#651  
Old 10-08-2019, 11:33 PM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,802
I think she's a despicable murderer. But a ten year sentence seems okay, especially if she if prohibited from ever owning a gun again. Throwing her in jail for decades won't help her victim.

And yes, I do think our sentences tend to be too long for all sorts of crimes, especially drug crimes.

Last edited by puzzlegal; 10-08-2019 at 11:33 PM.
  #652  
Old 10-08-2019, 11:33 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,291
So the story is that a guy testifying against the police kept a dozen pounds of pot in his house and kept dealing even while the media circus was ongoing. Then three guys made what was to be a nine hour round trip from Lousiana to Texas in order to buy marijuana from someone who was just involved in a giving testimony in a major case, resulting in heavy media and police attention on him. And their drug deal went bad, so they shot this public figure, first in the chest, then in the mouth. They then fled the scene of this failed drug deal, but decided not to take any of the drugs or money, and conveniently left a huge stash of drugs for police to find to show that this person who testified against one of theirs was an active drug dealer. Also of note is that Guyer's apartment was never searched in the original case, even though she was the suspect and had admitted to being a drug user, but the apartments of both gunshot victims were searched.

I think that there is plenty of weed available for purchase in Louisiana without making an all-day drive, especially not an all-day drive to someone who's been testifying against people in court and the subject of major media attention. And that people who are making a drug deal big enough to warrant a nine hour drive that goes bad are motivated enough to take the drugs and money when they kill the person they're dealing with. I'm sure according to the 'DPD can do no wrong' crowd this makes me a terrible conspiracy theorist, but I really don't see how someone can buy what they're trying to sell.
  #653  
Old 10-09-2019, 12:02 AM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
The idea that a few bad cops might have conspired to murder someone and covered up their crime does not fit the definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
At this point, to continue to argue the "cops did it" theory, you have to believe that the police killed him, left no witnesses, planted thousands of dollars of drugs in his apartment, found three people living in another state who owned a car identical to their getaway car, shot one of them non-fatally, and then talked him into implicating himself and the other two in both the murder and in federal drug trafficking charges.

That's a conspiracy theory if ever I saw one.
  #654  
Old 10-09-2019, 12:23 AM
ASL v2.0's Avatar
ASL v2.0 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Various
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
I'm sure according to the 'DPD can do no wrong' crowd this makes me a terrible conspiracy theorist, but I really don't see how someone can buy what they're trying to sell.
At this point, even as I acknowledge that there is still some more investigating to do and probably a trial to follow, I cant help but wonder... What would it take to convince you (or at least leave you reasonably satisfied) that some portion of the DPD isnít behind this?
  #655  
Old 10-09-2019, 04:31 AM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
So the story is that a guy testifying against the police kept a dozen pounds of pot in his house and kept dealing even while the media circus was ongoing. Then three guys made what was to be a nine hour round trip from Lousiana to Texas in order to buy marijuana from someone who was just involved in a giving testimony in a major case, resulting in heavy media and police attention on him. And their drug deal went bad, so they shot this public figure, first in the chest, then in the mouth. They then fled the scene of this failed drug deal, but decided not to take any of the drugs or money, and conveniently left a huge stash of drugs for police to find to show that this person who testified against one of theirs was an active drug dealer.
You're misrepresenting the facts of the case, either deliberately or out of ignorance.

Brown was obviously a big-time middleman in the drug trade, as evidenced by the amount of THC and cash found in his apartment. That's not a job you can just give your two weeks notice on because you might be called to testify in a criminal trial sometime in the next year or two. Likewise, the three suspects weren't visiting him just to buy a dimebag; these were, more likely than not, the guys who sell to the guys who sell to the guy who sells dimebags.

Brown was not shot in the mouth. He was shot twice in the abdomen. The claim that he was shot in the mouth was an early and long-since discounted statement, which probably arose because he was bleeding from the mouth as the result of one or both bullets entering his stomach.

The suspects didn't "decided not to take any of the drugs or money"; they took Brown's backpack, as well as the gun he used to shoot one of them. (You left out that one of the three was shot as well). As to the contents of his apartment; do you suppose that after one of them was shot, and they shot and killed Brown, that they would then take the time to toss his apartment while their friend was bleeding out and the other residents of the apartment were calling the cops to report a shooting? The reports indicate that after shots were heard, residents reported a silver sedan speeding away from the scene; it's far more reasonable to assume that they fled in a panic with what they could get their hands on in that handful of seconds.
  #656  
Old 10-09-2019, 10:12 AM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
You're misrepresenting the facts of the case, either deliberately or out of ignorance.

Brown was obviously a big-time middleman in the drug trade, as evidenced by the amount of THC and cash found in his apartment.
So Brown was a big-time middleman in the drug trade, but the cops never even suspected this until his testimony was done with? There was zero attempt to discredit this star witness by pointing out evidence of him being "a big-time middleman in the drug trade" while the department was working to protect one of their own and while the prosecutor's office was threatening to subpoena him, but now all of a sudden he's obviously a major drug dealer? I don't find that explanation at all plausible, if he was a major player in the drug trade then it should have been found when police were investigating hard to clear Amber Guyer's name.

I think it's much more likely that cops planted the drugs in his apartment and are relying on people to make the leap 'black man, drugs found in apartment, must be a major drug dealer' than that all of these other pieces come together in just the exact way needed for a witness against a police officer to be a major drug dealer but police to be completely unaware of that fact until after he was shot.

Quote:
That's not a job you can just give your two weeks notice on because you might be called to testify in a criminal trial sometime in the next year or two.
Quote:
He, in turn, told prosecutors and the Court about the danger he felt was associated with him testifying in a public trial. Ultimately he decided that it was just too dangerous. He left the state and was in California on the day the trial began. In fact the day he was called to testify he was still in California. Prosecutors hounded him, threatening to issue a warrant for his arrest if he didnít appear in court on Day 2 of the trial. So he got on a plane and came straight from the airport to the courthouse. I believe he met with the judge in her chambers (on the record) and reiterated his concern about testifying. That is why during his first public appearance in the trial the judge affirmed ďyou have already been sworn and are still under oath.
So you say he can't 'give two weeks notice,' but he did leave his old apartment, move to California and stay there until prosecutors threatened to issue warrants for him to get him to testify, and had only recently even been in his new apartment. And that his 'job' was so eager for him to return to work that they pushed him to work even when he's under tight scrutiny from the police after testifying against one of them, and even though he did testify in court.

