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

[Whip]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I would have no reason to think the random lady walking in my apartment without announcing herself was a cop either.

exactly. since we're going far beyond absurd, it could have been a stripper a friend sent over. we're back to someone walking into his apartment that didn't belong there. there is no getting around that fact.

[newyorkguy]

Reportedly, and I can't find a news article, the two sisters or roommates who lived, I think, on Botham Jean's floor, only told the police immediately after the shooting, they heard two gunshots. Later, not sure how much later, the lawyer the Jean family hired, S. Lee Meritt, claimed the women heard much more.

Quote:

Merritt also noted that the two witnesses who claimed to have heard knocks on Botham’s door and a female voice shouting, “Open up. Let me in,” before shots were fired are female roommates and neighbors of Botham. Both roommates were home at the time, but one roommate was closer to the incident and told Merritt “the voice didn’t sound like an officer command; it sounded like someone who wanted to be let into the apartment,” the attorney said. The woman also told Merritt that after the gunshots she heard a man’s voice say, “Oh my god. Why did you do that?” Link

[JoeMorgue]

I would exercise caution in depending too much on eyewitness testimony of that nature. That sort of one step removed from the immediate area after the fact stuff is notoriously unreliable.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

You'd be fine if a reasonable person couldn't tell it was a police officer, either.

A fair judge is not going to rule against you if you get arrested for disobeying a police officer, and there is doubt about identification.

But most likely, the cop isn't going to pursue you for not stopping, unless he thinks a felony is involved.

It's not something that happens very often. Cops rarely just ask someone on the street to stop.

If they really want to find someone, they create a "check point" and force you to stop your car...which is another can of worms...

I'm really not concerned about a possible arrest for not obeying a lawful order I'm concerned about being killed for not following an order given by someone I didn't even realise was a police officer...

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I would exercise caution in depending too much on eyewitness testimony of that nature. That sort of one step removed from the immediate area after the fact stuff is notoriously unreliable.

It's even unreliably unreliable. Ambiguous tidbits of struggle overheard got George Zimmerman off.

I guess there is a reliable vein there of a sort, after all.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Whip

exactly. since we're going far beyond absurd, it could have been a stripper a friend sent over. we're back to someone walking into his apartment that didn't belong there. there is no getting around that fact.

And intentionally killing someone.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Wouldn't the "let me in" part be in the arrest warrant if it had been reported to the police and was credible?

It directly contradicts Guyger, and it would be evidence to show the judge to get the warrant.

The arrest warrant and the search warrant give two contradictory accounts:

Quote:

DALLAS An arrest affidavit for the off-duty Dallas police officer accused of killing Botham Jean contradicts a search warrant for his apartment. But police say evidence found at the scene confirms that Jean was across the room when he was shot.

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/l...218333735.html

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Interesting that she was still wearing her belt with sidearm. Looking for all intents and purposes like an on-duty cop. Would have assumed that would have been removed when off-duty, and she used a personal weapon.

Why? Her uniform includes her pistol, belt and related equipment, for which she is responsible. Why wouldn't it be with her?

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Why? Her uniform includes her pistol, belt and related equipment, for which she is responsible. Why wouldn't it be with her?

Locals in my neck of the woods leave them in a locker at their station. Common to see cops at the stores going off-duty in full uniform but no belt.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by Bob001

The arrest warrant and the search warrant give two contradictory accounts:

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/l...218333735.html

We already discussed the "contradiction" upthread. It isn't actually a contradiction and instead is about an ambiguously written sentence made by a desk cop.

"An unknown male, inside the apartment, confronted the officer at the door."

Jean wasn't at the door. Guyger was at the door.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

For a civilian, that would be a guaranteed conviction if you said that, unless the person was actually in your home, at night, with the lights off, and any reasonable person would have believed it was an intruder.

If you are actually dealing with an intruder in the USA, there's a good chance they are armed.

Ok what are the statistics on that? Most break ins are not armed after all so what is the good chance? And of course if you shoot your spouse well that is just plain funny. Better a dead spouse than not shooting an unarmed burglar.

This is why he was mistaken for not being armed and simply shooting her as soon as she opened the door. That is the true american way.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

We already discussed the "contradiction" upthread. It isn't actually a contradiction and instead is about an ambiguously written sentence made by a desk cop.

