TexasCHLforum.com

crazy2medic wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 11:42 am

Dave2 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 5:34 pm

Ruark wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:42 am

I just have a hard time with her not understanding she was on the wrong floor and wrong apartment.

Other aspects of the case notwithstanding, this is completely understandable. I've made this mistake myself in the past, in apartments and hotels where all the floors, hallways, doors, etc. are identical. After 5,000 times, walking to your door just becomes automatic, especially when you're exhausted from a 14 hour shift. The elevator door opens, you step out, turn left, walk to the third door and go in. You could do it blindfolded. If the elevator HAPPENS to open on the next floor, it's very easy to not notice.

Eh, sorta? Two floors are rarely identical. At least in the apartment complexes I’ve lived in or been to, once people have been inhabiting it long enough, there are typically clues like different welcome mats, door decorations, or maybe someone has a potted plant out front or something. And if the stair case/elevator is near a window, the view can be drastically different depending on the height/appearance of neighboring buildings.

How aware you need to be to notice such things obviously depends on the details. Coming off a 14-hour shift would certainly not help.

Per the Texas Ranger that did the investigation he went to the wrong Apartment on three separate occasions, he had statements from 93 residents that stated they had gone to the wrong apartment, the Texas Ranger stated that neither the floors or apartments were marked! This has been my question all along why did she not note that the furniture was different or layed out different, just seems peculiar to me.

What's worse is that the judge failed to allow the jurors to be made aware of this.

Redneck_Buddha wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:27 am

crazy2medic wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 11:42 am

Dave2 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 5:34 pm

Ruark wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:42 am

I just have a hard time with her not understanding she was on the wrong floor and wrong apartment.

Other aspects of the case notwithstanding, this is completely understandable. I've made this mistake myself in the past, in apartments and hotels where all the floors, hallways, doors, etc. are identical. After 5,000 times, walking to your door just becomes automatic, especially when you're exhausted from a 14 hour shift. The elevator door opens, you step out, turn left, walk to the third door and go in. You could do it blindfolded. If the elevator HAPPENS to open on the next floor, it's very easy to not notice.

Eh, sorta? Two floors are rarely identical. At least in the apartment complexes I’ve lived in or been to, once people have been inhabiting it long enough, there are typically clues like different welcome mats, door decorations, or maybe someone has a potted plant out front or something. And if the stair case/elevator is near a window, the view can be drastically different depending on the height/appearance of neighboring buildings.

How aware you need to be to notice such things obviously depends on the details. Coming off a 14-hour shift would certainly not help.

Per the Texas Ranger that did the investigation he went to the wrong Apartment on three separate occasions, he had statements from 93 residents that stated they had gone to the wrong apartment, the Texas Ranger stated that neither the floors or apartments were marked! This has been my question all along why did she not note that the furniture was different or layed out different, just seems peculiar to me.

What's worse is that the judge failed to allow the jurors to be made aware of this.

Ok here is a question for Charles or anybody that is legality educated, why would a judge not allow this information to be known? Seems that tidbit would go to a fair and balanced trial? Seems her defense attorney would have pushed this and this could be part and parcel to an appeal!

I wonder about a TX Ranger who would go to the wrong apartment on three separate occasions. Also, how many of the 93 residents who have gone to the wrong apartment were either impaired by a drug or just had their head stuck in their phone and who’s SA was 0. The poll was not scientific in the least.

crazy2medic wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:52 am

Redneck_Buddha wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:27 am

crazy2medic wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 11:42 am

Dave2 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 5:34 pm

Ruark wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:42 am

I just have a hard time with her not understanding she was on the wrong floor and wrong apartment.

Other aspects of the case notwithstanding, this is completely understandable. I've made this mistake myself in the past, in apartments and hotels where all the floors, hallways, doors, etc. are identical. After 5,000 times, walking to your door just becomes automatic, especially when you're exhausted from a 14 hour shift. The elevator door opens, you step out, turn left, walk to the third door and go in. You could do it blindfolded. If the elevator HAPPENS to open on the next floor, it's very easy to not notice.

