# Dallas cop kills innocent man **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [September 10, 2018, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-cop-kills-innocent-man/821119 "2018-09-10T19:32:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Filbert](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/filbert/32/3433_2.png) [@Filbert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Filbert)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2018, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-cop-kills-innocent-man/821119/301 "2018-09-15T15:52:54Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > I didn’t mean that was the standard. I thought it would be standard to look at the apartment of a person who kills someone like this. Just as, like, something that police regularly did. Well, conveniently, there’s a police officer there, so I think they reckon she’s looking at her own apartment and the rest of them don’t have to. Though by her own account, she’s not looking at it hard enough to distinguish it from other, similar apartments… ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2018, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-cop-kills-innocent-man/821119/302 "2018-09-15T16:25:41Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > If she thought something was awry, she could/should have backed out through the same door she came in and summoned assistance. The training I received is that one doesn’t clear dwellings alone absent a very pressing emergency. This. > [@MarvinKitFox](#): > > All this is clear and understandable. > It is likely she made a simple mistake, and reacted by shooting the “intruder”. > So far, a routine if tragic mistake. No. I think her actions were morally unconsciable under the circumstances, even if her story turns out to be 100% true. Even if she had been at the door of her own apartment and there had been an intruder inside, she was in absolutely no danger. If she had walked away the way she should’ve, she would’ve quickly realized her error. There wouldn’t have been any downside to calling for back-up -even if “not letting the guy get away” was a priority. Hang back in the hall and arrest him when he leaves. Or call for backup and enter the apartment and arrest him. Way too many people are stupid and fearful and feel the need to walk around with guns. It was only a few months ago when someone entered my apartment through the balcony when I was at home - in another room. It was a worker doing maintenance on the building exterior clearing items off my terrace. I was pissed off and I made a huge fuss with building management but I was never scared and I can’t imagine having the kind of overreaction that would have led me to actually physically harm the guy. The sight of an unknown brown person in my home actually didn’t throw me into a murderous state of fear, imagine that, I think it’s the same mentality that makes some idiots think that it’s not safe to go to the movies without taking a firearm or to go to Chilis without a semi-automatic rifle slung over their shoulders. Their weak fear-driven minds skip over all the innocuous explanations and go to the one where every thing is a danger and everyone is trying to kill them. And sometimes their cowardly fear-powered brains cause them to fuck up massively. And they deserve the consequences. Even if she has a valid legal defense, she doesn’t have a valid moral one. This woman deserves to be ostracized by her peers. She deserves to be driven into bankruptcy by legal fees. I hope she loses everything. She deserves it. ---
**Author:** ![Gray\_Ghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c0e974/32.png) [@Gray\_Ghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gray_Ghost)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2018, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-cop-kills-innocent-man/821119/303 "2018-09-15T21:28:24Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > It is a big deal. The two shell casings found **inside** the apartment help to establish where the shooter was when she shot the victim. That is a significant fact in determining the sequence of events. > > And, they need a search warrant to do that. The victim is dead, but someone still owns that apartment. Absent exigent circumstances, which didn’t exist here, they needed a warrant to search the apartment. I meant the weed was no big deal. Not the physical evidence that helped establish where Guyger was in the apartment. Like the backpack (likely hers) and the shell casings. AIUI, the weed was in plain view on a kitchen table. It’s an active crime scene. I am not very familiar with search and seizure law, but it seems bizarre that the police would need a warrant to revisit the scene of a homicide, photograph for blood stains, carpet marks, shell casings, and the rest of the panoply of physical evidence. OTOH, it’s not like it should be very difficult to obtain one in this situation. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2018, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-cop-kills-innocent-man/821119/304 "2018-09-15T21:35:24Z")
[Let’s quit pretending the search warrant was for bullet casings or blood smears or anything else to do with killing](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/lawyer-dallas-man-fatally-shot-home-police-slams-attempt-smear-n909506): > [@](#): > > Investigators said in a search warrant of the apartment of Botham Jean, 26, that they were looking for “any contraband, such as narcotics, and other items that may have been used in criminal offenses.” Investigators later said in a court document that they found 10.4 grams of marijuana during Saturday’s search. ---
