Dallas police officer enters man's apartment and shoots him (split from anthem thread)

[Spider-Dan]

There's a HUGE gap between thinking that an off duty cop accidentally shot and killed a man whom she thought was inside her apartment while she was trying to enter it to thinking that she simply didn't like the guy and went to his apartment to confront him and then shot and killed primarily because he was black.

So wait... you're saying that you buy the story that she just didn't know what apartment she was in?  I'm confused.  That's the part that I consider a ridiculous, transparent lie.  If you buy that then I don't understand which part you think she's lying about.

And I'm not saying that she strapped up and headed upstairs thinking that she was going to bag herself a dead n----- that night.  I'm saying that I think it's likely that she has the same mindset that many of these other cops involved in the killing of unarmed civilians seem to have had: black people are Violent and Dangerous, and extreme force is immediately justified in the most minor of altercations.

pondwater's posts in this thread are a perfect example: black people are statistically more likely to be criminals, so we need to watch them carefully, crack down swiftly, and throw as many of them as possible in our (violent, dehumanizing) jails, which makes it tougher for them to get jobs on the outside and leads to more lawbreaking and violence.  How many of these Murderous Chicago Thugs do you think started their life of crime by being picked up for some non-violent drug charge?  Sure would be nice if they were white and the police turned a blind eye to their drug use as they crack down on black neighborhoods.  (And before anyone says, "Why don't you just obey the law?": the point is that white people get to act normally while black people are punished severely for the same actions.  If white civilians were being treated like black civilians are, instead of talking about racial bias among police we would be talking about how to combat our out-of-control police state.)

You cannot use the arrest/conviction rates of a racially-biased justice system as proof that the victims of that bias are more likely to be criminals, any more than you can use the arrest/conviction rates of Jews in Nazi Germany as proof that Jews are inherently more likely to be criminals.  But pondwater and people like him continue to repeat these statistics as rationalization for a system that treats blacks as subhuman.

[Pappy13]

So wait... you're saying that you buy the story that she just didn't know what apartment she was in?  I'm confused.  That's the part that I consider a ridiculous, transparent lie.  If you buy that then I don't understand which part you think she's lying about.

More succinctly I buy the story that she didn't know which apartment she was trying to enter. I work in a building that has a 7 story garage. I park my car in the same place on the 3rd floor of that garage every day (when there's a spot open on that floor). We've been in that building for a couple years and I have on 3 occasions that I can remember gotten off on the wrong floor by accident and didn't notice that I was on the wrong floor until I couldn't find my car. Just about everyone on my floor has had this happen to them at least once. We laugh about it at work. I also used to work in another building and twice in the month after I started working in the new building I drove into the parking lot of the old building before realizing that I didn't work there anymore. We are very much creatures of habit.

I find it VERY plausible that she could have gotten off on the wrong floor on accident and went to the wrong apartment, the one right above her own apartment and tried to enter that apartment not realizing that the number on the door wasn't the right one and either not seeing the mat was the right one or maybe not recognizing it as the right color or whatever. My understanding is that this section of the building was rather dark. My understanding is that she was also rather tired after working a double shift. Maybe she was using her phone or fiddling with her groceries and she was distracted or whatever. I'm not excusing any of her actions, I'm just saying whether or not her story seems plausible. It seems plausible to me. I have no way of knowing whether it's accurate or not, I only know it seems plausible to me and I would think it's plausible to anyone who's experienced something similar to what I mentioned above. Guess this has never happened to you or maybe it has and you have forgotten or maybe you just think there's a difference here between an officer who shoots someone on accident and something as trivial as not being able to find your car or driving to the wrong place of business. I don't.

I'm not sure which part she might be lying about because I haven't heard her official version yet. I'm suspecting there might have been some lying which would explain the multiple stories coming out about the events. Perhaps it's just that the police got the events wrong. I kinda doubt that. I kinda think she was maybe changing the events a bit to help explain the events. I think she might be lying about giving him commands if in fact she says that what she did. No one heard that. I think she might be lying about where she shot him. In one version of the events she was inside the apartment after going through an ajar door in the other she was at the door trying to enter what she thought was her apartment when she was startled. Why the 2 different versions? Was one perhaps the truth and the other the lie? Which one is the lie? If it's that she was inside the apartment because the door was ajar maybe she was outside the door when he startled her and she pulled her gun and fired without any provocation, but that's manslaughter not murder. The lie may have been her attempt to be found innocent of all charges rather than of manslaughter. You're thinking that if she's lying she is covering up murder, I don't think that's necessarily the case.

