But I think the hypothesis is not that she’s responding to current noise, but that she had previously complained about noise, perhaps more than once, and decided at the end of her shift (on the way home) to first stop at his apartment, in uniform, to confront him about it.
Ah, ok. Still though, seems an inappropriate or at least odd time to confront an apartment neighbor face-to-face to address previous noise issues. 10:00 at night? But it does make more sense than the scenario I was responding to. But that is still a pretty low bar.
I’m picturing a scenario where’s she’s tired, drunk, and/or drugged, and on the way home got a bug in her ear about how he kept her up two nights ago, and that’s not gonna happen tonight, dammit!! And so she stopped by to have a little chat…
Exactly. And so she goes there directly, and in uniform, thinking as a cop she can intimidate him. And after things go to shit, since she parked on his floor, she thinks up this lame story about mistaken apartments.
If this is what happened, am I unreasonably optimistic that any evidence that she filed out a prior noise complaint will surely be enough that any jury will dismiss her implausible story?
FWIW I’ve seen people who are familiar with Texas search warrants say that the “any contraband, such as narcotics” language is boilerplate on all warrants.
(Though they are now trying to push that OMG he had the devil weed in his apartment.)
Cant say that looks all that much 69. We will just disagree. Gang signs make more sense to me.
@ Banquet Bear: That is fucked up. Wouldn’t the OBVIOUS thing to do be search the shooters apt?
I have nothing constructive to add beyond how absolutely furious this makes me. She entered a man’s home with no warrant and no suspicion and shot him dead just for the crime of living in his own home. It’s unbelievable.
Do police officers actually understand why people hate them? Or is that just the one mystery that they can’t figure out? They can take their macho, self-righteous, ‘sheepdog’ bullshit and choke on it. Fuck cops.
I might have missed it, but I’m waiting for a badge bunny to show up and tell me how Jean was a ‘thug’ who had it coming, and it’s his own fault for holding a phone or not being obedient enough, or any of the other 900 excuses they make so that cops can get away with murder.
Why would the police search her home? It’s not where the crime happened. Mr. Jean’s apartment was where it happened. It’s understandable that police would search a crime scene. (Distinguish from Minneapolis PD searching Ms. Justine Damon’s residence, when she was shot in the street.)
AIUI Dallas PD did find some weed in Jean’s apartment, less than half an ounce, along with two shell casings and other evidence. Big deal. Still doesn’t excuse her shooting him, even if Jean looked like an extra from Cheech & Chong.
I can barely see the glimmer of an attempt by Guyger’s team to assert that she tried to give him an order to stop approaching her, while she was outside, and in uniform, and that Jean’s possible intoxication on weed led him to respond slowly or not perceive her commands. I don’t agree with that, but I can see the argument being made.
The arrest warrant (Link is up-thread.) says she stated she entered the apartment. She did not shoot him from outside the apartment. The warrant says she stated she went back to check the door to find out what apartment she was in, and that’s when she “discovered” she was in the wrong apartment. And actually, he couldn’t have resembled either Cheech or Chong because the apartment was dark, and she’d just been in a lighted hallway.
Her story has more holes than a lace tablecloth. Her attorney had better have a whole lot of thread.
That conveniently and coincidentally look like a 69, the age of the father at the time of the photo? Seems rather like a huge stretch to me, but okay… I will admit, I thought gang sign at first, but the explanation pans out to me and the level of coincidence of age and handsign (and the idea the brother-in-law was quick enough to think–hey–lucky me! turns out my white power handsign looks convincingly enough like a 6 and 9, just like my father-in-law’s age!) is just far too remote.
But speculation on this matter is rather an unimportant sidebar. The whole shooting story stinks to high heaven.
Why? Why would the police want to look for marijuana in one of their own’s apartment? It’s not going to help their case against the victim.
That thing about the police officer who manhandled and arrested the nurse in Utah was because the police wanted a blood draw on the victim of a fatal accident caused by someone running from the cops in a “bad” chase.
The police need to be thorough when looking for dirt on victims of police actions. Not so thorough when it comes to policing the police.
Even if that’s not 100% accurate, it sure as hell seems that way.
The “69” is reversed. If you look at it from the perspective of the guy flashing the sign, it looks exactly like a 69. Unless of course you got a hankering for witch burn’n. Then I guess it looks like “gang” sign.
Your intense study of the subject area is obviously formidable, but I’d gently suggest that cases that go to trial are a subset of shootings that happen, and a prosecutor who believes the evidence before him does not support guilt beyond a reasonable doubt never comes to trial in the first place.
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.
Your rebuttal appears to be that defense attorneys sometimes lose cases at at trial.
