Shirtless man stares down Hurricane Florence with American flag in hand: 'Just being free and American'-(Red Fox)
CARRRLLL!!!!
Friday, September 14, 2018
Didn't expect it to look like that. Though it was like a hotel swipe card slot. Never saw that kind of electronic lock before. The door "which was slightly ajar...fully opened under the force of the key insertion."
It is strange that Mr. Jean was home alone in total darkness at 10 pm on a work night with the door "slightly ajar." I had pictured him in my mind's eye as in for the night, in bed or just about to be. I don't know that NOT to be the case but if that was the case then why was the door not closed and locked?
That door doesn't work like hotel room doors where it shuts automatically if you don't put that bar thing in the door frame?...Actually, I don't think I ever saw a door, other than a hotel room door, shut automatically. One time I went to get some ice and was only wearing boxers. As soon as I exited the room I heard the fucking thing close behind me and I was standing in the hallway in my boxers like a dumb ass. Had to go down to the front desk in my boxers like a dumb ass too.
Anyway, where does that "slightly ajar" come from? Guyger, right? Only Guyger? Since this was an electronic lock is there an electronic record of an electronic key, and the wrong electronic key, Guyger's, being inserted into Mr. Jean's lock that night? Me thinks there WOULD be. When (on another occasion) I inserted my electronic hotel card into the wrong room slot that bird pump deactivated my card. Realizing my bird pump I then went to my real room and tried it and it didn't work. Had to go down to the front desk like a dumb ass again (but I was fully clothed👍) and told them "My card doesn't work" and they immediately said "You tried it at the wrong door first and it deactivated it" and I felt like a dumb ass again.
Anyway, is there no electronic record supporting or refuting Guyger's account?
What if there is a record and it shows NO attempt by Guyger? Then she lied, you dumb ass. Why would she lie about that? Wasn't there some account of a witness hearing "Open up!"? If Mr. Jean's door was NOT slightly ajar Guyger would have had to have knocked and shouted something like "Open up!" What were those "verbal commands" Guyger yelled according to the arrest warrant affidavit? Better not have been "Open up!"! because her key didn't work and if the door was locked and she STILL didn't notice the bright red mat and the illuminated door number then she didn't think it was a burglar, right? You don't yell, "Open up!" to a burglar, do you? No, you do not. And if she still didn't realize SHE was at the wrong door and SHE was the "intruder" then her mental state seems to me worse than the dumb ass mental state for manslaughter. I don't know WHAT her mental state would have been.
Biblical Shitting Possible as Mueller Passes Through Trump
Paul Manafort Pleads Guilty, Will Cooperate With Mueller Probe
(WSJ)
Thursday, September 13, 2018
Botham Jean SEARCH Warrant
The search warrant was signed by a judge on Friday, September 7, a day after the shooting. The affidavit for the search warrant was compiled and signed by Dallas P.D. Detective Angela Arredondo.
The ARREST warrant (previously published here) was obtained Sunday September 9 and its affidavit was compiled and signed by Texas Ranger David L. Carpenter.
The ARREST warrant (previously published here) was obtained Sunday September 9 and its affidavit was compiled and signed by Texas Ranger David L. Carpenter.
This is from Det. Arredondo's affidavit in support of search warrant:
The search warrant affidavit, obtained first, is often not going to be as complete or as accurate as the arrest warrant affidavit but, dear God, Arredondo knew that Botham Jean was not the SUBJECT! Mr. Jean was the VICTIM, yet Arredondo labeled him the SUBJECT. HORSE. SHIT. Arredondo does not mention Amber Guyger by name! NBCDFW reported on Monday, September 10:Guyger was not identified as the officer involved in the shooting until Saturday..." Which is BULL SHIT by NBCDFW. Guyger called 911 herself immediately after shooting Mr. Jean on September 6!
Arredondo wrote that Mr. Jean, therein "the subject" and "an unknown male," "CONFRONTED THE OFFICER AT THE DOOR"! Oh really? Carpenter wrote in his ARREST warrant affidavit that Jean was "across the room" when Guyger first saw him.
"The officer possibly believed the subject was an intruder": YOU DO NOT PUT "POSSIBLIES" IN A WARRANT! YOU DON'T PUT "POSSIBLIES" THAT ARE DEFINITELY WRONG IN A WARRANT! Who was the intruder? GUYGER!
"A neighbor stated he heard an exchange of words immediately followed by at least two gunshots":
Carpenter wrote that Guyger "gave commands" "which were ignored" by Jean. Which is it, guys?
Search warrant affidavits are usually so detailed in their description of the premises to be searched (so that the wrong premises are not hit) that officers often supplement their written descriptions with a photograph. This is Det. Arredondo's description of Mr. Jean's apartment door:
What made Botham Jean's front door NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO MISTAKEN SEARCH from all the other olive colored front doors in the building was his bright red door mat. Not in the search warrant.
That is a HORSE SHIT search warrant authored by Det. Angela Arredondo. HORSE SHIT.
Arredondo wrote that Mr. Jean, therein "the subject" and "an unknown male," "CONFRONTED THE OFFICER AT THE DOOR"! Oh really? Carpenter wrote in his ARREST warrant affidavit that Jean was "across the room" when Guyger first saw him.