And I'm not saying that she strapped up and headed upstairs thinking that she was going to bag herself a dead n----- that night.  I'm saying that I think it's likely that she has the same mindset that many of these other cops involved in the killing of unarmed civilians seem to have had: black people are Violent and Dangerous, and extreme force is immediately justified in the most minor of altercations.

And so it doesn't matter that no one heard any altercation? Especially the person who lived next door who said she didn't hear anything until the gunshots and then the officer calling 911? She lying too or just mistaken? Even the 2 women who said they heard voices didn't say the heard an argument, they heard banging on a door and let me in, but no argument. No escalation. So why do you think it occurred? Just because you think that's what ALWAYS happens? That's seems pretty unreasonable to me. At LEAST as unreasonable that she couldn't have simply made a mistake and went to the wrong apartment on accident. I'm sure you have heard the term Occam's razor. In the absence of any provable theory the simplest one tends to be the right one. I think that solution fits the bill here even if we don't like it.

[Spider-Dan]

I think you're fooling yourself, all of those are very close in their respected bias, with the Washington times being closer to center than any you mentioned.

NOTE:  occupy democrats is more far left than Brietbart is right.  Brietbart is only slightly more bias than both HuffPo and Vox, something that the left thinks is fair and balanced lol.  Point being, ALL of these are bias propaganda and shouldn't be used as a basis for any argument.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

I believe this is what we call a "teachable moment."

First off, I don't necessarily agree with the methodology of the website you're citing.  Neutrality and objectivity are not the same thing, and the former is much worse than the latter.  A media source that reports, "Republicans say Obama is a Muslim from Kenya who is attempting to invade Texas, while Democrats disagree," is avoiding bias, but presenting a false equivalence between two sides.  The news media has a responsibility to the truth, not to perfect neutrality.  Furthermore, to categorize sources on a +2 to -2 scale minimizes the spread in partisanship; to say that Daily Kos, MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News are all equally distant from the center is nonsense.

But let's roll with it.  According to your preferred source, Breitbart isn't "slightly more biased" than HuffPo or Vox; Breitbart is rated as a Questionable Source, noting, "Overall, we rate Breitbart Questionable based on extreme right wing bias and publication of numerous false claims."  And what did they say for HuffPo and Vox, two sources you assert are equivalent to Breitbart?

"Overall, we rate HuffPost Left-Biased due to story selection and factually High due to proper sourcing of information."
"Overall, we rate Vox Left Biased due to wording and story selection that favors the left and highly factual based on proper sourcing."

So ultimately, you're saying that two sources rated "highly factual" are approximately equivalent to a site noted for "publication of numerous false claims." Sounds like business as usual when it comes to conservative perspectives on the media. The facts continue to have a liberal bias.

[Spider-Dan]

I work in a building that has a 7 story garage. I park my car in the same place on the 3rd floor of that garage every day (when there's a spot open on that floor). We've been in that building for a couple years and I have on 3 occasions that I can remember gotten off on the wrong floor by accident and didn't notice that I was on the wrong floor until I couldn't find my car. Just about everyone on my floor has had this happen to them at least once. [...]

I find it VERY plausible that she could have gotten off on the wrong floor on accident and went to the wrong apartment, the one right above her own apartment and tried to enter that apartment not realizing that the number on the door wasn't the right one and either not seeing the mat was the right one or maybe not recognizing it as the right color or whatever. My understanding is that this section of the building was rather dark. My understanding is that she was also rather tired after working a double shift. Maybe she was using her phone or fiddling with her groceries and she was distracted or whatever. I'm not excusing any of her actions, I'm just saying whether or not her story seems plausible. It seems plausible to me.

Everyone has gotten lost in a parking lot full of cars.  A parking lot is not your personal home.

The idea that I could enter an apartment, recognize that there is someone unexpected there, and have time to start shouting commands but not to recognize that this is not my apartment?  0.0% chance.  Complete and utter BS.

And so it doesn't matter that no one heard any altercation? Especially the person who lived next door who said she didn't hear anything until the gunshots and then the officer calling 911? She lying too or just mistaken? Even the 2 women who said they heard voices didn't say the heard an argument, they heard banging on a door and let me in, but no argument.

You don't consider banging on a door and shouting let me in an altercation?

[Pappy13]

Everyone has gotten lost in a parking lot full of cars.  A parking lot is not your personal home.

