Jump to content

Dallas officer kills man after mistaking apartment for her own, police say


'stache

Recommended Posts

Quote

The jury is going to now listen to several hours of phd testimony about how irrational people are under stress.

They like will, but damn-it being under stress is part of the job.  Not everything they see is "a call" in which they have time to mentally prepare en route.  Sometime they see shit and have to immediately decide what to do.  She was trained to do X but she did Y and killed someone.

The jury will have to decide whether she intentionally did the wrong thing, or was her training so bad that she was never going to succeed as a cop.  Its possible she thought she was on 3rd floor and not the 4th, but that stop (when the guy got ahead of her in the garage) makes me thing it could have been intentional, but I can't say that beyond a reasonable doubt.  But I have little doubt that once she "heard the sound of someone moving", which was before she opened the door, her actions were intentional, wanting to neutralize the "threat".

Finally, she was standing in the doorway will a well lit hallway behind her. She bursts in and says, "show me your hands"  but Jean in his dark apartment, likely only sees a silhouette.  She didn't say "Police, show me your hands"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Understood.  But....

 

These.

I have said from the beginning that she walks.  But this set of facts -- her decision to enter, knowing that there was a possible threat, and how she entered -- that is making me waver in my prediction.  This is the first time I've really thought that there's a chance of a guilty verdict.

I mean, it still probably won't be.  But I can see it happening.

Realize that here I am not commenting on the substance of her testimony, but rather the timing.

And, as shitty as it was, I can see the justification for opening the defense case in chief with it, rather than closing it.

You can argue that they've lost control of it and I won't disagree, but better now or at the close of the case?

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was willing to give this bitch the benefit of the doubt more than most, but with that fact pattern, she is done and should be done. 

I mean I guess good job for telling the truth, but I have no idea how anyone on the defense thought it was a good idea for that to be her story. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Realize that here I am not commenting on the substance of her testimony, but rather the timing.

And, as shitty as it was, I can see the justification for opening the defense case in chief with it, rather than closing it.

Oh, I agree with that.  You've got to make a judgement call as to when to put her on.  I tend to agree that they made the right one -- I'm on your side of the primacy/recency thinking.  But man, it's still a close call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, 77horn said:

They like will, but damn-it being under stress is part of the job.  Not everything they see is "a call" in which they have time to mentally prepare en route.  Sometime they see shit and have to immediately decide what to do.  She was trained to do X but she did Y and killed someone.

The jury will have to decide whether she intentionally did the wrong thing, or was her training so bad that she was never going to succeed as a cop.  Its possible she thought she was on 3rd floor and not the 4th, but that stop (when the guy got ahead of her in the garage) makes me thing it could have been intentional, but I can't say that beyond a reasonable doubt.  But I have little doubt that once she "heard the sound of someone moving", which was before she opened the door, her actions were intentional, wanting to neutralize the "threat".

Finally, she was standing in the doorway will a well lit hallway behind her. She bursts in and says, "show me your hands"  but Jean in his dark apartment, likely only sees a silhouette.  She didn't say "Police, show me your hands"

 

I'm not saying the testimony will or should change anyone's mind, but it's going to be low-drama, possibly boring, and is going to let the jury forget about this morning to the extent that is possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, I agree with that.  You've got to make a judgement call as to when to put her on.  I tend to agree that they made the right one -- I'm on your side of the primacy/recency thinking.  But man, it's still a close call.

And again, I'm not sure I have a side, I can just see the reasoning.  If I were better at this, I wouldn't be sitting here grinding patents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, hookem17 said:

 

Ranger Armstrong is just paying it forward. 

 

2 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

That is fucking absolutely outrageous if true. I'm sure he doesn't think she should be charged with a crime. How the fuck is driving 84 in a 45 in a mental state that by definition is compromised NOT at MINIMUM criminally negligent?

Yeah, what's the source on that?

And lawdogs, can that kind of thing be introduced toward the credibility of an expert witness or no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

 

Yeah, what's the source on that?

And lawdogs, can that kind of thing be introduced toward the credibility of an expert witness or no?

Here’s a more credible source on the Armstrong accident. 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.expressnews.com/news/politics/texas_legislature/amp/Lawsuit-spotlights-misconduct-of-Texas-Rangers-13671011.php

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

 

Yeah, what's the source on that?

And lawdogs, can that kind of thing be introduced toward the credibility of an expert witness or no?

I don't think he's going to be qualified as an expert.  It was hit on in the state's case in chief.

He may be recalled I think as a fact witness for some of the site videos and photos and that kind of material.

Because he probably won't be offering testimony about anything but photos, videos, and observations, I don't think that comes in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't think he's going to be qualified as an expert.  It was hit on in the state's case in chief.

He may be recalled I think as a fact witness for some of the site videos and photos and that kind of material.

Because he probably won't be offering testimony about anything but photos, videos, and observations, I don't think that comes in.

