Grand Jury returns murder indictment for ex-Dallas officer

a reply to: notsure1

I'm not in favor of arresting people before an investigation is completed, no. I have no problem admitting that.

I have no problem admitting that since her story didn't add up, it took time to sort through her BS and arrive at what more likely happened.

I have no problem admitting that DPD was ready to arrest her less than 24 hours after the shooting, and that they asked the Rangers to take over the investigation less than 24 hours after the shooting. I have no problem admitting that I didn't say they didn't arrest her the night of the shooting because the Rangers told them not to, you made that up and are pretending I said it because, like usual, you prefer to attack points I haven't made rather than points I actually make.

I have no problem admitting that I like due process, whether the person has a badge or doesn't have a badge.

See? I have no problem admitting any of that.

a reply to: Shamrock6

If they did find something on her phone, I do hope it was about a cover-up after the fact, and not before the fact. I just don't want to believe it was pre-meditated.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: notsure1

So you are in favor of arrest before an investigation and securing evidence of potential guilt?

Innocent till proven guilty right?

They had everything they needed to arrest her and charge her that night . And never allow her back into her apartment.

If I go next door and kill my neighbor you think I will get to back home that night?

They should have arrested her on the spot . I was in the wrong apartment .. Gimmie an effing break.

a reply to: Boadicea

As far as I know, the Jean family said that he didn't know her from Adam. I think, though, that in the other thread somebody mentioned a possible romantic link? I'd have to go back through the entire thread and look for it, and it may have just been somebody wondering if there was one rather than saying there was actually a link.

If it was premeditated, and accepting the Jean family's statement at face value, that's a whole other level of crazy on her part than what we already know about.

originally posted by: SRPrime

originally posted by: amazing
So far, I agree with this decision. You don't go into the wrong apartment "accidentally" and shoot an innocent man. Especially not as a police officer.

Most cops in this country are great but there is a percentage, somewhere between 5 and 10 percent, depending on location who are criminal at worst.

I think all that we're asking for, is that those bad cops are not above the law. We just want to know that cops can't get away with murder, and abuse and criminal activity of any kind. Bad cops are nothing new, Serpico from the 70s comes to mind.

Sadly it's way higher than 5 and 10 percent. It's realistically around 60-75%. Corruption is odd that way, and anyone who has any experience with corporate business knows how corrupt everyone is. Police are easier to corrupt because it's inherently more difficult to be caught or punished. You basically have to murder your neighbor in his apartment and claim you thought it was your own to get caught.

And every cop who knows a corrupt cop is also corrupt himself because he allows his fellow officer to be corrupt, because "blue blood."

You could be right, but I don't think it's that bad. Only in certain precincts...like I think Ferguson was a bad department (that could have been 75-90% corrupt) , but I think most departments are 90% clean.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Shamrock6

Thanks so much for explaining the legalities of this case (and so many others). I probably make you crazy with some/much of what I spout off, but I really do appreciate it -- and you.

I'm surprised the prosecutor asked for higher charges than the Rangers. Not sure what to make of it, but I'm not ready to believe the worst either.

We'll see what plays out, eh?

The Rangers are good but they are not lawyers. The DA is the one who has to try the case and knows what it takes to convict. And she knows what proof was presented to the Grand Jury. DAs will often overcharge as leverage to compel a plea deal. But someday she is going to run into a smart defense lawyer who knows that a Defendant can object to giving the jury the option of convicting of a lesser included offense. So if the jury feels that the conduct doesn't quite rise to the level of intentional murder but that he did do something horribly wrong, the defendant walks free.

a reply to: notsure1

Because it wasn't a crime scene.
Like you, I questioned the search and disclosure of a bag, but Shamrock explained it, and it made sense.

I haven't followed this case very closely but my questions have always been: Was she drunk? Did they take her blood immediately for testing for drugs or alcohol?

That is really the only way I can see that she would have "mistaken" his apartment for hers. We know from years of stories that drunks get themselves into pickles all the time by stumbling into the wrong place. A young man in our area was shot when he was drunk and kicked the door in because his key wouldn't work.

I agree that any Jane Citizen would have immediately been detained/arrested and warrants obtained for search of everything---including her bodily fluids. (I've advocated for years that any police officer who fires a weapon in line of duty should have to immediately undergo drug testing just as anyone involved in a fatal motor vehicle accident has to do.) Seriously, how long does it take to test for gunshot residue, ballistics and blood alcohol levels?

a reply to: F4guy

if you are a "by the books" person, murder is the more approite charge here. manslaughter is for death relating to a careless or unintentional act that resulted in death. "i was playing with my gun and it went off killing him"

murder is for intentional acts that lead to death. when she fired her weapon, regardless the circumstances why she fired it, she intentional fired it, which resulted in the death of this man.

originally posted by: jgarc028
a reply to: F4guy

if you are a "by the books" person, murder is the more approite charge here. manslaughter is for death relating to a careless or unintentional act that resulted in death. "i was playing with my gun and it went off killing him"

murder is for intentional acts that lead to death. when she fired her weapon, regardless the circumstances why she fired it, she intentional fired it, which resulted in the death of this man.

The classification as murder versus manslaughter depends more on the intention of the result than the intention of the act. With murder, the actor must intend the death. Let me give an example. D gets drunk on a hunting trip and while trying to shoot Bambi the doe, staggers around and kills Bambi, his wife. His intent was to pull the trigger and shoot the gun. But that doesn't make it murder. His intent was not to cause the death of a person. So i's mnslaughter, which is usually defined as "intentionally engaging in conduct that causes the death of another and consciously disregarding the serious risk of death or serious physical injury.

a reply to: diggindirt

They took a blood draw and urine sample the night of the shooting.