This was not a "home" it was an apartment. An apartment that she had lived in 2 months I believe it was. It looks for all intents an purposes pretty much like any other apartment in the building except for it's location on the floor which would have matched up perfectly with her own. The only difference between the door of this apartment and her own were the numbers and the rug and of course the floor which she says she got wrong because she parked on the wrong floor. It's no different then not being able to find your car and then realizing the floor numbers are wrong. If there had been a car that was the same make, model and color in the place where my car was, you can be sure that I would have put my keys in the lock even though the license plate was not correct. In fact I nearly did this once as well when someone with the same make, model and color as my car parked a few spots down from me. When I saw a huge dent on the side my initial reaction was someone had hit my car but after closer inspection realized it was just another car similar to mine. It's very easy to make this mistake. VERY easy.

The idea that I could enter an apartment, recognize that there is someone unexpected there, and have time to start shouting commands but not to recognize that this is not my apartment?  0.0% chance.  Complete and utter BS.

And I don't buy this is what happened. This I believe was the lie. I believe the truth is she was never inside the apartment she was trying to get in and her key wouldn't work and while she was trying to get in he heard someone trying to open the door and opened it from the inside. It startled her because she wasn't expecting anyone to be inside what she thought was her apartment and in the heat of the moment she pulled her gun and fired. Only then did she realize this was NOT her apartment and she had not shot someone inside her apartment but rather someone inside their own apartment.

You don't consider banging on a door and shouting let me in an altercation?

So you think she banged on the door and shouted let me in and when he did she shot him? So she felt threatened by him because he opened the door for her after she requested he do so? Or maybe you don't think she thought he was black and was just going to confront the man upstairs but then when he opened the door and she realized he was black she thought, "fuck it just shoot him". You already said you didn't believe she strapped it on to go up there to shoot him, so what do you think happened exactly? No I don't buy ANY of those as plausible or at least not any more plausible then the one I believe to be the case.

[Spider-Dan]

This was not a "home" it was an apartment.

If you live in an apartment, then that apartment is your "home" (but not a "house").  However, the distinction is not really important here.

An apartment that she had lived in 2 months I believe it was. It looks for all intents an purposes pretty much like any other apartment in the building except for it's location on the floor which would have matched up perfectly with her own.

How long she was living in her apartment has little to do with anything.  The outside would look just as similar no matter how long she was there, but that doesn't even matter... because I'm sure the inside of HIS apartment looks nothing like hers.  ESPECIALLY if she just moved in!

Here's a video of his apartment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSQvSb1CEs4

It's no different then not being able to find your car and then realizing the floor numbers are wrong.

No, it absolutely is not.  Have you EVER been standing in someone else's front doorway and been confused as to whether you were in your own home?  And if so, how long did that confusion last?  Long enough for you to think someone had broken into your residence?

Are you seriously claiming that it's "plausible" to be confused as to how the inside of your place looks compared to the inside of someone else's place?  That is insultingly absurd.

You already said you didn't believe she strapped it on to go up there to shoot him, so what do you think happened exactly?

"Witnesses say that around 10PM, they heard the suspect, A, banging on the door of the victim, B, demanding to be let in.  Shortly thereafter, gunshots were heard.  The victim lives in the apartment directly above the suspect."

I'd say Sherlock Holmes can stay on his couch for this one.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Pappy lets continue your analogy.......  You see a car you think is yours.  Except your keys don’t work. You then notice someone sitting is in the car trying to start it, you pull out a gun fire a bullet thru the window killing them to prevent from jumpstarting your car and steal it.  After killing them you notice that the licence plate doesn’t match.
 

[Tenshot13]

I believe this is what we call a "teachable moment."

You really couldn't sound like a more pompous ass if you tried.  We can discuss all you want, but don't act like your extremist self is going to "teach" me anything.

First off, I don't necessarily agree with the methodology of the website you're citing.  Neutrality and objectivity are not the same thing, and the former is much worse than the latter.  A media source that reports, "Republicans say Obama is a Muslim from Kenya who is attempting to invade Texas, while Democrats disagree," is avoiding bias, but presenting a false equivalence between two sides.  The news media has a responsibility to the truth, not to perfect neutrality.  Furthermore, to categorize sources on a +2 to -2 scale minimizes the spread in partisanship; to say that Daily Kos, MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News are all equally distant from the center is nonsense.

The truth is all I want, from a source I can trust.  The farther the bias is from center, the less likely I am to trust it.  You can be factually accurate and still have a bias with what your trying to get across.  Example, we discussed how illegals pay taxes.  You quoted an article from Vox on how they pay $23 billion a year, yet no where does it state that the cost for illegals is 2x-5x more.  That's taking choice facts to create an argument when the real issue is the bigger picture.  To me, that is duping the public.

But let's roll with it.  According to your preferred source, Breitbart isn't "slightly more biased" than HuffPo or Vox; Breitbart is rated as a Questionable Source, noting, "Overall, we rate Breitbart Questionable based on extreme right wing bias and publication of numerous false claims."  And what did they say for HuffPo and Vox, two sources you assert are equivalent to Breitbart?

