[Jetset]

(09-20-2018 10:23 PM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  

It makes no difference if it was her "usual duty" or not, a cop sitting at a diner having lunch while he is off duty isn't allowed to pretend he doesn't see the place getting robbed if he is in a position to do something about it. Similarly, if she comes back to her place at the end of her shift and sees evidence of a crime committed or in progress (a burglary), she can and would be expected to react accordingly. That she was later proven to be mistaken does not take away from that obligation.

I get where you're coming from, but policies vary by department and an armed robbery is slightly different from "I saw a silhouette that maybe might of..."

As near as I can tell, this is the current rule from DPD, General Order 906: http://www.dallaspolice.net/reports/Shar...er-906.pdf

It is explicit that officers are not to use deadly force in defense of property, and that while off-duty officers have the same right to defend their personal property under Texas law as any private citizen, they will be acting solely as a private citizen, not as law enforcement. This has presumably come up before, and DPD does not want their officers claiming the uniform as legal cover for it.

In addition, the model policy published by the Public Agency Training Council lists, states that an off-duty officer may intervene, but because they might be mistaken for a suspect themselves or otherwise make it worse, their obligations are fulfilled fully by reporting it so that on-duty officers may intervene. Step 1: "First, go to a safe location and call 911."

http://www.patc.com/weeklyarticles/off-duty.shtml

Quote:

Moreover, I think it is unlikely she engaged in criminal trespass with a firearm since she was acting as a sworn officer under the belief that she was stopping a crime in progress. That she was proven to be mistaken later does not take away from her belief, so long as it can be shown that it was a reasonable one. That question is a matter of fact for the jury to decide.

This was my point, though: the sequence of events. The initial search warrant for Jean's apartment said Guyger was confronted "at the door", which did not occur. Jean was shot across the room, near his couch, where he was likely watching football.

Guyger's official explanation in the later affidavit is still tailored to avoid admitting that she had entered the home before she claims she observed the "silhouette". The door conveniently swung open "fully", long enough to allow her her to look inside, draw a conclusion that a burglary was underway, give verbal commands to the person, aim her pistol and fire it twice, and then, only then, enter the apartment - solely to save Jean's life.

This doesn't add up. The doors in the building have closers installed. If she tried to put her key in it and the door was not secured, you'd expect it to move an inch or two. If she pushed it so hard as to fully open it, it would then likely swing back in her face and try to slam shut and lock.

I think it's pretty reasonable to infer that she crafted this alternative set of facts because she, and/or her attorney, realized the actual facts are not helpful.

Texas law appears to be that you are engaged in criminal trespass as soon as you are given verbal notice that you are not authorized to be there, and it doesn't appear to matter whether or not you believe it, just that you were given due notice and it is factually true. If Guyger entered the apartment without thinking, she and Jean surprised each other, and they then exchanged words (her "verbal commands" - vague, and there are limits on what constitutes a lawful police order) and Jean tried to tell her that this is his apartment but she didn't listen because she was tired and surprised, that would be an unhelpful set of facts. An obvious reason to lie about being inside is because you're afraid someone might have heard what was said, but are banking on there being no witnesses who can testify to where you were actually standing.

"Oh my God, why did you do that?"