"The officer possibly believed the subject was an intruder": YOU DO NOT PUT "POSSIBLIES" IN A WARRANT! YOU DON'T PUT "POSSIBLIES" THAT ARE DEFINITELY WRONG IN A WARRANT! Who was the intruder? GUYGER!
"A neighbor stated he heard an exchange of words immediately followed by at least two gunshots":
Carpenter wrote that Guyger "gave commands" "which were ignored" by Jean. Which is it, guys?
Search warrant affidavits are usually so detailed in their description of the premises to be searched (so that the wrong premises are not hit) that officers often supplement their written descriptions with a photograph. This is Det. Arredondo's description of Mr. Jean's apartment door:
That is a HORSE SHIT search warrant authored by Det. Angela Arredondo. HORSE SHIT.
Hurricane Florence weakened to Category 2 by ‘tremendous’ wind shear
Florence likely won’t restrengthen into a Category 3 before making landfall near the South Carolina-North Carolina border, making it is no longer a major hurricane...
(Atlanta Journal-Constitution)
Don’t Pay Attention to the Hurricane Category
Tuesday, September 11, 2018
Guyger: Mistake of Fact
I have had something sticking in my craw ever since I heard about this case and just now I put my finger on what it was: the doctrine of Mistake of Fact. We learn about this and myriad other exotic legal animals in law school and I had to go that far back to remember this one; that is, I have never
encountered Mistake of Fact in the wild, as it were, in 36 years of of lawyering. So I looked it up in Texas:
Texas Penal Code
Sec. 8.02. MISTAKE OF FACT. (a) It is a defense to prosecution that the actor through mistake formed a reasonable belief about a matter of fact if his mistaken belief negated the kind of culpability required for commission of the offense.
(b) Although an actor's mistake of fact may constitute a defense to the offense charged, he may nevertheless be convicted of any lesser included offense of which he would be guilty if the fact were as he believed.
That is a very bare bones mistake of fact statute and so I looked more.The fullest discussion of the mistake of fact defense in Texas law is in Celis v State, 354 S.W. 3rd 7.
Sometimes a person has taken due care to avoid risk, but he has made a reasonable mistake about some fact surrounding the offense. He has intentionally done the “bad act,” but if the facts were as he reasonably believed them to be, he would not have committed any offense.52
FN52. See, e.g., People v. Watkins, 2 Cal.App. 4th 589, 594, 3 Cal.Rptr. 563, 566 (Cal.Ct.App.1992), in which the California court explained the common-law doctrine of mistake-of-fact:To determine whether a mistake of fact applies we must assume the facts were as the defendant perceived them. If under this assumed state of facts the defendant's actions would not have constituted a crime, the defense applies. Conversely, if under this assumed state of facts the defendant's actions would still have been unlawful, the defense does not apply.Id. (citations omitted).. FN52. See, e.g., People v. Watkins, 2 Cal.App. 4th 589, 594, 3 Cal.Rptr. 563, 566 (Cal.Ct.App.1992), in which the California court explained the common-law doctrine of mistake-of-fact:To determine whether a mistake of fact applies we must assume the facts were as the defendant perceived them. If under this assumed state of facts the defendant's actions would not have constituted a crime, the defense applies. Conversely, if under this assumed state of facts the defendant's actions would still have been unlawful, the defense does not apply.Id. (citations omitted).
It has always bothered me about the Guyger-Jean case that from the facts, and now we have a full statement of the facts as the police believe them to be, Guyger really did mistake the facts, a whole slew of them, but really, sincerely did mistake them, and acted on her mistaken factual beliefs. Here repeated words on her 911 call: "I thought it was my apartment," apologizing to Mr. Jean, crying, one really comes away from those believing that she really believed. If those facts had been real, if it was her apartment, if Jean had been a burglar, would a crime have been committed? I think so but now that I have put my finger on the doctrine of Mistake of Fact, I am troubled. From the little, little little little research I have done (the above two sources and one other) I do not think Texas law gives Guyger cover under Mistake of Fact but I could be wrong! Amber Guyger will be judged under all of Texas law, including its Mistake of Fact doctrine, against what the reasonable person would have believed and how (s)he would have acted under the identical circumstances. The 911 call is Guyger's subjective reality. In Anglo-American law one's subjective reality is never a complete defense. Sincere, subjective belief is a precondition for application of the objective standard, the "reasonable man." I do not believe--AT ALL--that a jury of Amber Guyger's peers will conclude that her subjective reality was reasonable, that they, the jury, would have made the same mistakes of fact and would have acted on them exactly as she did. And it is the "reasonable man," not the "reasonable cop," standard.
encountered Mistake of Fact in the wild, as it were, in 36 years of of lawyering. So I looked it up in Texas:
Texas Penal Code
Sec. 8.02. MISTAKE OF FACT. (a) It is a defense to prosecution that the actor through mistake formed a reasonable belief about a matter of fact if his mistaken belief negated the kind of culpability required for commission of the offense.
(b) Although an actor's mistake of fact may constitute a defense to the offense charged, he may nevertheless be convicted of any lesser included offense of which he would be guilty if the fact were as he believed.