"An unknown male, inside the apartment, confronted the officer at the door."

Jean wasn't at the door. Guyger was at the door.

How far away can you be to confront someone?

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

We already discussed the "contradiction" upthread. It isn't actually a contradiction and instead is about an ambiguously written sentence made by a desk cop.

"An unknown male, inside the apartment, confronted the officer at the door."

Jean wasn't at the door. Guyger was at the door.

And he "confronted" her from a distance? Would standing up from his couch and saying "What the hell...?" be a confrontation?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

I didn't reference any unlawful commands as far as I can tell.

A cop might actually go to the wrong house for many reasons.

Said cop might order the occupant to stop approaching him, and get on the floor.

Those commands are lawful, aren't they?

Exactly all commands given by a cop are lawful, now drop your pants and squeal like a pig. If you don't the cop is right to kill you for not following orders.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Locals in my neck of the woods leave them in a locker at their station. Common to see cops at the stores going off-duty in full uniform but no belt.

In many parts of the country a cop wouldn't want to be identifiable as a cop without being visibly armed.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Guyger was clearly wrong, and I've given no hint that I think otherwise.

Mistaken, clearly she did nothing wrong.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Bob001

And he "confronted" her from a distance? Would standing up from his couch and saying "What the hell...?" be a confrontation?

Absolutely. He didn't immediately start following the instructions of the cop/not cop who had illegally and mistakenly entered his house hadn't given him yet. This obviously caused the police officer to fear for her life, at which point anything she does is legal.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by newyorkguy

Reportedly, and I can't find a news article, the two sisters or roommates who lived, I think, on Botham Jean's floor, only told the police immediately after the shooting, they heard two gunshots. Later, not sure how much later, the lawyer the Jean family hired, S. Lee Meritt, claimed the women heard much more.

Here is the report that says the two sisters each have their own apartment near Jean.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=685

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Cops maintain police authority even when off-duty. Off-duty cops apprehend suspects all the time. If she shouted an order, as claimed, she could easily be interpreted as invoking this authority. A defender acting in self-defense does not shout orders. They are firing to save themselves from imminent threat.

Like this heroic cop.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/07/u...gun-video.html

Nothing wrong or criminal about pulling a gun to threaten someone who legally purchased candy if you are an off duty cop for example.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Bob001

In many parts of the country a cop wouldn't want to be identifiable as a cop without being visibly armed.

I can see that. I actually like the removing of the belts when off-duty. Humanizes them, like being just another working guy who is not going to shoot you.

You know, unlike the OP.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

"you'll have to obey anything shouted at you by anyone who could be a serving police officer"

If they weren't in uniform, you'd have no reason to think they were a cop.

But they of course are still right to shoot you for not obeying.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Darat

I'm really not concerned about a possible arrest for not obeying a lawful order I'm concerned about being killed for not following an order given by someone I didn't even realise was a police officer...

We don't know what "lawful orders" she gave or how. We only know that as a veteran cop, she knew what to say to put herself in the best light. By her own account she shot at a silhouette across a dark room. Even if she had screamed "Police! Get on the floor!," did she give him enough time to comprehend what was happening? More likely he started to say something like "What's this about ....?" followed by "Bang! bang!"

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Here is the report that says the two sisters each have their own apartment near Jean.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=685

Your link says the sisters contradicted the police affidavit, not they contradicted any previous account they gave. It doesn't even say the police interviewed them.
https://www.star-telegram.com/news/l...218154635.html

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by Thermal

How far away can you be to confront someone?

There aren't really any distance limits. The term confront is generally about the situation being a face-to-face thing. But it might even extend to something like a telephone call. You can confront a person who you are talking to on the phone. The term is mostly (or even entirely) related to the nature of the interaction and not the distance between the interactors.

Originally Posted by Bob001

And he "confronted" her from a distance? Would standing up from his couch and saying "What the hell...?" be a confrontation?