Eh, sorta? Two floors are rarely identical. At least in the apartment complexes I’ve lived in or been to, once people have been inhabiting it long enough, there are typically clues like different welcome mats, door decorations, or maybe someone has a potted plant out front or something. And if the stair case/elevator is near a window, the view can be drastically different depending on the height/appearance of neighboring buildings.

How aware you need to be to notice such things obviously depends on the details. Coming off a 14-hour shift would certainly not help.

Per the Texas Ranger that did the investigation he went to the wrong Apartment on three separate occasions, he had statements from 93 residents that stated they had gone to the wrong apartment, the Texas Ranger stated that neither the floors or apartments were marked! This has been my question all along why did she not note that the furniture was different or layed out different, just seems peculiar to me.

What's worse is that the judge failed to allow the jurors to be made aware of this.

Ok here is a question for Charles or anybody that is legality educated, why would a judge not allow this information to be known? Seems that tidbit would go to a fair and balanced trial? Seems her defense attorney would have pushed this and this could be part and parcel to an appeal!

I am betting her focus went to offense and she shot the man before even looking at the furniture. In small apartments location of furniture is often relegated to the same spot apartment to apartment due to square footage available. His sofa/chair may have been located right where hers was.

Watch the cross - notice the DA's approach, and again, something to keep in mind if you're ever on trial for shooting somebody. He kept repeating "you COULD have..." You COULD have taken cover, and she answered "I could have." You COULD have called for backup... and so on. So he paints a picture of all these things she COULD have done, but didn't, and as a result, an innocent man is dead, etc. etc.

Ruark wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 12:39 pm Watch the cross - notice the DA's approach, and again, something to keep in mind if you're ever on trial for shooting somebody. He kept repeating "you COULD have..." You COULD have taken cover, and she answered "I could have." You COULD have called for backup... and so on. So he paints a picture of all these things she COULD have done, but didn't, and as a result, an innocent man is dead, etc. etc.

If I am ever on trial for shooting somebody, it will be self defense and it sure won't be me shooting some guy in his own home. The could haves you mentioned were not some kind of trick. The cop screwed up big time and could have done a dozen things to keep from killing an innocent man.

The problem I have with all of those "could haves" is the next time someone does shoot someone in their own home will some of those "could haves" be applied to them? If she were in her own apartment with the same outcome, would they have gone down that road? She had no legal requirement to retreat or call for back up, 911 for us, did she? Would a prosecutor attempt to put that requirement on us?

These are the things that bother me about this trial and the prosecutor's tactics.

C-dub wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:32 pm The problem I have with all of those "could haves" is the next time someone does shoot someone in their own home will some of those "could haves" be applied to them? If she were in her own apartment with the same outcome, would they have gone down that road? She had no legal requirement to retreat or call for back up, 911 for us, did she? Would a prosecutor attempt to put that requirement on us?

These are the things that bother me about this trial and the prosecutor's tactics.

That does not worry me because the could haves don't apply when defending ones own home. It was not her home. Thinking it is doesn't cut it and should not be OK. Her actions were in no way analogous to a person exercising their rights under the castle doctrine. Not even close.

Let's be real here. She walked into someone elses home and killed them. End of story. That is and always should be punishable by time in jail at the least. Put yourself in his place rather than hers.

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:41 pm

C-dub wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:32 pm The problem I have with all of those "could haves" is the next time someone does shoot someone in their own home will some of those "could haves" be applied to them? If she were in her own apartment with the same outcome, would they have gone down that road? She had no legal requirement to retreat or call for back up, 911 for us, did she? Would a prosecutor attempt to put that requirement on us?

These are the things that bother me about this trial and the prosecutor's tactics.

That does not worry me because the could haves don't apply when defending ones own home. It was not her home. Thinking it is doesn't cut it and should not be OK. Her actions were in no way analogous to a person exercising their rights under the castle doctrine. Not even close.

Let's be real here. She walked into someone elses home and killed them. End of story. That is and always should be punishable by time in jail at the least. Put yourself in his place rather than hers.

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 12:49 pm

Ruark wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 12:39 pm Watch the cross - notice the DA's approach, and again, something to keep in mind if you're ever on trial for shooting somebody. He kept repeating "you COULD have..." You COULD have taken cover, and she answered "I could have." You COULD have called for backup... and so on. So he paints a picture of all these things she COULD have done, but didn't, and as a result, an innocent man is dead, etc. etc.