That is a very bare bones mistake of fact statute and so I looked more.The fullest discussion of the mistake of fact defense in Texas law is in Celis v State, 354 S.W. 3rd 7.
Sometimes a person has taken due care to avoid risk, but he has made a reasonable mistake about some fact surrounding the offense. He has intentionally done the “bad act,” but if the facts were as he reasonably believed them to be, he would not have committed any offense.52
FN52. See, e.g., People v. Watkins, 2 Cal.App. 4th 589, 594, 3 Cal.Rptr. 563, 566 (Cal.Ct.App.1992), in which the California court explained the common-law doctrine of mistake-of-fact:To determine whether a mistake of fact applies we must assume the facts were as the defendant perceived them. If under this assumed state of facts the defendant's actions would not have constituted a crime, the defense applies. Conversely, if under this assumed state of facts the defendant's actions would still have been unlawful, the defense does not apply.Id. (citations omitted).. FN52. See, e.g., People v. Watkins, 2 Cal.App. 4th 589, 594, 3 Cal.Rptr. 563, 566 (Cal.Ct.App.1992), in which the California court explained the common-law doctrine of mistake-of-fact:To determine whether a mistake of fact applies we must assume the facts were as the defendant perceived them. If under this assumed state of facts the defendant's actions would not have constituted a crime, the defense applies. Conversely, if under this assumed state of facts the defendant's actions would still have been unlawful, the defense does not apply.Id. (citations omitted).
It has always bothered me about the Guyger-Jean case that from the facts, and now we have a full statement of the facts as the police believe them to be, Guyger really did mistake the facts, a whole slew of them, but really, sincerely did mistake them, and acted on her mistaken factual beliefs. Here repeated words on her 911 call: "I thought it was my apartment," apologizing to Mr. Jean, crying, one really comes away from those believing that she really believed. If those facts had been real, if it was her apartment, if Jean had been a burglar, would a crime have been committed? I think so but now that I have put my finger on the doctrine of Mistake of Fact, I am troubled. From the little, little little little research I have done (the above two sources and one other) I do not think Texas law gives Guyger cover under Mistake of Fact but I could be wrong! Amber Guyger will be judged under all of Texas law, including its Mistake of Fact doctrine, against what the reasonable person would have believed and how (s)he would have acted under the identical circumstances. The 911 call is Guyger's subjective reality. In Anglo-American law one's subjective reality is never a complete defense. Sincere, subjective belief is a precondition for application of the objective standard, the "reasonable man." I do not believe--AT ALL--that a jury of Amber Guyger's peers will conclude that her subjective reality was reasonable, that they, the jury, would have made the same mistakes of fact and would have acted on them exactly as she did. And it is the "reasonable man," not the "reasonable cop," standard.
Guyger Sworn Arrest Affidavit
-Interior floor plans "in most ways identical or extremely similar": That is to be expected but beside the point. Were they furnished apartments so that even the furnishings were the same? If furnished apartments individual residents could decorate personally, no?
-"Guyger...walked down the fourth floor hallway to what she thought was her apartment. She inserted a unique door key..." The exterior of the apartments was the same except the apartment number and, in this case, the bright red mat. She had to have paused at the door to insert the electronic key. How in God's name did she not see the red mat?
-"door slightly ajar...[and]...fully opened under the force of the key...": Not my experience with hotel rooms but I take that as true. The door being slightly ajar would alarm any home owner. Why didn't she do a reality check on whether this was her apartment? Look around, make sure you're at the right door?
-"nearly completely dark": How so, "nearly"? Was there ambient light from the hallway? What if anything could she see about the interior?
The cops need to reconstruct this: Go back there at 10:00 pm, have the door "slightly ajar," insert an electronic card--Does the door open fully under the force of the key?--What can you see about the interior when the door is fully open?
"Nearly completely dark" was an important circumstance for the affiant to put in the warrant affidavit. Why was that important? That is, did that further alarm Guyger? Was it her practice as a female living alone to leave the lights on? If that was not her practice then she would have expected her apartment to be "nearly completely dark" at 10 pm.
"The door being opened alerted Jean"...Believing she had encountered a burglar, described as a large silhouette across the room".
-She did give commands. Whatever commands she gave "were ignored." That is still a good fact for Guyger. So the facts leading her to believe she had a burglar in her apartment were (1) door ajar (2) maybe nearly completely dark inside, and (3) large silhouette (4) commands ignored.
-"Guyger fired...then entered": She shot from outside the apartment. She had not noticed the red mat or apartment number before firing and she was still (a few seconds, I understand) outside the apartment. The point is, Guyger shot and killed a man based upon processed sensory impressions that she processed as consistent with burglary only, three of those, dark inside, door ajar, ignoring commands, vague and ambiguous, and entirely did not process clear, bold, unambiguous sensory impressions, the bright red mat and the lighted apartment number, that would have dispelled the alarm of the third, the large silhouette.
-"Guyger turned on the..lights while on the phone with 911.": Turning lights on after shooting makes sense. Then she would have noticed that she was in the wrong apartment. "Upon being asked where she was located...Guyger returned to the front door to observe the address and discovered she was at the wrong apartment." This is what struck me as particularly important. She only did a reality check when 911 asked her to do a reality check--after she had shot and killed a man. She shot at the vague and ambiguous--at the unreal--and determined the real--which was literally bolded in red and in lights--after. That's manslaughter.