Quote:
Likewise, the three suspects weren't visiting him just to buy a dimebag; these were, more likely than not, the guys who sell to the guys who sell to the guy who sells dimebags.
The cops have been willing to state how much weed they 'found' in his home, but not how much was in the backpack. Do you have a cite for the 'weren't visiting him just to buy a dimebag' claim? And while I'm not an expert on drug trafficing, I have significant doubts that organizations send three people to drive eight hours to buy out of state weed and bring it back in general. And especially that they send people across state lines to buy weed from a person with major police and media interest who just got done testifying in a trial that was on the national news, and that they want to use said person as a 'big time middleman' so strongly that they have thousands of dollars of product in his apartment before all the paperwork is even done being filled out for the court case he just testified in.

Quote:
Brown was not shot in the mouth. He was shot twice in the abdomen. The claim that he was shot in the mouth was an early and long-since discounted statement, which probably arose because he was bleeding from the mouth as the result of one or both bullets entering his stomach.
I haven't seen any firm statement of where he was shot. Do you have a cite for that? I'm perfectly willing to believe that he wasn't shot in the mouth since it was an earlier statement, but I also haven't seen anything that actually denies the earlier statement, just that the person who made said essentially 'I'm not sure, lets wait for the autopsy'.

Quote:
The suspects didn't "decided not to take any of the drugs or money"; they took Brown's backpack, as well as the gun he used to shoot one of them. (You left out that one of the three was shot as well).
Well, they had a backpack and a gun that it's alleged he used to shoot one of them. Nothing (as far as I know) has even been released about the contents of said backpack (while we've got exact drug weights from the apartment).

Quote:
As to the contents of his apartment; do you suppose that after one of them was shot, and they shot and killed Brown, that they would then take the time to toss his apartment while their friend was bleeding out and the other residents of the apartment were calling the cops to report a shooting? The reports indicate that after shots were heard, residents reported a silver sedan speeding away from the scene; it's far more reasonable to assume that they fled in a panic with what they could get their hands on in that handful of seconds.
I suppose that people driving all day across state lines and killing someone as part of their drug deal would try to make off with the huge stash of money and drugs that police 'found' and released information about, yes.
  #657  
Old 10-09-2019, 10:18 AM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASL v2.0 View Post
At this point, even as I acknowledge that there is still some more investigating to do and probably a trial to follow, I cant help but wonder... What would it take to convince you (or at least leave you reasonably satisfied) that some portion of the DPD isnít behind this?
An independent investigation not by the DPD is the biggest one; having a prime suspect handle the investigation just doesn't make any sense. And a story that is more plausible than 'some negroes hopped up on the demon weed drove all day to buy reefer and then shot each other'. I have no idea how anyone can take this tale seriously, especially with just how quickly this 'detailed explanation' is coming out while the investigation is still in progress. They've really blown their credibility for me by doing their 'search' of the victim's apartment without oversight and conveniently finding large quantities of drugs which they then talked about to the press as quickly as possible. (And I'm still confused why DPD apparently has a policy of searching victim's apartments but not those of perpetrators.)
  #658  
Old 10-09-2019, 10:36 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,815
Personally, I don't find the narrative of a DPD frame-up outside the realm of plausibility, but it's not yet the most likely scenario IMO.
  #659  
Old 10-09-2019, 11:33 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
Her life is nowhere near as wrecked as her victim's life, which was ended by her decision to murder him. All of this sympathy for the (white, cop) murderer's life being 'ruined' rings a bit hollow when you consider that the man she chose to kill has no more life, and is now nothing but a corpse. It makes me sick to hear people throw out all this sympathy for the depraved individual who elected to straight-up murder a man in his own home for no discernable reason, and ten years is nothing compared to the entire rest of his life.
So where do you draw that line? 10 years isn't enough, but 20 is? Seems to me that you might be advocating some kind of "eye for an eye" type justice here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
So you're asserting that laws that have been passed by congress and/or state legislatures, have stood for decades and received some updates but no repeal, and have survived review under the courts are all failures? While I have a negative opinion of the legal system in America, especially when drugs and/or minorities are involved, this does seem like a rather extreme position. Also the position of 'well, how can you say this is a slap on the wrist? Oh no, you're not allowed to compare the sentences handed out in much less severe crimes to this one' isn't exactly a sound one.
No, what I'm saying is that the fact that minority defendants have received harsher or disproportionate sentences doesn't have any bearing on HER sentencing. She's not responsible for any of that, and it's not just to punish her disproportionately out of some kind of misguided wish for vengeance against cops or white people.

And her sentencing IS in line with the state-mandated sentencing guidelines for the crime she was convicted of. It's not like the guidelines were 15-40 years, and the judge gave her 10 or something totally out of bounds like that.

And finally, it's not like this was a white redneck country judge presiding over a jury of white men. The judge was black, and majority of the jurors were people of color- in fact (from this Washington Post article), it was:

Quote:
The 12 jury members, plus four alternates, included seven black members, five nonblack people of color and four white members; 12 members of the entire pool were women, and the other four were men.
So if justice wasn't done, it wasn't a racial thing.
  #660  
Old 10-09-2019, 11:53 AM
Machine Elf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Challenger Deep
Posts: 12,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
An independent investigation not by the DPD is the biggest one; having a prime suspect handle the investigation just doesn't make any sense.
I haven't heard of a DPD officer(s) being named as a "prime" suspect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic
(And I'm still confused why DPD apparently has a policy of searching victim's apartments but not those of perpetrators.)
You search the crime scene, and you also search in places where you think you might find evidence that explains what happened. If you're searching private property somewhere other than the crime scene, you need a search warrant, which requires a judge to review documented information to determine whether a warrant is justified by that information.

