To bump’s point about it not being a police shooting, or that’s it’s misleading, I see his point. But, AIUI, Dallas PD did treat it as an “officer-involved shooting,” as opposed to a self-defense shooting involving a non law enforcement officer. That triggered several procedures, that I don’t believe exist for non-LEOs implicated in the same conduct: not pushing for a statement until some time (2-3 days or so) after the shooting, not moving immediately for a warrant for a blood draw on the shooter, etc… Further, I’ve talked to officers who’ve indicated that not arresting non-LEOs for things like this isn’t unusual, if they thought the shooter would show up to jail/court when needed, and if they thought the shooter would be more forthcoming if not immediately arrested, Mirandized, and counsel retained. That said, not arresting Officer Guyger for some degree of criminal homicide upon the police seeing a gunshot victim in the hospital, the shooter admitting she did it, that’s the gun she used, and no other justification given for the assault, seems really peculiar, and only explained by the fact that she was a Dallas police officer.
I think it is overstating things to say that apartment dwellers don’t leave their doors unlocked. Everyone is prone to forgetfulness. I know that when I lived in an urban tower high-rise, I would leave my door unlocked quite frequently out of carelessness. Once someone actually did walk into my apartment, only to be greeted by my loud, terror-filled scream. It was one of the scariest things to ever happen to me. But it still wasn’t enough to learn me. Fifteen years later, I still occasionally discover I’ve fallen asleep without properly securing my doors.
So it’s not the unlocked door claim that I find bullshit. I find it unlikely, but it isn’t implausible. It’s the claim that Jean left his door open that I find suspicious. I can maybe buy this if it had been the middle of the day and he had been throwing a big party and people had been streaming in and out of the apartment. But it was late at night, the guy wasn’t hosting anyone, and if the apartment was truly dimly lit and he was clad only in underwear, it is very likely he was about to go to bed. Assuming these last things things are true, then a door standing open doesn’t make a lick of sense. It screams, “I’m going to throw everything and the kitchen sink into this story and hope someone swallows it because blue lives matter, amirite?”
Is testing a cop for alcohol/drugs standard procedure when they shoot someone on the job? I know stuff like putting them on administrative leave is a standard action. Basically I was wondering if they were testing this officer because she was technically off duty during the event or if they would have tested her if she had been on duty as well.
I also wouldn’t presume either was corrupt, but municipal hierarchies do have a mixture of conflicts of interest in police shootings. The department itself at some level because it’s ‘one of them’, other levels of the dept and the civilian elected leadership to accommodate public pressure which often means presuming police guilt. It’s not simply fixed by changing the ‘bias setting’ toward convicting police personnel involved. And IMO it’s naive at this point in the social/political evolution to assume every piece of information leaked from govt is designed to exonerate police rather than the opposite, or neither. Some conflicting info given to the press, particularly on unnamed source basis, is probably from people who just don’t actually know what they are talking about.
I don’t see a reason to assume in a case like this that an investigation and trial would ‘cover up’ basic facts like whether the guy’s door was open, unlocked or what other explanation how the officer could have got in without it being obvious it wasn’t her apartment. It’s not uncommon to use the word ‘open’ in English wrt a door when it would be more exact to say ‘unlocked’. I doubt this will remain a central mystery when all is said and done. I particularly doubt the officer would claim the door was wide open rather than unlocked if there’s actually a more nefarious underlying story (premeditated killing, stole or copied the key).
One big issue in how this plays out is that the police version sounds exactly like a committee created fiction to spin everything in Guyger’s and the police’s favor. It’s what you expect from a defense attorney defending their client trying to create maximum doubt. While it’s possible it did happen as they say, it seems unlikely from common sense and what witnesses have said. If it comes out that the official statement was totally incorrect, it’s going to greatly solidify people’s belief that you can’t trust the police and they’ll make up any lies necessary to protect themselves.
The door being “open” seems inconsistent with the idea of the woman banging on it and yelling let me in (obviously, it’s also inconsistent with the idea of her not realizing it wasn’t her apartment, unless she expected someone to be in her apartment).
But I don’t know that the claim is that it was “standing open.” I’ve had a few apartments (and plenty of hotel rooms) where the door has failed to latch completely because I’ve tried to close it quietly (instead of letting it close itself and slam). This looks (in the video upthread) like a similar door. To me, one of the more plausible components of the story is that she puts her key in the (wrong) door and it opens because it wasn’t fully latched (and, as a result, she doesn’t realize that she has the wrong keys).
ISTM that she should have known it wasn’t her apartment even if the door was unlatched. And all the background about how tired, or maybe drunk, she was after a 12 hour shift doesn’t make any difference. Or even if she was a police officer or not. She should have known it wasn’t her apartment.
Even putting the most favorable spin on her story as it stands doesn’t help. OK, she was tired, and it was dark, and the door was unlatched. That doesn’t make going into the wrong apartment reasonable. So she acted without malice. So what? That makes it involuntary manslaughter, or reckless endangerment, or something like that.