**Author:** ![Roy\_Batty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Roy\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roy_Batty)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2018, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-cop-kills-innocent-man/821119/305 "2018-09-15T21:40:24Z")
So now they’re trying to ruin the victim’s reputation by mentioning what he has in his home. Well, what the fuck does that have to do with the case?! That doesn’t change the fact that this was an innocent victim killed in cold blood. And, how do we even know this “evidence” wasn’t planted by the authorities?! ---
**Author:** ![Lucas\_Jackson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lucas_jackson/32/303_2.png) [@Lucas\_Jackson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lucas_Jackson)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2018, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-cop-kills-innocent-man/821119/306 "2018-09-15T22:12:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Your intense study of the subject area is obviously formidable… No need to be condescending and dickish with your responses, I’m talking about actual cases with all of the factual details posted online. It’s not like I’m quoting Law And Order or C.S.I. I’m talking about actual attorneys with actual clients stating why their clients were innocent by quoting penal code law… and yet their client goes to prison anyway. It’s a valid rebuttal to your (essential) declaration that she wouldn’t have done anything wrong had she been in her own apt just because you posted relevant codes. > [@](#): > > Again, I’m discussing what the specifics of the law are about a resident shooting in her own apartment, which is not what happened here. I get exactly what’s being discussed here. You are referring to to a off-hand remark I made in a post where I was questioning the legality of her actions _as they actually happened_. I followed up with a question (to that OP) of what part of her actions warranted firing recklessly and killing someone _as she, herself, described it_. You chose to ignore that question at hand, focus on the offhand part and build your defense of her actions around that. A point, despite your posted penal code sections, I still disagree with. A point I still think will be argued in court by lawyers and decided on by jurors, if it goes to trial. And then you follow the whole thing up with weasel words as if to dismiss it and me. Yep, I get it. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2018, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-cop-kills-innocent-man/821119/307 "2018-09-15T22:39:34Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > [Let’s quit pretending the search warrant was for bullet casings or blood smears or anything else to do with killing](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/lawyer-dallas-man-fatally-shot-home-police-slams-attempt-smear-n909506): Would you like me to provide evidence that a search warrant would prudent for cases such as these for things such as bullet casings and any other possible evidence? If I provide such evidence, will you take back your claims? Or if I do will you just claim that it’s needed, but that’s not why search warrants were requested? If you claim the latter, you’re going to have to do better than “but contraband was listed, so that must be all they cared about!” You don’t think the article you linked to was written with a particular slant? Of course you know it was, as it’s obvious. Here are snippets from an article including a different slant: > [@](#): > > One of the warrants became a public record Thursday afternoon when it was returned to the judge who signed it. It was shortly after Jean’s funeral had ended. It listed several items found in Jean’s apartment, including a small amount of marijuana. > > … > > The search warrant executed in Jean’s apartment at South Side Flats specifically sought fired cartridge casings, fired projectiles, firearms, ballistic vests, keys, evidence of blood, video surveillance systems, and contraband such as narcotics and other items used in criminal offenses. > > The inventory return yielded: > 2 fired cartridge casings > 1 laptop computer > 1 black backpack with police equipment and paperwork > 1 insulated lunch box > 1 black ballistic vest with “police” markings > 10.4 grams of marijuana in ziplock bags > 1 metal marijuana grinder > 2 RFID keys > 2 used packages of medical aid Hmm. They sought a ballistics vest, and one just happened to be found? No. One was in view when police arrived and it was requested to be on the search warrant. Just like other things in plain view, presumably what appeared to be marijuana. More: > [@](#): > > The document does not say where any of the items were located in the apartment or who the items belong to. > > … > Attorney Pete Schulte, who is not connected to the case, says the defense will likely bring it up in trial if the marijuana turns out to be