Jean's apartment was a crime scene.

Brown's apartment was searched subsequent to a search warrant being issued, subsequent to receiving tips which were found by a judge to justify said warrant.

I can't think of a reason that they could have given to justify a search of Guyger's apartment after she killed Jean.
  #661  
Old 10-10-2019, 01:07 AM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machine Elf View Post
I haven't heard of a DPD officer(s) being named as a "prime" suspect.
Several people have done so in this thread. If you mean the DPD saying that they think they themselves are a "prime" suspect, of course they're not going to do that, especially if (as seems likely) they're trying to sell a story about reefer-addled negroes driving hundreds of miles to buy small quantities of drugs from someone they know is under police interest, killing each other over it, then leaving a friend with a chest wound in the hospital where he chooses to give a full accounting to the police.

Quote:
You search the crime scene, and you also search in places where you think you might find evidence that explains what happened...
I can't think of a reason that they could have given to justify a search of Guyger's apartment after she killed Jean.
You don't think they should have searched the killer's apartment for evidence that the killer (who has admitted to past drug use) was involved with the drugs that they were hinting at (but didn't find so dropped that tale) in the victim's apartment? Or any evidence showing a link between the killer and the victim? What exactly do you consider 'evidence that explains what happened' other than 'black person has drugs', because that seems to be all they've been looking for. Because I would think that, in a case where you have a murderer claiming that it was all a mistake and that they didn't have any reason to kill the victim, 'evidence that explains what happened' would include anything pointing to a connection between killer and victim, such as a personal relationship or involvement in criminal enterprise together.
  #662  
Old 10-10-2019, 01:17 AM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
So where do you draw that line? 10 years isn't enough, but 20 is? Seems to me that you might be advocating some kind of "eye for an eye" type justice here.
I'm advocating for punishing straight up murderer's fairly harshly. This doesn't exactly seem to be a controversial as several other people have stated the same opinion that ten years in prison for straight-up intentional murder with no actual extenuating circumstances is a slap on the wrist. At this point, I've shown evidence that her sentence is significantly less than one would get for killing a police dog (which is not even a person) or for firing a gun without hitting anyone while involved in a drug crime.

Quote:
No, what I'm saying is that the fact that minority defendants have received harsher or disproportionate sentences doesn't have any bearing on HER sentencing.
The sentences that people get for various crimes in this country do have bearing on what one considers a reasonable versus an unreasonable sentence. The Federal 'drug and gun' sentences that I cited to show that she was getting merely a sentence equal to what is considered appropriate for someone who merely fires (but does not hit anyone) a firearm during a drug crime, it's not tied to being a minority.

Quote:
And her sentencing IS in line with the state-mandated sentencing guidelines for the crime she was convicted of
The fact that the state-mandated sentencing guidelines allow for a slap on the wrist in this case doesn't change my opinion that the sentence is a slap on the wrist.

Quote:
So if justice wasn't done, it wasn't a racial thing.
There are none so blind as those who will not see. If the roles were reversed, do you think he'd be looking at a piddly ten years? Do you think he'd have even 50-50 odds of surviving to trial rather than being 'shot while resisting' on the way in?
  #663  
Old 10-10-2019, 01:28 AM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASL v2.0 View Post
At this point, even as I acknowledge that there is still some more investigating to do and probably a trial to follow, I cant help but wonder... What would it take to convince you (or at least leave you reasonably satisfied) that some portion of the DPD isnít behind this?
As further comment on the unbelievability of the story, here's an opinion piece that points out some additional issues with the story: https://www.theroot.com/nobody-is-bu...shu-1838917708

Notably, why would a man who knows he's on the police's radar and who's stated to the press that he fears for his life set up a drug deal in the parking lot of his own apartment with no one backing him up during the deal and with the drugs stored in his own home and no one ready to clear them out if things go bad? Why would the guy who's been shot in the chest (which, incidentally would seem to make talking difficult) sing out this entire tale to the police instead of giving a generic 'some guy wearing a mask shot me, don't know who, I forget where' type of answer? Why didn't any of the people investigating the key witness in this controversial case notice that he was not only moving drugs, but moving them through his own apartment and dealing from his own parking lot until after he 'happened' to get shot (Or did he embark on this new career a week after testifying)?
  #664  
Old 10-10-2019, 01:49 AM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,442
The report that was released today in Chicago doesn't make it a good week for the police to argue that they deserve to be presumed incorruptible.

It was a internal investigation conducted by the Chicago PD after Laquan McDonald was fatally shot by Jason Van Dyke, a Chicago Police Officer, in 2014. The report found that at least sixteen police officers were actively involved in a cover-up to protect Van Dyke.

Again, this doesn't prove that the Dallas PD was involved in Brown's death, conducted a bad investigation, or has arrested the wrong people. But it does demonstrate that a lot of police officers are willing to file false reports, alter evidence, and give false testimony when it comes to protecting a fellow officer who's been accused of a crime.

If there are situations where people distrust the police, the police need to acknowledge that they've earned that distrust.
  #665  
Old 10-10-2019, 01:58 AM
ASL v2.0's Avatar
ASL v2.0 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Various
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
As further comment on the unbelievability of the story, here's an opinion piece that points out some additional issues with the story: https://www.theroot.com/nobody-is-bu...shu-1838917708

Notably, why would a man who knows he's on the police's radar and who's stated to the press that he fears for his life set up a drug deal in the parking lot of his own apartment with no one backing him up during the deal and with the drugs stored in his own home and no one ready to clear them out if things go bad? Why would the guy who's been shot in the chest (which, incidentally would seem to make talking difficult) sing out this entire tale to the police instead of giving a generic 'some guy wearing a mask shot me, don't know who, I forget where' type of answer? Why didn't any of the people investigating the key witness in this controversial case notice that he was not only moving drugs, but moving them through his own apartment and dealing from his own parking lot until after he 'happened' to get shot (Or did he embark on this new career a week after testifying)?
I’m honestly still not sure why the police were ever and are still believed to have had a motive here. Their interest in murdering the witness who heroically corroborated Guyger's story seems less than threadbare to me.