Monday, September 10, 2018
Amber Guyger-Botham Jean
-It was a 15-hour shift Guyger worked that day, not a 10-hour shift. That is a long shift.
-She parked on the fourth floor of the apartment building garage, not the third floor. Her apartment is on the third floor, Mr. Jean's was on the fourth floor. Is that the first step in her loopiness? Can you not take an elevator down to 3? There is a point to the Dallas cop telling the Morning-News that and I am wondering if that was the first of the indicia of impairment.
-The four floors of the South Side Flats in the Cedars look the same, with concrete floors and tan doors. A light fixture to the side of each door displays the apartment number.
-The four floors of the South Side Flats in the Cedars look the same, with concrete floors and tan doors. A light fixture to the side of each door displays the apartment number.
That would be the second instance of possible impairment.
-Mr. Jean's door was not locked. Guyger put her key in and the door opened because it was not locked.
-"Guyger didn’t notice that Jean's door had a red doormat in front of it, the official said. Her entrance didn’t have one."
Now, if I were a homicide attorney for thirty-three years, and I am, that would be a big red mat of an indicator that Ms. Guyger's elevator did not go all the way to the top.
Missed it.
Now, if I were a homicide attorney for thirty-three years, and I am, that would be a big red mat of an indicator that Ms. Guyger's elevator did not go all the way to the top.
-"The lights were out. She saw a figure in the darkness and thought her apartment was being burglarized, the official said." THAT is a good point for Guyger.
-"Guyger pulled her gun and fired twice."
Wait...Nothing in between "dark"..."figure in the darkness"...thought "burglar" and "shoot"? No "WHO'S THERE?!" No "POLICE! No, LEMME SEE YOUR HANDS!" No "DON'T MOVE! and turn the lights on? Just "dark," "figure," thought "burglar"..."shoot?" That is NOT a good point for Guyger.
whensheturnedonthelightssherealizedshewasinthewrongapartment. Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. DID SHE TURN THE LIGHTS ON BEFORE OR AFTER SHOOTING MR. JEAN?!
Guyger, who was still in uniform, put her key in the door, which was unlocked, and the door opened, the official said. The lights were out. She saw a figure in the darkness and thought her apartment was being burglarized, the official said. Guyger pulled her gun and fired twice.
When she turned on the lights, she realized she was in the wrong apartment. Jean, who worked for PricewaterhouseCoopers, was shot once in the chest.
Manslaughter point. BAD for Guyger.
Guyger called 911 crying, the official said. She repeatedly said, “I thought it was my apartment” and apologized to Jean.
Obviously sincere emotion. Obviously, sincerely manslaughter, too.
Ms. Guyger, you were not taught in the academy to shoot first and apologize later, were you?
Ma'am, you were in FULL POLICE UNIFORM!
YOU ARE ARMED LIKE A WARRIOR!
VEST? I bet.
MACE/PEPPER SPRAY! Standard equipment.
KEL-LITE! Standard gear.
TAKE COVER BEHIND THE DOOR AND GIVE COMMANDS!
MAYBE YOU WOULD HAVE NOTICED THE FUCKING BRIGHT RED DOOR MAT!!!!!!!!!!!
MAYBE YOU WOULD HAVE NOTICED THE BRIGHTLY ILLUMINATED APARTMENT NUMBER SIGN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MAYBE YOU WOULD HAVE REALIZED YOU WERE A FUCKING HOMICIDAL, TRIGGER-HAPPY RETARD!!!!!!!!!!!
WHAT IS THE FUCKING MATTER WITH YOU?!!!!!
Sincerely Ms. Guyger, were you on drugs or alcohol?
Mr. Jean didn't have a weapon, you didn't claim he had a weapon and I guess you and your buddy cops forgot to bring a throw-down, this was not a "necessary" shoot, YOU WERE COMPLETELY IN THE WRONG.
“I’m so sorry,” she can be heard saying on the recording of the 911 call, the official said. Police arrived within four minutes.
We know you are, Ms. Guyger. We believe everything you said, all the sincere emotion you expressed. Honestly, truly, we do. It's worthless; honestly, truly, it is worthless. Let's always be friends.
A video taken by someone at the apartment complex shows Guyger in the hallway crying and pacing with a phone to her ear.
Very too bad, Ms. Guyger, but you know, you came out of this better than Mr. Jean did. He can't cry. When you finish your prison sentence you will be able to cry and Mr. Jean will still be dead.
Sunday, September 09, 2018
Guyger Arrested, Jailed for Manslaughter
GOOD job, Texas, Big D. That is the right thing to do, the correct thing legally, and you did it speedily. That is law enforcement at its best, without fear or favor.