Treat her the way you would any other licensed carrier who shot someone because they made an unreasonable mistake. Not better, not worse. The same.
Regards,
Shodan
PS - this is all based on what we know so far. Maybe they were ex-lovers or had a history or something. And probably she got some of the details wrong, either innocently or otherwise.
This is a perplexing part of the story (and, unsurprisingly, disputed). Did she live alone or not? Banging on the door and yelling “Let me in” implies that she did not live alone, in which case it makes absolutely zero sense that she’d immediately draw her weapon and open fire when she saw a figure in the dark. If she did live alone, who was she yelling at to let her in?
In the late evening, when the resident was in a state of undress and presumably retired for the night, it strains credibility the front door would have been propped open for no outwardly apparent reason. Rather coincidental too that at just the time this unusual occasion occurs, the shooter supposedly thinks this is her front door and waltzes right in.
Not a smoking gun but it’s definitely fishy.
Ahh but can we lift off and nuke the site from orbit, just to be sure?
It would be a curious development if it turned out she was trying to kill a boyfriend in a domestic dispute, and wound up at the wrong apartment by mistake.
Yep.
The aspect of this case that confounds me is not that she (allegedly) mistook someone else’s apartment for her own, but that a trained police officer behaved the way she did in a dark apartment. Even if her account is accurate, in the dark she had no way of knowing if the one guy she (sort of) saw was the only other person present. She couldn’t have determined with any certainty what he may have been armed with. Under those circumstances, isn’t a cop supposed to retreat and call for backup?
She did a whole lot of things wrong and some that seem hinky. That is why I wonder why this is about anything but her.
And this is why we have dozens of stories like this one:
https://people.com/crime/ohio-dad-shoots-son-thinking-hes-an-intruder/
No true Scotsman, erm, good guy with a gun, right?
Here’s where Bricker’s hypo breaks down - opinion. My wife and I are fans of Investigation Discovery TV. We watch several true crime dramas a day and have for several years. In almost every case, the defense attorney quotes state law, statutes, etc and states unequivocally how their client was complying with the laws and how they were right. In almost every case their client goes to jail. Being a lawyer and quoting state law will not make you right or keep your client from going to jail if they have done something despicable.
Again, Bricker is just another lawyer. In almost every case that goes to trial there are two opposing ones. One always loses.
Where I’ll disagree with you is that: I don’t think that what the shooter did in Bricker’s hypo was despicable—nor would most Texans—and if the shooter gets “no-billed”, there’s no indictment and therefore no trial. Tragic, not despicable.
Bricker’s hypo isn’t what happened here. It is illustrative though for showing that, if you believe she thought she was at her apartment, Guyger lacked the mens rea necessary to commit murder. I think it’s easier to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Guyger was reckless in her disregard for a bunch of objective evidence that she wasn’t in her apartment, and that the guy approaching her had every right to be there and every right to ignore whatever commands she may or may not have given him.
(I tend to believe that the witness accounts of pounding on the door, yelling Police, etc… came from hearing the cops show up a few minutes after the shooting. We may find out at a later point what happened regarding that. I have read that Guyger may have called 911 before trying to enter Jean’s apartment. If so, there should be a record of that, and it may support a finding that Guyger was merely negligent as opposed to recklessly causing Jean’s death. Or it may mean she was justified after all, as hard as that is to believe right now.)
For Riemann, and his quip about placing Aliens-style sentry guns around one’s residence, funnily enough a similar case happened in a Houston suburb the other day: Shooting victim wounded while trying to rig doors and windows of Tomball home with booby traps. Tomball home rigged with booby traps, causing 73-year-old man to be shot, Harris County Sheriff's Office said - ABC13 Houston From the article:
Basically, mid 70 year old rigs his house with a dozen or so booby traps. This is illegal, even in Texas. He manages to cleverly shoot himself with one, the cops are called, and one of the responding officers damn near shoots himself with another one. I am guessing dementia, along with a good dose of paranoia, and maybe a lengthy stay in a state hospital. Glad the officer was unhurt. So far, sentry-guns are not allowed.
Ran out of edit time. I agree with Corry El’s post in response to mine. I particularly agree with the idea that ambiguous language, as relayed by media accounts, and by the witnesses themselves, can lead to different perceptions of what happened. Ambiguous terms such as “an open door”, when the witness really meant, “an unlocked door that didn’t close all of the way, but looks like it’s closed and locked” etc… Also the part where he mentions that many of the people talking to the media about this, or discussing it in the media, don’t know what they’re talking about.
We really need more information about what happened—I’ve mentioned before wanting to know just where Mr. Jean got shot in relation to the door, among other things—and what the authorities did in response when they got their call.
Go ahead and check, sparky. You will find that I have never used that expression, other than to point out to others like you that I have never used it. Swing and a miss for you.