If I am ever on trial for shooting somebody, it will be self defense and it sure won't be me shooting some guy in his own home. The could haves you mentioned were not some kind of trick. The cop screwed up big time and could have done a dozen things to keep from killing an innocent man.

Not to mention those 'Could have's' were actually 'SHOULD HAVE'S' according to standing orders/policy of her department. This was brought out in the trial.

It is important to remember....that a unique situation exists here. She is LEO and as such (within her jurisdiction) she retains the power of arrest, use of force, etc 24/7...whether on duty or not. She doesn't get to decide under which authority (citizen/LEO) she would act. Although being 'off duty' might affect the outcome of 'civil' liabilities.

So...logic dictates IF she is entering a building to confront who she thinks is an intruder (by default..with all the Powers of her LEO status) then the policies/orders of her department follow too. She clearly did not think this through. Just reacted.

But lets put aside the 'legal' aspect of it for the moment and focus on the tactical/procedural errors she made. These would apply to ANYONE in the same situation.

1. Failed to identify the person (could just as easily been the apt. manager or maintenance worker).
2. Did not know if this person was alone or if there were multiples (no risk assessment).
3. Immediately entered and stayed in the 'fatal funnel' (doorway-hallway) instead of taking up a better position.
4. Didn't retreat and call for back-up when there was no immediate need to enter (no other persons living with her).

All of this (and more) demonstrates poor decision making skills...even IF not required to do so 'legally'.

I believe the jury handed down the right decision (Guilty) but disagree with the charge (Murder) and I would expect the courts to correct this upon appeal.

Scott B. wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:50 am Could be random, could be bad luck, could be the people he procured his herb from were less than stellar citizens.

And the early verdict, "Killed in a drug deal." In this exchange, looks like he was the seller and not the buyer.

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/speci ... urces-say/

Scott B. wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:17 pm

Scott B. wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:50 am Could be random, could be bad luck, could be the people he procured his herb from were less than stellar citizens.

And the early verdict, "Killed in a drug deal." In this exchange, looks like he was the seller and not the buyer.

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/speci ... urces-say/

There you have it. It is disgusting that the race baiters jumped out there instantly trying to tie his shooting in with the trial. Once again, they have egg on their faces.

Scott B. wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:17 pm

Scott B. wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:50 am Could be random, could be bad luck, could be the people he procured his herb from were less than stellar citizens.

And the early verdict, "Killed in a drug deal." In this exchange, looks like he was the seller and not the buyer.

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/speci ... urces-say/

I couldn't get Scott's link to WFAA to work (404 Error), but here is the Dallas Asst Police Chief giving a press report about the drug deal-gone-bad.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2019/10/0 ... t-vpx.ktvt

Includes names of the 3x subjects who came from Louisiana to buy drugs from Brown; both sides shooting each other; drug buyer stealing Brown's backpack & gun after shooting him; 1 of the 3 drug buyers in hospital with GSW; & amounts/types of drugs & cash found in Brown's apartment.

Turns out this Joshua Brown character was a fine young man. Regular salt of the earth type of guy.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2019/10 ... stigation/

Police said when they searched Brown's apartment, they confiscated 12 pounds of marijuana, 143 grams of THC cartridges and $4,000 in cash.

I suppose the tin foil hat race baiters will apologize as quickly as they puked forth their conspiracy theories? Not likely.

October 6:

Dallas Police Chief Renee Hall said: 'There are no suspects or motives at this time. We are committed to solving this case’

Joshua Brown murder: 2 arrested in death of witness in Amber Guyger trial:

October 8-9:

Green took Brown's backpack and the gun used to shoot Jacquerious Mitchell and the three suspects fled the scene, Moore said. The suspects dropped Jacquerious Mitchell off at a hospital, the assistant police chief said.

There were obvious suspects, including Morris who Brown was set to testify against at another murder trial..and Mitchell from the shootout was in the hospital Oct 6.

Renee Hall didn't have to give away anything, but should have said something like "we are vigorously pursuing every lead and will not stop until this case is solved"

The chief publicly claiming "there are no suspects" when EVERYONE can think of obvious suspects... fueled this fire like nothing else. To say poor choice of words would be a massive understatement.