Most of your questions, though, about what Brown and the alleged drug-deal participants could possibly have been thinking, I think can be answered by a combination of "criminals can be stupid" and "criminals can be desperate." I mean, just look at that Guyger character as an example of how stupid criminals can be. At best she wandered into the wrong apartment and shot a guy just minding his own business before she figured out her error and panicked, at worst (as you seem to be hinting, please correct me if I’m wrong) she had some premeditated reason to kill Jean, but she did a really lousy job of ensuring she’d get away with it (making her both more malevolent and stupider too). If it was premeditated, she’d have done better to shoot him on his way to or from work and claim he charged at her, for instance. That at least would have put her on neutral ground for a self-defense claim.

But one question that can’t be answered with "stupid/desperate criminals" has to do with where you asked, "Why didn't any of the people investigating the key witness in this controversial case notice that he was ... moving drugs ... ?" [slight snip at the ...].

Was someone investigating Brown prior to this? I’ll admit, it kind of raised red flags to me when he said he made his living as an entrepreneur (okay...) managing five airBnB properties (huh?), but would it be routine to investigate a witness like this, and did they? Particularly when, as I’ve noted previously, his testimony really doesn’t seem to have been all that "key" (the media seems to have applied that label rather sensationally since his death). I may have missed it, but I don’t recall that he said anything that really disputed Guyger's recounting of events. Again, Guyger basically confessed on day one of the investigation, and again on the stand for the jury to hear.

Last edited by ASL v2.0; 10-10-2019 at 02:00 AM.
  #666  
Old 10-10-2019, 03:01 AM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
Notably, why would a man who knows he's on the police's radar and who's stated to the press that he fears for his life set up a drug deal in the parking lot of his own apartment with no one backing him up during the deal and with the drugs stored in his own home and no one ready to clear them out if things go bad? Why would the guy who's been shot in the chest (which, incidentally would seem to make talking difficult) sing out this entire tale to the police instead of giving a generic 'some guy wearing a mask shot me, don't know who, I forget where' type of answer?
People who sell illegal drugs for a living don't always make 100% logical and rational decisions. If they did, they wouldn't be in the drug business.

Quote:
Why didn't any of the people investigating the key witness in this controversial case notice that he was not only moving drugs, but moving them through his own apartment and dealing from his own parking lot until after he 'happened' to get shot (Or did he embark on this new career a week after testifying)?
Why would they? The prosecution isn't going to go digging for dirt on their own witness, and the defense can't just demand to search his apartment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
Several people have done so in this thread. If you mean the DPD saying that they think they themselves are a "prime" suspect, of course they're not going to do that, especially if (as seems likely) they're trying to sell a story about reefer-addled negroes driving hundreds of miles to buy small quantities of drugs from someone they know is under police interest, killing each other over it, then leaving a friend with a chest wound in the hospital where he chooses to give a full accounting to the police.
The only one going on about "reefer-addled negroes" here is you.

Moreover, you assume the buyers knew who he was. If you asked a typical man on the street, prior to the murder, who Joshua Brown was, chances are they'd have no idea.

Last edited by Smapti; 10-10-2019 at 03:05 AM.
  #667  
Old 10-10-2019, 08:12 AM
Machine Elf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Challenger Deep
Posts: 12,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
...especially if (as seems likely) they're trying to sell a story about reefer-addled negroes driving hundreds of miles to buy small quantities of drugs from someone they know is under police interest, killing each other over it, then leaving a friend with a chest wound in the hospital where he chooses to give a full accounting to the police.
Why would they "know" Brown was under police "interest?" The investigation of Jean's murder is long over.

Maybe they left a friend at the hospital with a gunshot wound because they're not so callous as to leave their friend by the side of the road to die.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
You don't think they should have searched the killer's apartment for evidence that the killer (who has admitted to past drug use) was involved with the drugs that they were hinting at (but didn't find so dropped that tale) in the victim's apartment?
You're talking about the three people who traveled from out of state? The fact that they were "involved with drugs" in a general sense isn't really evidence of their guilt in Brown's murder; it would be unlikely to justify a warrant allowing the search of their residence(s) in Louisiana.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
Or any evidence showing a link between the killer and the victim? What exactly do you consider 'evidence that explains what happened' other than 'black person has drugs', because that seems to be all they've been looking for. Because I would think that, in a case where you have a murderer claiming that it was all a mistake and that they didn't have any reason to kill the victim, 'evidence that explains what happened' would include anything pointing to a connection between killer and victim, such as a personal relationship or involvement in criminal enterprise together.
I haven't read that Brown's murder was due to a mistake. Articles I've read indicate that Green and Brown "got into an altercation during the drug deal", which is what led to the shootout.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic
Notably, why would a man who knows he's on the police's radar and who's stated to the press that he fears for his life set up a drug deal in the parking lot of his own apartment with no one backing him up during the deal and with the drugs stored in his own home and no one ready to clear them out if things go bad?
I can think of several reasons. For starters, maybe he didn't want to let three strangers of questionable integrity into his apartment where they could beat him senseless and rob him of his valuable inventory, to which they would have ready access. Maybe he felt that an ambush in the parking lot would be more dangerous for the perps (because of potential witnesses) than an ambush in his apartment, and therefore less likely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic
Why would the guy who's been shot in the chest (which, incidentally would seem to make talking difficult) sing out this entire tale to the police instead of giving a generic 'some guy wearing a mask shot me, don't know who, I forget where' type of answer?
Don't know the nature of his gunshot wound, other than it's "in the chest." Small caliber? Maybe something that didn't blow a huge hole in his lung or heart? So maybe he can talk with some effort. And maybe he's willing to talk, since he claims he didn't shoot Brown and wants to get the police to go easy on him (maybe he's unaware of the felony-murder-rule implications). Maybe the police convinced him to talk since witnesses gave descriptions of the events surrounding the murder. Or they lied about witnesses putting him at the scene of Brown's murder (cops are allowed to lie to suspects about the evidence against them).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic
Why didn't any of the people investigating the key witness in this controversial case notice that he was not only moving drugs, but moving them through his own apartment and dealing from his own parking lot until after he 'happened' to get shot (Or did he embark on this new career a week after testifying)?
Who would investigate him? He's supporting the prosecution. How much investigation do you think Guyger's defense attorney would have been able to conduct, other than asking a few of the guy's neighbors what he was all about?
  #668  
Old 10-10-2019, 09:17 AM
Spiderman's Avatar
Spiderman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: somewhere East of there
Posts: 11,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
So Brown was a big-time middleman in the drug trade, but the cops never even suspected this until his testimony was done with? There was zero attempt to discredit this star witness by pointing out evidence of him being "a big-time middleman in the drug trade" while the department was working to protect one of their own and while the prosecutor's office was threatening to subpoena him, but now all of a sudden he's obviously a major drug dealer? I don't find that explanation at all plausible
Do police typically investigate the background of witnesses to a crime?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
An independent investigation not by the DPD is the biggest one; having a prime suspect handle the investigation just doesn't make any sense.
The DPD, as an organization, didn't want her Guyger after she killed Jean, which is why they fired her. There is no reason for the DPD to be involved in a coverup of an officer who broke the law & was fired.