In my role as Doctor of Jurisprudence I have just returned from making a house call on a patient. Since he is in a House of Correction I called on him there. Upon completion of my round I inquired of an African-American Nurse, denominated a "Corrections Officer" in our field what she thought "of the police shooting in Dallas." She had not heard. I took her as a test case for my diagnostic theorems of that case and presented the facts to her as dispassionate professional, viz:
"A policewoman just completed her shift, 10 hours. She went home to her apartment building four blocks away. Apparently she got off on the wrong floor of the building and went to what she thought was her apartment but in reality someone else's. The facts are confused about whether her neighbor's door was open or if she knocked after her key didn't work. She then shot dead the rightful apartment resident. She called the police to report the shooting and told the responding officers that she had mistakenly thought it her apartment."
To my surprise the Corrections Officer alerted to the went-to-the-wrong-apartment part. "I don't believe that," she responded succinctly. "She lived there. I don't believe her story that she went to the wrong apartment." I took that for granted. Officer Guyger made a mistake. She went to the wrong apartment. I alerted to the shooting part. My interrogator did not. I told her my hotel room experience. "I can understand a hotel room, you're new there. She lived there," the C.O. repeated.
It was a good point. It was a bad point for Guyger for if she is not believed about that part then it will not be believed that she had the mens rea for manslaughter. The alternatives would be "ill will, spite, hatred or evil intent" (second degree murder) or premeditation (first).
"A policewoman just completed her shift, 10 hours. She went home to her apartment building four blocks away. Apparently she got off on the wrong floor of the building and went to what she thought was her apartment but in reality someone else's. The facts are confused about whether her neighbor's door was open or if she knocked after her key didn't work. She then shot dead the rightful apartment resident. She called the police to report the shooting and told the responding officers that she had mistakenly thought it her apartment."
To my surprise the Corrections Officer alerted to the went-to-the-wrong-apartment part. "I don't believe that," she responded succinctly. "She lived there. I don't believe her story that she went to the wrong apartment." I took that for granted. Officer Guyger made a mistake. She went to the wrong apartment. I alerted to the shooting part. My interrogator did not. I told her my hotel room experience. "I can understand a hotel room, you're new there. She lived there," the C.O. repeated.
It was a good point. It was a bad point for Guyger for if she is not believed about that part then it will not be believed that she had the mens rea for manslaughter. The alternatives would be "ill will, spite, hatred or evil intent" (second degree murder) or premeditation (first).
Shooting by Dallas Policewoman
Amber Guyger, white female, is the name of the Dallas policewoman who shot and killed black male Botham Jean Thursday night.
There are conflicting public statements as to how Guyger ended up at Jean's apartment door and what happened then. Of the three scenarios noted here previously,
1. Guyger's key didn't work in Jean's door.
2. The door was already open.
3. Guyger had a master key.
#1 and #2 have been publicly reported, #1 by a Fox reporter who spoke to investigating officers, #2 by the Dallas mayor. According to the Fox reporter Guyger was on the wrong floor, at the wrong door, and "shooting happened shortly after resident opened the door." CNN interviewed a resident who said that all of the apartment doors look alike but that Mr. Jean had a bright red mat in front of his.
I hope that some Fourth Estater asks the Dallas P.D. chief why they took Guyger's blood for drug/alcohol testing. I bet that slipped right past the Wretches and they assumed it was s.o.p. It isn't. It's considered so "intrusive" a "seizure" of evidence that absent consent, you gotta get a damned warrant to take someone's blood. You have to put in that warrant facts and circumstances that indicate impairment to overcome the expectation of privacy. What were those reasons?
On the manslaughter warrant for Guyger's arrest, Dallas P.D. called in the Texas Rangers to investigate so as to avoid the appearance of impropriety in the subject officer being investigated by her own department. This was announced at the Chief's first press conference on the case. That is good. However, and this is natural, the Rangers asked DPD to hold off on the warrant since they are now the investigating agency and want to make that call.
Some of us have been in a position similar to that of Ofcr. Guyger before, right? I can't tell you how many times I have gone to the wrong car in the parking lot. One time put my key in the lock. Just a few months ago I went to the wrong door--they all look alike--of a hotel room. Put my swipe card in the slot and it flashed "no entry" red.
This is where those (I hope) fairly common occurrences are drastically dissimilar with Guyger's. Not once was there another person in the car or hotel room that I mistook for my own. If there had been I would about have had a heart attack. Now, the other person, the real owner of the car or the real occupant of the room, might have been so startled and angry that (s)he would have pulled a gun on me! But see Guyger's position was the opposite: she was in the wrong, she was at the wrong door, yet she was the one who pulled the gun AND SHOT AND KILLED the real owner/occupant! To make the situations precise, my own a few months ago and Ofcr. Guyger's, I went like the moron I am to the wrong hotel room door, tried my swipe card, no work, the real occupant heard the clicking sounds at his door, opened the door to check and I SHOT AND KILLED him!
The Rangers investigation should not take long. There is no way out for the police officer.
There are conflicting public statements as to how Guyger ended up at Jean's apartment door and what happened then. Of the three scenarios noted here previously,
1. Guyger's key didn't work in Jean's door.
2. The door was already open.
3. Guyger had a master key.
#1 and #2 have been publicly reported, #1 by a Fox reporter who spoke to investigating officers, #2 by the Dallas mayor. According to the Fox reporter Guyger was on the wrong floor, at the wrong door, and "shooting happened shortly after resident opened the door." CNN interviewed a resident who said that all of the apartment doors look alike but that Mr. Jean had a bright red mat in front of his.