"Overall, we rate HuffPost Left-Biased due to story selection and factually High due to proper sourcing of information."
"Overall, we rate Vox Left Biased due to wording and story selection that favors the left and highly factual based on proper sourcing."

I never said anything about factual inaccuracies, I talked about bias.  I know Breitbart isn't credible, but I also know their bias to the right is almost as bad as those I mentioned on the left, difference being Vox and HuffPo are factually accurate...but on what?

LEFT BIAS

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation.  They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes.

In review, HuffPost publishes stories with strong emotionally loaded headlines such as “Comey Flips: ‘Vote for Democrats This Fall’” and “Trump Calls Female Reporter ‘So Obnoxious,’ Tells Her To Be Quiet.”

Sounds like business as usual when it comes to conservative perspectives on the media. The facts continue to have a liberal bias.

Let this be a "teachable moment" for you:  Fact don't have a bias, but can be used towards being bias.  "Cop shoots unarmed black Michael Brown"...that's a fact.  "Cop shoots Michael Brown as he attacked and try to take cops gun."  According to reports that is also a fact.

[Spider-Dan]

The farther the bias is from center, the less likely I am to trust it.

I never said anything about factual inaccuracies, I talked about bias.

You say that you don't value balance over truth, but you keep making statement after statement indicating that you do.  How can you possibly compare a source that states facts to a source that lies and come away with the conclusion that they are roughly equivalent because they both have bias?  That's crazy.

You quoted an article from Vox on how they pay $23 billion a year, yet no where does it state that the cost for illegals is 2x-5x more.  That's taking choice facts to create an argument when the real issue is the bigger picture.  To me, that is duping the public.

Great example.  To put this in context, you said, "Correct me if I'm wrong but illegal aliens don't pay taxes." That statement is factually wrong.  But when I cited the Vox article with stats on how much taxes illegal immigrants pay, you cry foul because the article didn't also address the full budget impact.

No source is going to (or even can) address ALL facets of an issue.  You criticize Vox for not mentioning additional facts that support the point you were trying to make, but that game has no end; I can just as easily complain about a source that mentions the tax burden of illegal immigrants but doesn't mention the federal tax imbalance of low-tax red states, and so on.

Rather than being mad because a source cites facts that you don't like, we should agree to cite facts for our own positions, instead of expecting others to cite them for us.  And in this specific case, your biggest problem is that your claim was false: you said "illegal aliens don't pay taxes" when the fact is that they do.  And when that fact was pointed out to you, rather than admit your factual error, you go off on a rant about media bias. Balance over truth.

The idea that you would make a claim that is factually false and then complain that the source used to disprove you didn't explain enough of the picture makes no sense.  After all, you didn't seem to find it necessary to give a complex, nuanced explanation of how tax policy affects illegal immigrants; you simply claimed that they "don't pay taxes." And you were wrong.

[Pappy13]

Pappy lets continue your analogy.......  You see a car you think is yours.  Except your keys don’t work. You then notice someone sitting is in the car trying to start it, you pull out a gun fire a bullet thru the window killing them to prevent from jumpstarting your car and steal it.  After killing them you notice that the licence plate doesn’t match.

Let me give you a slightly differ analogy that matches up with my version of the events.

You see a car you think is yours, except your keys don’t work. A man then opens the door from the inside and gets out of the car. You pull out a gun and shoot the man killing him. After killing him you notice that the licence plate doesn’t match and it's not your car after all.

So the question would be manslaughter or murder? In my opinion that's manslaughter.

By the way I don't think the scenario above is in any way different from the scenario that I had already laid out. Makes zero difference if it's your car or your apartment.

[Pappy13]

How long she was living in her apartment has little to do with anything.  The outside would look just as similar no matter how long she was there, but that doesn't even matter... because I'm sure the inside of HIS apartment looks nothing like hers.  ESPECIALLY if she just moved in!

I contend that she never saw the inside of the apartment prior to shooting him. He opened the door and she shot him before she ever saw the inside of the apartment. So what the inside of the apartment looks like is irrelevant.

Let's play Prosecuting/Defense attorney here. I'll stipulate that had the defendant seen the inside of the apartment she would have known that it was not hers as long as you will stipulate that if she never saw the inside of the apartment prior to shooting him then she could have thought the apartment was her own at the time she shot him.

"Witnesses say that around 10PM, they heard the suspect, A, banging on the door of the victim, B, demanding to be let in.  Shortly thereafter, gunshots were heard.  The victim lives in the apartment directly above the suspect."