While it's theoretically possible a rogue officer committed the murder of the witness, again it doesn't make much sense. By her own admission Guyger shot Jean. She was already fired before the prosecution. Even if she got off, she wasn't getting her job back. If there was a rogue officer, this wasn't the witness to commit murder over.

Your theory that DPD committed the second murder doesn't even make plausible fiction.
  #669  
Old 10-10-2019, 09:42 AM
Just Asking Questions is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 7,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiderman View Post
Do police typically investigate the background of witnesses to a crime?
Whether or not the cops murdered the witness, this needs to be answered.

If they're smart they do, though I would think it would be the DA's own investigators.

You don't want this to happen: After five hours of testimony outlining everything the defendant did, say, who he shot, in detail, the defense comes on and asks the witness about the time he was abducted by aliens, and he proceeds to tell, in detail!, about how he was taken by aliens from Tralmaffadoor in their mind-powered ship, where cotton candy falls from the sky. I think you'd like to know that about him ahead of time.

And if your witness to a drug related shooting turns out to actually be a member of a rival drug gang, and not just an innocent civilian, that would be helpful to know as well. Because his testimony would be suspect.
  #670  
Old 10-10-2019, 10:12 AM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiderman View Post
Do police typically investigate the background of witnesses to a crime?
The person who's accused of a crime isn't typically a fellow police officer.
  #671  
Old 10-10-2019, 10:24 AM
ASL v2.0's Avatar
ASL v2.0 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Various
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Asking Questions View Post
And if your witness to a drug related shooting turns out to actually be a member of a rival drug gang, and not just an innocent civilian, that would be helpful to know as well. Because his testimony would be suspect.
I can see how that would be something the DA would want to avoid in a case where the witness is expected to refute the defense's version of an event, but I don’t see that in this case. Even if the defense had hired private investigators or used contacts within the DPD to uncover information, how exactly would casting doubt on Brown's credibility have benefited them, given what he actually said on the stand?

It would be one thing if Brown had testified "Sure, I saw her talking to Jean all the time. Just before the shooting, I heard her say the insurance rates had gone up and if he didn’t pay she’d put two in his chest. Then I heard her order him to his knees as he pleaded for his life. The I heard the shots, and I heard his body hit the floor. Then she muttered a racial slur, turned to me, and said 'keep your mouth shut or you’re next!'" Then I could see the defense wanting to impeach his testimony with evidence that he might be engaged in illegal activities and biased against the police.

But he didn’t do that. He didn’t say anything too far out of line with what Guyger had claimed all along. His testimony, in a nutshell, was (paraphrasing) "It sounded like two people meeting by surprise, then there were gunshots shortly after, and then she was frantically pacing down the hallway with her phone saying she messed up."

So, even if the defense had suspicions (or even outright proof) that he was a drug dealer, would it really have benefitted them to lean into him after he basically corroborated (or at least gave testimony broadly consistent with) Guyger's claim that this was all a horrible mistake on her part?

Last edited by ASL v2.0; 10-10-2019 at 10:28 AM.
  #672  
Old 10-10-2019, 10:40 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
There are none so blind as those who will not see. If the roles were reversed, do you think he'd be looking at a piddly ten years? Do you think he'd have even 50-50 odds of surviving to trial rather than being 'shot while resisting' on the way in?
Oh, come on. What else can you realistically expect that would have been more favorable than a black judge, seven black jurors, five other non-white jurors, and four white jurors. Out of the jurors, 12 out of 16 were women.

That is absolutely as diverse of a jury as you could hope for- if anything, maybe a balance of men and women would have been more diverse.

If they came to the conclusion that it was murder, and decided that 10 years is an appropriate sentence based on the evidence and testimony that they saw, then I have to take them at their word (so to speak). I wasn't there in either situation- the killing itself or the trial.