I hope that some Fourth Estater asks the Dallas P.D. chief why they took Guyger's blood for drug/alcohol testing. I bet that slipped right past the Wretches and they assumed it was s.o.p. It isn't. It's considered so "intrusive" a "seizure" of evidence that absent consent, you gotta get a damned warrant to take someone's blood. You have to put in that warrant facts and circumstances that indicate impairment to overcome the expectation of privacy. What were those reasons?
On the manslaughter warrant for Guyger's arrest, Dallas P.D. called in the Texas Rangers to investigate so as to avoid the appearance of impropriety in the subject officer being investigated by her own department. This was announced at the Chief's first press conference on the case. That is good. However, and this is natural, the Rangers asked DPD to hold off on the warrant since they are now the investigating agency and want to make that call.
Some of us have been in a position similar to that of Ofcr. Guyger before, right? I can't tell you how many times I have gone to the wrong car in the parking lot. One time put my key in the lock. Just a few months ago I went to the wrong door--they all look alike--of a hotel room. Put my swipe card in the slot and it flashed "no entry" red.
This is where those (I hope) fairly common occurrences are drastically dissimilar with Guyger's. Not once was there another person in the car or hotel room that I mistook for my own. If there had been I would about have had a heart attack. Now, the other person, the real owner of the car or the real occupant of the room, might have been so startled and angry that (s)he would have pulled a gun on me! But see Guyger's position was the opposite: she was in the wrong, she was at the wrong door, yet she was the one who pulled the gun AND SHOT AND KILLED the real owner/occupant! To make the situations precise, my own a few months ago and Ofcr. Guyger's, I went like the moron I am to the wrong hotel room door, tried my swipe card, no work, the real occupant heard the clicking sounds at his door, opened the door to check and I SHOT AND KILLED him!
The Rangers investigation should not take long. There is no way out for the police officer.
Scholarly Tackle Football
Sunday September 9, 7:06 am NPT
Pitt just ran out of time. Good win for PSU and the B1G. Another bad loss for the ACC.
UK BEAT FU, C? 27-16 after 31 consecutive losses! At #25 FU, too! Congratulations to Kentucky!
The game got away from UConn, it did. The "Broncos" bucked them all up 62-7. May be time to discontinue Edsel.
#2 Dabo Swinney eked out a 28-26 win over Jimbo Fisher in College Station. Good win for the ACC over the SEC.
HERM EDWARDS got a huge win over #15 East Lansing Spartak 16-13 in the desert. Which is a BIG win for the PAC 12 and a BAD loss for the B1G.
10:41 pm
Paterno-Sandusky leads my Beloved Pitt Panthers 14-6 with 10' left in the 3Q.
KENTUCKY is up on Florida University 21-10 with 1:13 left in the third. 31 straight wins I think it is by FU over UK...21-6 PSU over the Beloveds now.
The 10th ranked Trees are beating #17 Southern Cal 14-0 at the half and that's the first time USC has been shut out in a half since...Oh, that post on ESPN is now down. Been awhile I take it.
The Lakers (#8) "held off" Ball State 24-16. One should not have to "hold off" Ball State.
Oh Jeez, Miami beat Savannah State 77-0. Make you feel better after getting humiliated by LSU, 'Canes? Hope not.
Finally, me thinks this is it for me tonight, I will be interested in finding out (tomorrow) how UConn fared against #20 Boise State...Now it's 23-6 the Pedo Bear Moonies. Um, Pitt...No major college program got hosed by conference realignment like UConn did. They recycled Randy Edsel, who had left the school after the Fiesta Bowl to take his dream job at...Maryland (Maryland was not then, has never been and never will be anybody's "dream job.") Edsel's dream turned into Edsel's nightmare and he was canned after, I don't know, three or four years. And UConn took him back! The "Huskies" were 3-9 in the first year of Edsel's reincarnation in Storrs. They got destroyed last week at home by #21 UCF 56-17. #21 and #20: lotta teams gonna get beat by #21 and #20. But 56-17 at home? Boise leads 3-0 about half way through the first. Not bad for UConn. That does not extrapolate out to 56-17. This game is on blue turf. If UConn can keep the score respectable: that's progress. But if they pull another El Foldo and get waxed again...and if it's another non-competitive season for them, I don't know, UConn just may be inclined to pull the plug on the whole tackle football thing. There's been talk of that before, of dropping down to the "Championship" division. What a precipitous free-fall it has been. And may continue to be.
Good night.
7:19 pm
Oy vey. Colorado scored--a touchdown--Nebraska got the ball back, got down to the CU 20 and were stopped on downs. Colorado beats Nebraska in Lincoln 33-28 spoiling Scott Frost's debut as Husker's coach.
7:11 pm
Bosnia & Herzegovina beat Northern Ireland 2-1. How is it fair for two countries to play against half of one? Damn cheaters.
7:04 pm
Oh jeezus, Colorado with the ball at midfield with 1:18 to go trailing Fauxpelini 28-27.
Oh my gosh, East Carolina is blowing out North Carolina 41-19 with 4 1/2 left in the game. Bad loss for the ACC.