Agree.  But the defense better keep him on a tight damned leash, because if he wanders afield into opinion about reasonableness and following procedure and whatnot....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me that isn't as much Ranger misconduct as complete criminal justice system fuckery. Would love to be provided a single example of someone going 40 over the limit and causing a death and NOT prosecuted. People need to do their fucking jobs or be replaced by people who will, period. Every LEO and prosecutor involved in that case should be ashamed and in the unemployment line.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Agree.  But the defense better keep him on a tight damned leash, because if he wanders afield into opinion about reasonableness and following procedure and whatnot....

Yeah, if that opinion testimony about whether or not she should have been charged with a crime had come in, I would have pushing REAL hard to bring this up. Sure, you think going 40 over while driving outside of safety regulation timeframes and killing an innocent person isn't criminal either, as long as a cop did the killing, right Ranger?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

A former Texas Department of Public Safety investigator is suing the agency, accusing it of turning a blind eye to misconduct by the Texas Rangers — the state’s elite police force, which the department oversees.

Darren Lubbe’s federal lawsuit spotlights several cases of wrongdoing involving Texas Rangers who broke rules or violated ethical standards, the San Antonio Express-News reported. The lawsuit alleges that Rangers often avoided punishment or were quietly reprimanded.

Among the incidents cited were one ranger’s involvement in a fatal car crash and allegations that another made inappropriate comments to the Pflugerville Police Department’s female employees.

Lubbe sued the department over allegations that he faced unfair discipline after his superiors questioned his religious devotion in 2014. Lubbe claims he received his first negative performance review and was “harassed into an early retirement” after he refused to attend an East Texas church with his boss, according to the lawsuit.

The retaliation occurred as the department overlooked rule-breaking members of the Texas Rangers, the lawsuit claims. Lubbe retired in 2017.

One case cited in the lawsuit involves Ranger David Armstrong, who was driving double the speed limit in his state-issued vehicle when he hit a pickup that had run a stop sign, according to a report on the 2017 crash. The truck’s passenger was ejected from the vehicle and later died of injuries.

Investigators found that the truck’s driver was drunk but also noted that the crash wouldn’t have happened if Armstrong had been driving the speed limit. Armstrong wasn’t suspended or demoted, and he didn’t face criminal charges, according to department records.

 
 

The lawsuit claims the incident demonstrates a double standard and evidence of a cover-up by top public safety officials.

Armstrong’s attorney, Eric Perkins, denied that the Texas Rangers did anything to cover up the accident. The incident was thoroughly investigated, Perkins said.

 

The lawsuit also cited Brent Davis, who was quietly disciplined after beginning a sexual relationship with the widow of a murder victim, whose death he was investigating in 2016. Davis was found to have violated the agency’s ethics rules, according to an internal review. A top official said his conduct would support termination, but he was instead demoted.

Davis didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The department said it plans to dispute the lawsuit’s claims in court. The state hasn’t filed a response to Lubbe’s lawsuit yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like the guy he killed was driving drunk. Obviously he still should have suffered legal consequences for being involved in an accident going 84 in a 40, but I can't imagine that grand juries are going to indict a trooper for getting in an accident with a drunk driver very often. They probably should have in his case but it's obviously not surprising that they didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Looks like the guy he killed was driving drunk. Obviously he still should have suffered legal consequences for being involved in an accident going 84 in a 40, but I can't imagine that grand juries are going to indict a trooper for getting in an accident with a drunk driver very often. They probably should have in his case but it's obviously not surprising that they didn't.

Doesn't look like it was presented to the grand jury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

The SAEN article says

 

 

No idea if that's misleading or not.

Ah, I was going off of the other article that didn't mention it, just said "didn't face criminal charges." If they presented it to the GJ, and they failed to indict, so be it. Should still be prosecuted for reckless driving IMO at minimum. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

The SAEN article says

 

 

No idea if that's misleading or not.

Yeah.  The prosecutor presents the evidence to the grand jury.  If the prosecutor doesn't want them to indict, he'll easily present it in a way that they won't.

Oh, and many years ago, I had dealings with the inner workings and politics of the DPS.  The way shit goes down there would make most folks blanche and cross themselves.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These people in this fucking complex.  I just go up to random apartments and stick my key in random locks to see if it is mine rather than taking ONE SECOND to look at number plates on the elevator, or apartment number signs, or numbers on the reserved parking spaces. Jesus fuck we are a society of imbeciles.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, HOOKEM4 said:

The defense is going to call up a bunch of bullshit we already know and go over it ad nauseum just to distance her testimony from the deliberations. Good call whichever lawyer said that was the case.  

Well, yeah, but the DA can't be done with her, can they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gooby said:

Well, yeah, but the DA can't be done with her, can they?

Yeah, they are.  They've already presented their case.  The only thing they can do now is question the defenses witnesses on cross examination.  But you can be sure she will be properly lambasted during their closing statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...