I'm not a fan of armchair lawyering or judging.
  #673  
Old 10-10-2019, 10:40 AM
Leaper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In my own little world...
Posts: 12,613
Devilís advocate: cops killed him to send a message to future witnesses of police involved shootings to leave the copís word as the only word.
  #674  
Old 10-10-2019, 10:52 AM
ASL v2.0's Avatar
ASL v2.0 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Various
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaper View Post
Devilís advocate: cops killed him to send a message to future witnesses of police involved shootings to leave the copís word as the only word.
The last few pages of discussion would seem to indicate, to me at least, that devil's advocacy is I no way necessary here. There are already posters who appear more than willing to advocate for that or a similar position quite sincerely.
  #675  
Old 10-10-2019, 11:57 AM
MikeF is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,618
Do you really thing that the cops killed him and then arrested people who could say "The cops put us up to it!". If the cops were as sneaky as you imply, there would be no witnesses of any kind and no arrests. Cop haters will be cop haters. I put this right up there with a flat earth and fake moon landings.
  #676  
Old 10-10-2019, 12:09 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
Do you really thing that the cops killed him and then arrested people who could say "The cops put us up to it!". If the cops were as sneaky as you imply, there would be no witnesses of any kind and no arrests.
If there are no witnesses and no arrests, that proves the cops conspired to cover up the fact that they killed him. If there are witnesses and arrests, that proves the conspiracy goes deeper than you ever thought.

Regards,
Shodan
  #677  
Old 10-10-2019, 12:37 PM
Spiderman's Avatar
Spiderman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: somewhere East of there
Posts: 11,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaper View Post
Devilís advocate: cops killed him to send a message to future witnesses of police involved shootings to leave the copís word as the only word.
Even if we go with that theory, do you think it's the DPD as an institution that did this or just a rogue cop, & if it's the latter couldn't it just as easily be a wannabe/fanboi rather than a real cop?

If it's an individual, cop or not, do you not think the DPD (institution) has the ability to investigate it?
  #678  
Old 10-10-2019, 12:40 PM
Just Asking Questions is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 7,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaper View Post
Devil’s advocate: cops killed him to send a message to future witnesses of police involved shootings to leave the cop’s word as the only word.
I may be Just Asking Questions, but that theory doesn't work if no one knows the cops killed the guy. And in this case no one knows.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
Cop haters will be cop haters.
I don't really see a problem with "hating cops" as a result of this case. A cop DID murder a guy and the police tried to cover it up. If that doesn't deserve "hate", what does?

Last edited by Just Asking Questions; 10-10-2019 at 12:41 PM.
  #679  
Old 10-10-2019, 02:05 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Asking Questions View Post
I don't really see a problem with "hating cops" as a result of this case. A cop DID murder a guy and the police tried to cover it up. If that doesn't deserve "hate", what does?
Hating the cops who murdered and covered it up, sure. Hating cops in general, especially those in the DPD who had nothing to do with it - not so much.

Regards,
Shodan
  #680  
Old 10-10-2019, 02:36 PM
Typo Negative's Avatar
Typo Negative is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 7th Level of Hell, Ca
Posts: 17,911
For the Love of God, you guys have me siding with Shodan and Mike F.

Quote:
Devilís advocate: cops killed him to send a message to future witnesses of police involved shootings to leave the copís word as the only word.
This witness testified to a version of events that are almost identical the officer's own account. It wasn't his testimony that convicted her.

This man had stated that he already lived in fear of being shot. Why? Someone had tried to kill him a year before. He ended up wounded and his companion was killed during the attack.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...ays/ar-AAIrkaX
Quote:
Almost a year before he testified as a key witness in the Amber Guyger murder trial, Joshua Brown was wounded in a shooting at a Dallas strip club that left another man dead, police said.
<snip>
Citing an affidavit, the Dallas Morning News reported that a man had waited for Brown outside the club and the two fought. The man started shooting when Brown tried to leave, wounding his foot, the newspaper reported. Nicholas Shaq'uan Diggs, 26, was killed.
Quote:
Brown believed he was the target in that November 23 strip club shooting and felt there were "still people out there who wanted to do him harm," said attorney S. Lee Merritt, who represents Brown's family.
Which is more likely? That he was killed as reaction to his testifying, or that he was killed by someone who had tried to kill him before? Or killed for the same reason that someone else tried to kill him for a year before? Even HE thought that there were people who were not cops that wanted to kill him.
__________________
"Just love everybody. I'll sort 'em out later"

-God
  #681  
Old 10-10-2019, 02:39 PM
Leaper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In my own little world...
Posts: 12,613
I just thought of a good analogy to this whole situation: it’s like the Jeffrey Epstein suicide. Most of the speculation and belief seems to come from the timing and the untrustworthiness/reputation of the authorities involved.
  #682  
Old 10-10-2019, 06:13 PM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,802
At this point, I would say
Probability it was related to the prior shooting > probability it was related to his testimony >>> probability it was "random".
  #683  
Old 10-10-2019, 07:16 PM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by puzzlegal View Post
At this point, I would say
Probability it was related to the prior shooting > probability it was related to his testimony >>> probability it was "random".
On what basis?
  #684  
Old 10-10-2019, 08:50 PM
Just Asking Questions is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 7,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Hating the cops who murdered and covered it up, sure. Hating cops in general, especially those in the DPD who had nothing to do with it - not so much.
You tell me a fool proof way of telling the difference for cops you meet on the street.
  #685  
Old 10-11-2019, 02:26 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Asking Questions View Post
You tell me a fool proof way of telling the difference for cops you meet on the street.
It's easy - it's the same way police can tell at a glance which young black men are dangerous criminals and which ones are normal, innocent people just going about their day.
  #686  
Old 10-11-2019, 08:18 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Asking Questions View Post
You tell me a fool proof way of telling the difference for cops you meet on the street.
I don't know of a fool proof way. My rule of thumb is that people in one city are not generally involved in crimes committed in a different part of the country, even if they are members of the same group.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate
It's easy - it's the same way police can tell at a glance which young black men are dangerous criminals and which ones are normal, innocent people just going about their day.
Exactly. "This cop must be guilty because a different cop in another state committed a crime" has the same validity as "this black guy must be guilty because a different black guy committed a crime in another state". That is to say, not a whole lot.