Ohio State laid half a hundred on Ruptures who got three back. Bad addition to the B1G, Ruptures. Subtraction by addition.
5:30 pm
Ohio State only scored five times in the whole first half :o
3:50 pm
Ohio State hasn't scored in almost three minutes against Ruptures.
Ooh, Colorado has struck first against Nebraska. Fauxpelini is sad.
Eastern Michigan beat Frank Perdue 20-19. Bad loss for the B1G.
Dook beat Northwestern 21-7 at NW. Good win for the ACC.
South Florida beat Georgia Wreck 49-38 in Tampa. The Rambling Yellow Jackets need to stand closer to that man in green with the amazingly short torso in order to tackle him.
Bad loss for the ACC.
2:50 pm
Professor Chip Kelly is enduring a difficult first semester at the University of California at LaLa. The Powder Blues lost to Cincinnati last week and this week in Norman, Oklahoma is making like Norman Bates on their asses. It's 21-7 at the half.
Hairy Boner. Jeez, Hairy Boner. The "Mildcats" lost to BYWho last week and today are getting crushed by Houston 38-3. Still 1:53 left in the third, though.
Basically the PAC12 conference blows.
Pitt just ran out of time. Good win for PSU and the B1G. Another bad loss for the ACC.
UK BEAT FU, C? 27-16 after 31 consecutive losses! At #25 FU, too! Congratulations to Kentucky!
The game got away from UConn, it did. The "Broncos" bucked them all up 62-7. May be time to discontinue Edsel.
#2 Dabo Swinney eked out a 28-26 win over Jimbo Fisher in College Station. Good win for the ACC over the SEC.
HERM EDWARDS got a huge win over #15 East Lansing Spartak 16-13 in the desert. Which is a BIG win for the PAC 12 and a BAD loss for the B1G.
10:41 pm
Paterno-Sandusky leads my Beloved Pitt Panthers 14-6 with 10' left in the 3Q.
KENTUCKY is up on Florida University 21-10 with 1:13 left in the third. 31 straight wins I think it is by FU over UK...21-6 PSU over the Beloveds now.
The 10th ranked Trees are beating #17 Southern Cal 14-0 at the half and that's the first time USC has been shut out in a half since...Oh, that post on ESPN is now down. Been awhile I take it.
The Lakers (#8) "held off" Ball State 24-16. One should not have to "hold off" Ball State.
Oh Jeez, Miami beat Savannah State 77-0. Make you feel better after getting humiliated by LSU, 'Canes? Hope not.
Finally, me thinks this is it for me tonight, I will be interested in finding out (tomorrow) how UConn fared against #20 Boise State...Now it's 23-6 the Pedo Bear Moonies. Um, Pitt...No major college program got hosed by conference realignment like UConn did. They recycled Randy Edsel, who had left the school after the Fiesta Bowl to take his dream job at...Maryland (Maryland was not then, has never been and never will be anybody's "dream job.") Edsel's dream turned into Edsel's nightmare and he was canned after, I don't know, three or four years. And UConn took him back! The "Huskies" were 3-9 in the first year of Edsel's reincarnation in Storrs. They got destroyed last week at home by #21 UCF 56-17. #21 and #20: lotta teams gonna get beat by #21 and #20. But 56-17 at home? Boise leads 3-0 about half way through the first. Not bad for UConn. That does not extrapolate out to 56-17. This game is on blue turf. If UConn can keep the score respectable: that's progress. But if they pull another El Foldo and get waxed again...and if it's another non-competitive season for them, I don't know, UConn just may be inclined to pull the plug on the whole tackle football thing. There's been talk of that before, of dropping down to the "Championship" division. What a precipitous free-fall it has been. And may continue to be.
Good night.
7:19 pm
Oy vey. Colorado scored--a touchdown--Nebraska got the ball back, got down to the CU 20 and were stopped on downs. Colorado beats Nebraska in Lincoln 33-28 spoiling Scott Frost's debut as Husker's coach.
7:11 pm
Bosnia & Herzegovina beat Northern Ireland 2-1. How is it fair for two countries to play against half of one? Damn cheaters.
7:04 pm
Oh jeezus, Colorado with the ball at midfield with 1:18 to go trailing Fauxpelini 28-27.
Oh my gosh, East Carolina is blowing out North Carolina 41-19 with 4 1/2 left in the game. Bad loss for the ACC.
Ohio State laid half a hundred on Ruptures who got three back. Bad addition to the B1G, Ruptures. Subtraction by addition.
5:30 pm
Ohio State only scored five times in the whole first half :o
3:50 pm
Ohio State hasn't scored in almost three minutes against Ruptures.
Ooh, Colorado has struck first against Nebraska. Fauxpelini is sad.
Eastern Michigan beat Frank Perdue 20-19. Bad loss for the B1G.
Dook beat Northwestern 21-7 at NW. Good win for the ACC.
South Florida beat Georgia Wreck 49-38 in Tampa. The Rambling Yellow Jackets need to stand closer to that man in green with the amazingly short torso in order to tackle him.
Bad loss for the ACC.