his. > > “I’m not saying Mr. Jean is a bad guy because he had some marijuana in his apartment,” Schulte said. “But it could help add some explanation to this crazy case. It just adds another layer of complexity.” > > Schulte says it’s common practice for detectives investigating a case to cast a wide net when seeking a search warrant. > > The request for the warrant does list a wide range of items — from blood evidence and keys, to video surveillance systems and “any contraband, such as narcotics, and other items that may have been used in criminal offenses.” > > Other attorneys not associated with the case say that specific language may have been used for items that were in plain sight. > > “They do a broad spectrum of what they’re looking for when they get these search warrants,” Schulte said. “Now toxicology is important, both with Officer Guyger and Mr. Jean, because it could explain how this case happened. How things went south so quickly.” > > By law, a warrant must be executed within 72 hours of when it was issued. As far as the timing of the return to the court, nearly a week later? > > “There’s nothing nefarious about it. I think it just got done,” Schulte said. “They’ve got to get it to the court, and it got to the court today.” > **[Lawyers "disgusted" by release of search warrant showing marijuana found in...](https://www.fox4news.com/news/lawyers-disgusted-by-release-of-search-warrant-showing-marijuana-found-in-botham-jeans-apartment)** > > Following the shooting death of Botham Jean by the hands of Dallas Police Officer Amber Guyger, multiple search warrants were executed at Jean’s apartment as part of the investigation. So one attorney not connected with the case says it’s common to list a wide range of stuff on warrants, and that’s why contraband made the list, and multiple attorneys not connected with the case say that specific language may have been used for items that were in plain sight, which may explain it. It explains items listed such as the ballistics vest. I’m going to make this point again: The same people who are claiming the only reason there were search warrants issued was to smear the victim, would be up in arms if none were. “What, no search warrant! So the cops either wanted no evidence of this obvious murder to be gathered or they wanted to make sure anything found would be suppressed! Of course- another case of cops protecting their own!” If investigators saw marijuana in plain site and did not request marijuana to be listed on a search warrant, it wouldn’t go well for them. Of course it would be on a warrant. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2018, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-cop-kills-innocent-man/821119/308 "2018-09-15T23:23:49Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > [Let’s quit pretending the search warrant was for bullet casings or blood smears or anything else to do with killing](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/lawyer-dallas-man-fatally-shot-home-police-slams-attempt-smear-n909506): Thanks for that, **Czrcasm** - I hadn’t seen that part before. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2018, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-cop-kills-innocent-man/821119/309 "2018-09-15T23:30:07Z")
> [@Gray\_Ghost](#): > > It’s an active crime scene. I am not very familiar with search and seizure law, but it seems bizarre that the police would need a warrant to revisit the scene of a homicide, photograph for blood stains, carpet marks, shell casings, and the rest of the panoply of physical evidence. OTOH, it’s not like it should be very difficult to obtain one in this situation. I’m certainly willing to be corrected on this point. It’s been some time since my search and seizure/4th amendment class. However, my understanding is that there’s no “crime scene” exception to the 4th amendment, certainly not for private property and a dwelling place. After all, change it to a less serious crime, where the residents of the dwelling place are still alive (an assault, say). They’re still living there. The police need a warrant. Absent exigent circumstances, the 4th and the warrant requirement applies. The victim of the shooting has been removed and scene is secure. The police saw what was in plain view, and drafted the warrant to cover everything in plain view and similar items. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2018, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-cop-kills-innocent-man/821119/310 "2018-09-15T23:30:41Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > I’m going to make this point again: The same people who are claiming the only reason there were search warrants issued was to smear the victim, would be up in arms if none were. “What, no search warrant! So the cops either wanted no evidence of this obvious murder to be gathered or they wanted to make sure anything found would be suppressed! Of course- another case of cops protecting their own!” You aren’t making a point every time you repeat this-you are making baseless supposition/accusation. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2018, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-cop-kills-innocent-man/821119/311 "2018-09-16T12:35:38Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > You aren’t making a point every time you repeat this-you are making baseless supposition/accusation. It isn’t baseless. You claimed that the search warrant was not for bullet casings, blood smears, or anything to do with killing. That statement was factually wrong - > [@](#): > > The search warrant executed in Jean’s apartment at South Side Flats specifically sought fired cartridge casings, fired projectiles, firearms, ballistic vests, keys, evidence of blood, video surveillance systems, and contraband such as narcotics and other items used in criminal offenses. The point is that your statement is false. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2018, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-cop-kills-innocent-man/821119/312 "2018-09-16T12:35:42Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > You aren’t making a point every time you repeat this-you are making baseless supposition/accusation. Um, this is a _serious_ question that needs to be asked. Dismissing it out of hand seems rather odd. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2018, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-cop-kills-innocent-man/821119/313 "2018-09-16T14:24:22Z")
> [@ftg](#): > > Um, this is a _serious_ question that needs to be asked. Dismissing it out of hand seems rather odd. If it is a serious question, then it should have a “?” at the end of it-it keeps getting posted as fact. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2018, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-cop-kills-innocent-man/821119/314 "2018-09-16T15:01:20Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > If it is a serious question, then it should have a “?” at the end of it-it keeps getting posted as fact. Pssst- I asked you earlier. I even included a question mark for you. I also asked you other questions that went unanswered. But as long as you get the last word in, you win. You keep thinking that. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2018, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-cop-kills-innocent-man/821119/315 "2018-09-16T16:20:44Z")
> [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > The local Dallas Fox News station (of course) reported that, horrors, \*marijuana \*has been found in Jean’s house. Which, IMO, has fuck-all to do with any justifiable pretext for Guyer being in Mr. Jean’s apartment; she had no search warrant, no probable cause, and was supposedly confused (:rolleyes:) about what apartment she was in. Mr. Jean’s alleged possession of the marijuanas, even if in felony weight (“Intent to Distribute”), is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt at an ex post facto justification for Guyer. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2018, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-cop-kills-innocent-man/821119/316 "2018-09-24T18:54:16Z")
Bumped to add new news: [Dallas officer Amber Guyger fired after manslaughter charge for killing Botham Jean](https://www.dallasnews.com/news/dallas-police/2018/09/24/dallas-officer-amber-guyger-fired-after-manslaughter-charge-killing-botham-jean) ---
**Author:** ![nelliebly](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nelliebly/32/5422_2.png) [@nelliebly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nelliebly)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2018, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-cop-kills-innocent-man/821119/317 "2018-09-24T19:24:36Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Bumped to add new news: > > [Dallas officer Amber Guyger fired after manslaughter charge for killing Botham Jean](https://www.dallasnews.com/news/dallas-police/2018/09/24/dallas-officer-amber-guyger-fired-after-manslaughter-charge-killing-botham-jean) Note that she wasn’t fired for killing Jean: > [@](#): > > Police said in a news release that Hall fired Guyger after an internal investigation found the officer had engaged in “adverse conduct” when she was charged with manslaughter three days after the shooting. What constitutes “adverse conduct”? Resisting arrest? Shouting racial slurs? ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2018, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-cop-kills-innocent-man/821119/318 "2018-09-24T19:42:18Z")
I think it was “Not coming up with a better cover story” ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2018, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-cop-kills-innocent-man/821119/319 "2018-09-25T01:37:01Z")
> [@nelliebly](#): > > Note that she wasn’t fired for killing Jean: > > What constitutes “adverse conduct”? Resisting arrest? Shouting racial slurs? Of course that’s what she was fired for. That’s the adverse conduct. ---
**Author:** ![JB99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@JB99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JB99)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2018, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-cop-kills-innocent-man/821119/320 "2018-09-25T11:22:14Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > Of course that’s what she was fired for. That’s the adverse conduct. The problem is, there is a segment of the population that perceives that as dishonesty. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-cop-kills-innocent-man/821119.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-cop-kills-innocent-man/821119.md?page=17)