Regards,
Shodan

Last edited by Shodan; 10-11-2019 at 08:18 AM.
  #687  
Old 10-11-2019, 08:30 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Asking Questions View Post
I don't really see a problem with "hating cops" as a result of this case. A cop DID murder a guy and the police tried to cover it up. If that doesn't deserve "hate", what does?
I think "coverup" is way overkill for what happened here. It was on the local news literally within an hour or so of the actual shooting, if not sooner.

In my opinion, what we saw was cops giving the benefit of the doubt to one of their own. While that's not necessarily a good thing, it is an understandable one. I mean, I can completely see how other police officers might take another at their word that a killing was both accidental and not premeditated. That's more than likely why they didn't cuff her, etc... at the crime scene.

Coverups are typically more... directed and organized than what you saw here. We never saw claims that Jean was in the wrong place, or that he did anything wrong, that someone else shot him, etc... at best, we saw a lot of lawyer-produced noise about how her shift was long, how the floors look identical, how the floorplan was the same, etc... Which is the lawyers doing their jobs, not a coverup.
  #688  
Old 10-11-2019, 09:17 AM
Just Asking Questions is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 7,378
How about an actual coverup.

Of course, no one involved in the coverup will see jail time. They got fired, but they'll appeal and probably be quietly reinstated. Even the actual shooter might do only three years.

So again, how can we tell?

Last edited by Just Asking Questions; 10-11-2019 at 09:18 AM.
  #689  
Old 10-11-2019, 02:29 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machine Elf View Post
Why would they "know" Brown was under police "interest?" The investigation of Jean's murder is long over.
It had been 10 days since he testified against a cop, who was convicted less than a week before the shooting. That's nothing like 'long over'.

Quote:
You're talking about the three people who traveled from out of state?
No, I'm talking about the original case, where they elected not to search Amber Guyer's apartment. She is the one who claimed that she just made a mistake, and if you've got an outright murder where the murderer claims no connection with the victim, one thing you investigate is whether there is an actual connection

Quote:
I can think of several reasons. For starters, maybe he didn't want to let three strangers of questionable integrity into his apartment...
I know people on the Dope can be a bit more naive than one would expect from a website with 'dope' in the name, but when I asked about why he'd conduct the deal in the parking lot of his apartment, I did not mean 'as opposed to inside of his own apartment' but rather 'somewhere that's not right on top of where he lives'. The question is not 'why didn't the guy who was in fear of his life invite out of state strangers into his home for a drug deal', it's 'why didn't the guy who just testified against a cop conduct his drug deal away from his own residence like you'd expect'.

Quote:
Who would investigate him? He's supporting the prosecution. How much investigation do you think Guyger's defense attorney would have been able to conduct, other than asking a few of the guy's neighbors what he was all about?
The prosecution and defense both investigate witnesses in a major case, the defense to undermine them and the prosecution so that they don't get blindsided by the defense. Also the DPD could easily come up with 'coincidental' reasons to investigate the guy with a criminal record who was testifying against one of their own. If dude was a major drug kingpin running out of state drug deals in the parking lot of the apartment building, it seems odd that none of these parties noticed. If he wasn't, the fact that he decided to embark on a career change barely a week after testifying against a cop seems rather... extraordinary.
  #690  
Old 10-11-2019, 02:32 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Oh, come on. What else can you realistically expect that would have been more favorable than a black judge, seven black jurors, five other non-white jurors, and four white jurors. Out of the jurors, 12 out of 16 were women.

That is absolutely as diverse of a jury as you could hope for- if anything, maybe a balance of men and women would have been more diverse.
I honestly have no idea why you're posting this like it is a counter argument to anything I said. I did not say 'the ethnic makeup of the jury was an issue' or anything along those lines, so bringing it up like it is even relevant to what I said, much less a counter to it, makes no sense. The problem is not with the ethnic makeup of the jury, but with the handling of perpetrator and witnesses, release of information, gathering of information, and the like.

Again, do you think that in the sitaution where the roles were reversed and Botham Jean shot Amber Guyer in her apartment that he, would recieve the same treatment that she did? That is, that he would have police arrive at the scene, comfort him after his traumatic experience, not search his apartment for evidence that he's up to anything bad, turn off their recording devices so none of his heated post-shooting words make it to court, let him erase dirty messages from his phone, and release vague insinuations that she was drugged up? And that after a trial, presuming he survived to it, the judge would come down and hug him and give him a bible?

Presume she's not a cop if you want, and I still don't see Botham getting this kind of softball treatment from the cops. He would be violently restrained quite rapidly, not allowed time to tamper with evidence, would get harshly interrogated (and anything he said put in court), his apartment searched, the 'odor of marijuana' statement would be about him, and so on. Include the fact that she's a cop, and the odds of him even surviving to trial go down considerably, and the odds of him not getting beaten or tazed drop to near zero. And I don't see the judge doing the 'hug and bible' routine or the people who defend a ten year sentence for her murdering him defending a ten year sentence for him murdering her.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
No, what I'm saying is that the fact that minority defendants have received harsher or disproportionate sentences doesn't have any bearing on HER sentencing.
Quote:
I'm not a fan of armchair lawyering or judging.
Seems to be a contradiction there, isn't calling sentences 'harsher' or 'disproportionate' also armchair lawyering or judging as you're using the term? Calling all criticism of sentence 'armchair lawyering or judging' is clearly a bad use of the phrase, as the topic under discussion is 'do I consider this result reasonable' not 'I would have handled X differently were I the lawyer/judge'. I'll just clarify that I am not offering specific criticism of any tactics or legal arguments made during the trial.

Last edited by Pantastic; 10-11-2019 at 02:34 PM.
  #691  
Old 10-11-2019, 02:34 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
People who sell illegal drugs for a living don't always make 100% logical and rational decisions. If they did, they wouldn't be in the drug business.
Quote:
The only one going on about "reefer-addled negroes" here is you.
The first line of your post is exactly what I'm referring to with the 'reefer-addled negroes' comment. The whole line of argument about 'well, there were drugs involved, so of course nothing they do needs to make sense' is exactly what I object to. And once you insist that nothing in the story needs to make sense because 'those people involved in drugs just don't think well', then there's not really anything to discuss - the holes and inconsistencies in the story are all irrelevant, because 'well, drugs' is the answer to any of it.