That's not what you said before. You said there was an escalation. Banging on a door and demanding to be let in is not a reason to shoot someone. Your claim is that she PURPOSELY and with INTENT to kill shot him. Please explain your reasoning.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Let me give you a slightly differ analogy that matches up with my version of the events.

You see a car you think is yours, except your keys don’t work. A man then opens the door from the inside and gets out of the car. You pull out a gun and shoot the man killing him. After killing him you notice that the licence plate doesn’t match and it's not your car after all.

So the question would be manslaughter or murder? In my opinion that's manslaughter.

By the way I don't think the scenario above is in any way different from the scenario that I had already laid out. Makes zero difference if it's your car or your apartment.

Murder.  Not only that, even if it was your car it is still murder.  You are not allowed to use deadly force just because someone might have stolen something and is now leaving your car.  You can only use deadly force as self defense (or defense of others).  If you come home at night and see thru the window someone stealing your stuff you can’t go into your house and kill them.  If you believe your family is home and in danger you can go in to defend them.  But if your family is with you or you live alone, you are suppose to call the police not engage in vigilancy. 

[Cathal]

I contend that she never saw the inside of the apartment prior to shooting him. He opened the door and she shot him before she ever saw the inside of the apartment. So what the inside of the apartment looks like is irrelevant.

Let's play Prosecuting/Defense attorney here. I'll stipulate that had the defendant seen the inside of the apartment she would have known that it was not hers as long as you will stipulate that if she never saw the inside of the apartment prior to shooting him then she could have thought the apartment was her own at the time she shot him.
That's not what you said before. You said there was an escalation. Banging on a door and demanding to be let in is not a reason to shoot someone. Your claim is that she PURPOSELY and with INTENT to kill shot him. Please explain your reasoning.

I thought her story was the door was ajar and she opened it and then saw a figure in the back and shot him. But the story has changed a few times? Or maybe just not reported correctly.

[Spider-Dan]

I contend that she never saw the inside of the apartment prior to shooting him. [...]

Let's play Prosecuting/Defense attorney here. I'll stipulate that had the defendant seen the inside of the apartment she would have known that it was not hers as long as you will stipulate that if she never saw the inside of the apartment prior to shooting him then she could have thought the apartment was her own at the time she shot him.

Then you just lost the case, as she's already admitted that she was inside the apartment when she shot him.  (The "I couldn't open the door" story was discarded long ago.)

The version of her story that's on the arrest warrant is:

According to the [arrest warrant], Guyger told authorities she had mistakenly parked on the fourth floor instead of the third and inserted her key into Jean's door, which was slightly ajar.

She told authorities the apartment was nearly completely dark and she thought she was being burglarized, gave verbal commands that were ignored and fired twice. She then called 911, gave first aid and turned on the lights. When 911 dispatch asked where she was, she returned to the front door to see the address and realized the apartment wasn't hers, the affidavit states.

Let's establish a couple of things from this story:

1) Guyger is claiming that Jean was in his "nearly completely dark" apartment with the front door ajar, on the one day she just happened to walk into the wrong unit
2) Guyger entered the apartment and shot him from inside it
3) Guyger turned on the lights and called 911
4) When the 911 operator asked her where she was, she went outside to check the apartment number (?!) and THEN discovered that she was in the wrong apartment

This story is clownishly insulting.

That's not what you said before. You said there was an escalation. Banging on a door and demanding to be let in is not a reason to shoot someone. Your claim is that she PURPOSELY and with INTENT to kill shot him.

I actually said I believe exactly the opposite: she did not head upstairs with the intent of killing him.  I think she went upstairs with the intent of confronting him, demanded to be let into his home, there was a dispute after she was let in, and she shot him.  (And yes, there are differing witness accounts as to whether there was "loud discussion" before the gunfire.)

P.S. The electronically-locked doors in that apartment complex are self-closing (like those you would see in a hotel).  Someone's gonna need some overtime to sweep this one under the rug!

[Pappy13]

The version of her story that's on the arrest warrant is:

Since when does the arrest warrant determine what the truth is? Or even what your defense will be? The arrest warrant is nothing more than the reason you believe the person should be arrested. That's essentially the police version of events. The defendants version of events most likely will not be the same since the arrest warrant basically states why they believe you are guilty. Obviously the defendant is probably going to disagree with it.

I'll say this much Spider. If she sticks with the story that it's in the arrest warrant I think she will lose the case. I don't buy that version of the events either. I will be shocked if that's the defense that is used because that's an all or nothing defense. Either you are innocent or you're guilty of murder depending upon how the jury sees it.