Yes, that would fully comply with the definition of confrontation. An exception might be if he is aware of her presence but she is not (yet) aware of his presence. That situation might best be described as him confronting her but her not (yet) confronting him.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Your link says the sisters contradicted the police affidavit, not they contradicted any previous account they gave. It doesn't even say the police interviewed them.
https://www.star-telegram.com/news/l...218154635.html

Right, and I didn't say that my link would contain information about what the sisters said to the police. I posted it to newyorkguy because I didn't want anyone to think that I had invented the information about the sisters living separately. His link says that they are roommates while my link says that each has their own apartment.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

There aren't really any distance limits. The term confront is generally about the situation being a face-to-face thing. But it might even extend to something like a telephone call. You can confront a person who you are talking to on the phone. The term is mostly (or even entirely) related to the nature of the interaction and not the distance between the interactors.
.....

Yeah, except in this particular instance "confront" was used to justify her use of deadly force in the belief that she was in imminent danger. An angry phone call would be a different kind of "confrontation." If he was across the room she had time to withdraw, turn on the lights, shout more, etc., etc.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Yeah, except in this particular instance "confront" was used to justify her use of deadly force in the belief that she was in imminent danger. An angry phone call would be a different kind of "confrontation." If he was across the room she had time to withdraw, turn on the lights, shout more, etc., etc.

This is non sequitur for our current discussion.

Guyger was at the door. Jean was not at the door.

Guyger did not contradict herself in statements to the police. Instead a desk cop wrote a sentence which could be misunderstood as being a contradiction coming from Guyger.

Guyger didn't tell the police that Jean was at the door.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

I don't recall a detailed report on what the sisters did or didn't tell the cops, either.

Your premise, you cite it.

So away with your holier-than-thou "I guess you didn't read the thread" retorts.

"The law enforcement official said police spoke to one of those witnesses the night of the shooting and the witness did not offer that account to police. Law enforcement, however, is looking into those accounts."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1368

[Whip]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Locals in my neck of the woods leave them in a locker at their station. Common to see cops at the stores going off-duty in full uniform but no belt.

it might be a by department basis here in NJ. I know a town where the officers are not allowed to take home their municipal service weapon after shift. I had a friend that was a detective at another town that carried all the time but don't know if it was that town's issue or not.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Bob001

That's kinda interesting. Was it that they actually had their own house somewhere and were too drunk or disturbed to realize they were in the wrong place? Or was it something like "This is a blue house, and my voices told me I live in a blue house, so this must be my house." If he was really crazy I'm surprised he went to prison.

Crazy people go to prison all the time, in fact they are a increasingly dominant percent ot the prison population.

they were delusional, they believed it was their house.

NGRI, the Illinois statute is not always asked for or granted.

[Hungry81]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

I tried it, though.

What? you tried entering a strangers darkened room without notice and yelling ******** at their surprised and alarmed arse?

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by Bob001

The arrest warrant and the search warrant give two contradictory accounts:

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/l...218333735.html

Correct, and that's normal.

The arrest warrant was filed immediately by the Dallas PD, they considered Guyger the offender, and thus did not interview her because of the lack of legal representation.

The search warrant was made after interviewing Guyger.

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by Hungry81

What? you tried entering a strangers darkened room without notice and yelling ******** at their surprised and alarmed arse?

Yes, but I got shot. They didn't find me convincing.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally Posted by Darat

I'm really not concerned about a possible arrest for not obeying a lawful order I'm concerned about being killed for not following an order given by someone I didn't even realise was a police officer...

Under Texas law, a police officer must identify themself as a police officer prior to using force, except in certain circumstances where it is not possible (Texas Pen. 9.51(a)(2)).

Quote:

before using force, the actor manifests his purpose to arrest or search and identifies himself as a peace officer or as one acting at a peace officer's direction, unless he reasonably believes his purpose and identity are already known by or cannot reasonably be made known to the person to be arrested.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

We already discussed the "contradiction" upthread. It isn't actually a contradiction and instead is about an ambiguously written sentence made by a desk cop.

"An unknown male, inside the apartment, confronted the officer at the door."

Jean wasn't at the door. Guyger was at the door.

