was wrong to fire her at this stage. The internal investigation should also have been postponed until after the issue of a criminal prosecution is determined and until after any trial.
To be found in violation of a use of force policy has a lower standard than conviction of a crime. You can be found innocent and still not in compliance with departmental/agency policy. One presumes that the investigation into this use of force determined it was not consistent with policy. I should think that would be an offense worthy of termination of employment.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:09 AM   #2348
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 20,308
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
LTC, I don't know how to answer your questions. I don't know much about self-incrimination and how it relates to pursuing prosecution and the details about firing a cop. But it does seem from my article reading, that it was very important to get the ducks in a row before firing her.
It's odd. I'm sure I read initially that they said they could not fire her yet.

I don't know what may have changed.

Anyone know what DPS use of deadly force rules are?
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:40 AM   #2349
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,341
I'm guessing she told them she wasn't on anything , and they came back with ambien or alcohol on the tox report.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:41 AM   #2350
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,341
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
...


There is a reason why US law bends over backwards to not say 'you can kill someone'. Instead, they say 'use force, including lethal force/force which may be lethal'. You can suggest that with a wink-wink it really means kill at will, but I think the distinction is important. Yes, a reasonable person knows that the force may very well be fatal, but the distinction between 'may/likely to be fatal' and 'imma make sure it is fatal' is no hair-split. It's intent, which is the difference between an unintended and a deliberate killing.
Yep, this is why they fired that police chief who was telling his officers, that the city pays less when they kill a perp, than when they just wound a perp.

You can't SAY you're shooting to kill, but you can shoot to kill as long as it's in the name of shooting to stop the threat.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 06:10 AM   #2351
bignickel
Mad Mod Poet God
 
bignickel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 3,126
Another point that irks me is regarding all those who claim that “she thought she was in her apartment, so Castle doctrine”

YOU are responsible for what’s in your own head; you are responsible for what you think. If you ignore all the clues and red rugs that reality is throwing at you, and believe something else anyway that goes against all evidence in front of your eyes, then YOU are responsible for the things you do in based on your beliefs

To do otherwise opens a can of worms the size of the solar system , as one person after claims they killed/injured a weapon wielding thug , a bear, or demon possessed person, really, just about anything.

Unless you can make that a Mission Impossible scenario was run on you, if you’re using lethal force on someone, you better make sure that your beliefs about the situation match reality pretty close.
__________________
"You can find that book everywhere and the risk is that many people who read it believe that those fairy tales are real. I think I have the responsibility to clear things up to unmask the cheap lies contained in books like that."
- Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone
bignickel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 06:16 AM   #2352
SuburbanTurkey
Muse
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 504
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
To be found in violation of a use of force policy has a lower standard than conviction of a crime. You can be found innocent and still not in compliance with departmental/agency policy. One presumes that the investigation into this use of force determined it was not consistent with policy. I should think that would be an offense worthy of termination of employment.
Yeah, professional conduct often requires more than "don't break the law". Sleeping on the job isn't a crime, but is certainly a fireable offense. It is certainly desirable for a police department to expect more from it's officers in regards to use of force than "don't commit criminal homicides/batteries".
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:06 AM   #2353
TomB
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 422
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
It's odd. I'm sure I read initially that they said they could not fire her yet.

I don't know what may have changed.
If I had to guess, I would say that it has to do with procedures under the department's contract with the police union.

Which isn't unique.

Many civil service systems (police or not) require a formal process for termination. It doesn't mean you can't fire anyone, just that there's meetings, paperwork, and stuff to do with the employee having rights to representation (usually from the union) and appeal.

The police unions, I think usually have a clause where they can't be interviewed about a shooting without a union rep present. I'm not sure if that applies here as she was off duty and was not acting in an official capacity.
TomB is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:13 AM   #2354
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 20,308
It seems unlikely that the criminal investigation is completed, though.

Quote:
Previously, Hall said she could not fire Guyger before the completion of an administrative investigation.

Her chief of staff, Thomas Taylor, said that an administrative investigation was on hold until a criminal investigation into Guyger was complete.

Thursday, Hall said she did not want to risk interfering with the criminal investigation by making a decision about Guyger’s employment.

“As an employer, DPD can compel Officer Guyger to provide a statement during a DPD administrative investigation and those statements given to DPD could potentially compromise the criminal investigation,” Hall said in a written statement.
https://www.star-telegram.com/news/l...218927790.html
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:31 AM   #2355
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,649
Originally Posted by bignickel View Post
YOU are responsible for what’s in your own head; you are responsible for what you think. If you ignore all the clues and red rugs that reality is throwing at you, and believe something else anyway that goes against all evidence in front of your eyes, then YOU are responsible for the things you do in based on your beliefs
Everyone is certainly responsible for the things that they do. But I feel a need to make a distinction here. What your eyes see and what your conscious mind "sees" are two different things. We can be thankful that evolution created that separation because for it to be otherwise we would lead lives that would be some form of continuous nightmare.

Her eyes most probably saw the red rug but her conscious mind did not. Her eyes most probably saw that she was driving to and ended up on the fourth floor parking but her conscious mind did not. These things that we call mistakes do not require alcohol or drugs in order to happen. They only require the person to be a human. Think about yourself and how you have made similar mistakes in a completely sober and undrugged state. You learn afterwards that you made this "bone-headed" mistake and yet you are at a complete loss of words to explain it. You can't explain how it happened because you really don't know how it happened. Saying "I must be an idiot" is not a factual explanation. Saying "I must be a human" is much closer to the truth.

Nonetheless, we are to be responsible for our actions and non-actions.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:45 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.