2:50 pm
Professor Chip Kelly is enduring a difficult first semester at the University of California at LaLa. The Powder Blues lost to Cincinnati last week and this week in Norman, Oklahoma is making like Norman Bates on their asses. It's 21-7 at the half.
Hairy Boner. Jeez, Hairy Boner. The "Mildcats" lost to BYWho last week and today are getting crushed by Houston 38-3. Still 1:53 left in the third, though.
Basically the PAC12 conference blows.
Saturday, September 08, 2018
Oh my. Miami has now lost four games in a row dating back to last season when they closed with three straight losses. That's a brutal look by the "Hurricanes." They lost to LSU 33-17 on Monday in a game played in Arlington, Texas. Miami was eighth-ranked in the country and three point favorites. The got killed. LSU led 27-3 at the half
Friday, September 07, 2018
Shooting By Dallas Policewoman
How can you walk in to somebody else's apartment?
So, you're coming home from a hard day protecting and serving and you take out your keys to open your apartment door, stick the key in the door knob and...
1. Your key doesn't work.
a. You bang on the door and Mr. Jean answers and you shoot him because you think he is a burglar?
b. You bang on the door, Mr. Jean answers, you ask him what he's doing in your apartment, he says this is my apartment you say yeah right and you shoot him?
i. Why would you immediately disbelieve him with such extreme prejudice. Why wouldn't you do a reality check on yourself? "Oh right, sorry, wrong crib."
A. That is what you told the officers four minutes later when they responded to your call of the shooting. How much sooner than four minutes did you have that epiphany?
B. Did you see any of the interior of the apartment before killing him?
(1) Only after I killed him: "Now I see that print of Saint Lucia on the wall! My bad."
(2) Before I killed him. "Everything was different. I thought he had broken in, thought the place was nice and decided to move his stuff in."
(3) Before you killed him. "You're not going to believe this but it was decorated identically to mine. Exactly the same furniture. Same picture of Saint Lucia on the wall."
2. The door is already open.
a. You immediately take out your service revolver, enter, see Mr. Jean and shoot and kill him?
b. Blah, blah, blah and 1. b.?
3. The door is locked but you have a master key.
a. Shoot first, ask questions never?
b. Ask questions first and 1. b.
Based on what little little little we have now, that is the universe of entry scenarios that I can think of and they range from the plausible (#2) to the preposterous. More importantly, in none of those three scenarios are there non-criminal answers (that I can think of) to the natural questions one would have once the policewoman gained entry. I played those questions out and the universe of answers ranged from the inculpatory to the ludicrously inculpatory. Dallas P.D. couldn't come up with non-ludicrous, non-criminal answers either which is why they have charged the officer with manslaughter. Based on what we know now that is indisputably the proper charge.
D.P.D. is also testing the officer's blood for drugs and alcohol. That is not s.o.p. She must have presented to the responding officers as fuck-ed up-ed in some way. If she was not high on something and was in full possession of her faculties, that's bad for her. If she was fucked up on something that would mean she was fucked up on duty which is bad for her. I don't see anything but bad here except the swift, correct response by Dallas P.D.
So, you're coming home from a hard day protecting and serving and you take out your keys to open your apartment door, stick the key in the door knob and...
1. Your key doesn't work.
a. You bang on the door and Mr. Jean answers and you shoot him because you think he is a burglar?
b. You bang on the door, Mr. Jean answers, you ask him what he's doing in your apartment, he says this is my apartment you say yeah right and you shoot him?
i. Why would you immediately disbelieve him with such extreme prejudice. Why wouldn't you do a reality check on yourself? "Oh right, sorry, wrong crib."
A. That is what you told the officers four minutes later when they responded to your call of the shooting. How much sooner than four minutes did you have that epiphany?
B. Did you see any of the interior of the apartment before killing him?
(1) Only after I killed him: "Now I see that print of Saint Lucia on the wall! My bad."
(2) Before I killed him. "Everything was different. I thought he had broken in, thought the place was nice and decided to move his stuff in."
(3) Before you killed him. "You're not going to believe this but it was decorated identically to mine. Exactly the same furniture. Same picture of Saint Lucia on the wall."
2. The door is already open.
a. You immediately take out your service revolver, enter, see Mr. Jean and shoot and kill him?
b. Blah, blah, blah and 1. b.?
3. The door is locked but you have a master key.
a. Shoot first, ask questions never?
b. Ask questions first and 1. b.
Based on what little little little we have now, that is the universe of entry scenarios that I can think of and they range from the plausible (#2) to the preposterous. More importantly, in none of those three scenarios are there non-criminal answers (that I can think of) to the natural questions one would have once the policewoman gained entry. I played those questions out and the universe of answers ranged from the inculpatory to the ludicrously inculpatory. Dallas P.D. couldn't come up with non-ludicrous, non-criminal answers either which is why they have charged the officer with manslaughter. Based on what we know now that is indisputably the proper charge.
D.P.D. is also testing the officer's blood for drugs and alcohol. That is not s.o.p. She must have presented to the responding officers as fuck-ed up-ed in some way. If she was not high on something and was in full possession of her faculties, that's bad for her. If she was fucked up on something that would mean she was fucked up on duty which is bad for her. I don't see anything but bad here except the swift, correct response by Dallas P.D.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)