Actually, I think we previously got to the conclusion that the statement in the search affidavit was based on the statement by the neighbor in the hallway that she heard Guyger confronting a man at the door. The neighbor meant that Guyger was at the door, not the man. The police originally misinterpreted the statement thinking she meant the man was at the door. The neighbor later clarified that she meant Guyger was at the door and that she didn't know where the man was.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

The arrest warrant was filed immediately by the Dallas PD, they considered Guyger the offender, and thus did not interview her because of the lack of legal representation.

The police department did not interview her because there was a possibility of violating her 5th amendment rights against self-incrimination. Under the 5th amendment, the government cannot compel a person to testify against themselves. That means the government can't take any action against someone for refusing to testify.

But because the government grants certain authority to police officers, they lose a bit of that right. A police officer can be compelled to testify when force is used or face termination.

There was initially confusion about whether this was a police shooting or whether Guyger was acting as a citizen. If the police questioned her and later charged her as a civilian, she could claim that she thought she was being interviewed as an officer and was compelled to testify, even though she wasn't. That would throw a wrench into the investigation. that's a big reason why the Rangers were called in to take over.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

So why did the Rangers recommend manslaughter after their investigation?

Why do we still see a manslaughter charge in reports?

Do they not know the law?

As I've said, I think the reason manslaughter is still mentioned is simply because it is a lesser included offense that would be considered for any murder charge.

I still a bit baffled about the manslaughter charge on the arrest warrant. It may be that they thought it was the easiest way to get a warrant and that charging murder could cause delays and questions by the judge.

Politics and publicity may have also played a role. The Rangers knew it was likely the case would be taken over by a local DA. If they charged murder and the DA downgraded that to a lesser charge, it could cause the DA to lose public support (right before an election) and fan the flames of public outrage. It would put the DA in a tight spot. Starting with manslaughter cuts the DA some slack and allows the DA to upgrade to murder if she wants.

In a legal sense manslaughter doesn't seem to apply, but in a practical sense it worked.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Has there been a case where somebody walked into someone else's home, mistook them for an intruder, and shot them?

I think this is the only case. At least by a sober person. And where the mistaken belief appears to be credible.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

This is reaching the "I didn't rob the ATM I just mistook him for a Slot Machine" level.

I doubt any judge or jury would consider that to be a "reasonable belief".

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally Posted by 3point14

We can all do that!

"I'm sorry, your honour, I really thought it was my car and the key was broken, so I bypassed the alarm and hotwired it, but it was an honest mistake."

Possibly. But to be considered a mistake of fact it has to be a "reasonable belief" which means you would have to actually own a car that could be mistaken for the one you hotwired, explain why you would think that was your car when your car was somewhere else, actually have a broken key, and so on.

I've told the story here before about the time I stole a bike. I had a bike in college that was some cheap off-brand bike that had been in the family for about 15 years. The small dormitory I was in didn't have a bike rack, so I chained it up outside to a back stairway that was basically a fire exit.

One day I rode my bike into town to get some things and then rode back to one of the school buildings. A few days later I walked out the rear of the dorm and found my bike chained up inside to a radiator. Someone had taken the lock off my bike, moved it inside, and chained it up. I got some bolt cutters and freed my bike.

As I as riding across campus I stopped to chat with a friend. He asked about the bike because he had seen one just like it sitting behind one of the school buildings for the past few days. That's when it dawned on me: This isn't my bike! I had ridden the bike from town to the building. When I left the building I forgot that I had ridden my bike there and had walked home. My bike was still sitting behind the building.

By some weird coincidence, a person in my small dorm happened to have the same color off-brand 15-year-old bike that they chained up in a odd place that was right next to the odd place where I usually chained up my bike and had only done so (I had never seen the other bike there before) during the couple of days that I happened to have forgotten that I left my bike somewhere else.

Should I have gone to jail as a bike thief?

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate

Actually, I think we previously got to the conclusion that the statement in the search affidavit was based on the statement by the neighbor in the hallway that she heard Guyger confronting a man at the door. The neighbor meant that Guyger was at the door, not the man. The police originally misinterpreted the statement thinking she meant the man was at the door. The neighbor later clarified that she meant Guyger was at the door and that she didn't know where the man was.

I don't remember forum members coming to a conclusion or consensus on the "contradiction". I also don't remember a witness telling the press that she needed to make a clarification about something she said earlier. I need some help finding those things in this big thread.