Quote:
Why would they? The prosecution isn't going to go digging for dirt on their own witness, and the defense can't just demand to search his apartment.
Competent prosecutors do dig for dirt on their own witnesses so that the defense doesn't surprise them with it. Regular defense attorneys investigate witnesses to interrogate them, and cops trying to protect one of their own are really good at finding reasons to investigate an already suspicious situation. If the story we're getting is accurate, either this was a guy who conducted large drug deals in the parking lot of his own apartment complex where a cop also lived (and so should be easily found out) or someone who took up a career making large interstate drug deals less than a week after a cop was convicted based in aprt on his testimony.

Quote:
Moreover, you assume the buyers knew who he was. If you asked a typical man on the street, prior to the murder, who Joshua Brown was, chances are they'd have no idea.
So they made a nine hour drive to a guy they didn't know at all to buy an amount of pot that's smaller than what is generally smuggled interstate but large enough to get 'drug dealer charges'? Or were they just driving nine hours to make a small buy that they could have done locally? I mean, sure pot messes with people's thinking, but generally in the direction of 'chill out and eat snacks' and not 'drive nine hours instead of going to the guy in town'.
  #692  
Old 10-11-2019, 02:38 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASL v2.0 View Post
Iím honestly still not sure why the police were ever and are still believed to have had a motive here. Their interest in murdering the witness who heroically corroborated Guyger's story seems less than threadbare to me.
He was a prosecution witness who contradicted key parts of her story that were intended to paint her in a sympathetic light to the jury. Notably, he did not corroborate her claim that she verbally confronted the victim and gave him orders. The jury has stated that they came to a guilty verdict quickly because it was clear to them that she decided to kill him before she entered the door, a fact that would likely not be clear to them if there was a witness claiming he heard her shouting orders at the victim. Also, the prosecution would not bother flying him in from California if all he was doing was corroborating her story, there is no need to even call a witness, much less to convince a reluctant witness to show up if all he's going to do is corroborate her story.

The idea that his testimony was completely worthless to the prosecution doesn't hold water.
  #693  
Old 10-11-2019, 02:47 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Asking Questions View Post
How about an actual coverup.

Of course, no one involved in the coverup will see jail time. They got fired, but they'll appeal and probably be quietly reinstated. Even the actual shooter might do only three years.

So again, how can we tell?
WTF does a Chicago murder and subsequent coverup have to do with Dallas, Amber Guyger or Joshua Brown? They're totally unrelated.
  #694  
Old 10-11-2019, 02:51 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
Again, do you think that in the sitaution where the roles were reversed and Botham Jean shot Amber Guyer in her apartment that he, would recieve the same treatment that she did?
What alternate situation exactly are you posing here? Officer Botham Jean shooting unarmed Amber Guyger, or non-cop Botham Jean shooting Officer Amber Guyger in her apartment?
  #695  
Old 10-11-2019, 03:09 PM
madsircool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post



No, I'm talking about the original case, where they elected not to search Amber Guyer's apartment. She is the one who claimed that she just made a mistake, and if you've got an outright murder where the murderer claims no connection with the victim, one thing you investigate is whether there is an actual connection


Its up to a judge whether the police get to search her place. Maybe they couldnt get a warrant?
  #696  
Old 10-11-2019, 03:51 PM
Typo Negative's Avatar
Typo Negative is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 7th Level of Hell, Ca
Posts: 17,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
Notably, he did not corroborate her claim that she verbally confronted the victim and gave him orders. The jury has stated that they came to a guilty verdict quickly because it was clear to them that she decided to kill him before she entered the door, a fact that would likely not be clear to them if there was a witness claiming he heard her shouting orders at the victim. Also, the prosecution would not bother flying him in from California if all he was doing was corroborating her story, there is no need to even call a witness, much less to convince a reluctant witness to show up if all he's going to do is corroborate her story.

The idea that his testimony was completely worthless to the prosecution doesn't hold water.
Gonna need some cites here.

From this cite we have it reiterated that Brown testified that heard voices but could not make out what they said. So it neither corroborates nor contradicts Guyger's account.


Further, it states that the jury decided on the basis of Guyger's testimony.
Quote:
ďAll 12 of us said she was guilty probably within five minutes of being in there,Ē Juror 21 said.

Their decision hinged on testimony from Guyger herself.
I cannot find any mention of Brown being flown in from California, or being in California.
__________________
"Just love everybody. I'll sort 'em out later"

-God
  #697  
Old 10-11-2019, 04:59 PM
ftg's Avatar
ftg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 20,299
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
  #698  
Old 10-11-2019, 05:55 PM
Just Asking Questions is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 7,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
WTF does a Chicago murder and subsequent coverup have to do with Dallas, Amber Guyger or Joshua Brown? They're totally unrelated.
Well, if you paid attention, you'd know. Go back and see what I was referring to. It was a response to if there is a justification for "hating of cops", all cops, not just Dallas cops. If you can't trust them in Chicago, and you can't where I live, maybe it isn't just Dallas.
  #699  
Old 10-12-2019, 08:33 PM
Gray Ghost is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,379
Here to chew on is another really bad shooting by police in the Metroplex: 28 year old woman is killed, in front of her nephew, in her own home by police on a welfare check. Victim is black, and per the officer video in the cite, at least one of the shooters was white.

Neighbor called the cops, seeing the house she was in had its door open at 2AM. Cops show up, without lights and sirens, walk around the house, claim to see someone with a gun inside, and shoot. She dies.

Predicting this one will be even more of a mess than the Guyger shooting.
  #700  
Old 10-12-2019, 10:19 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
WTF does a Chicago murder and subsequent coverup have to do with Dallas, Amber Guyger or Joshua Brown? They're totally unrelated.
It's an example of how the police can falsify an investigation when it involves a member of their own force.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:28 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017