Wednesday, September 12, 2018

Sorry, No Sale.

Read the follow-up post.

People die? You lie? You fry.

"However, she states she found the door ajar, that she issued the shadowy figure she encountered commands to stop, and only shot him when he did not comply.

In other words, her statement ticks all the boxes for an unfortunate shoot that will likely result in a plea deal on manslaughter charges and the end of a career in law enforcement. Especially if her claim that she didn't turn on the lights and realize she was in the wrong apartment until she was already on the phone with 911 is borne out by the recording of the call.

The angry public is clamoring for murder charges, however, and if soon-to-be-former Officer Guyger fudged any part of her statement in order to make her case look better, it will bite her in the ass."
Sorry, Tam, but no. In fact, hell No.

Oh, and boo frickin' hoo for the "end of [her] career in law enforcement." It should have ended before that night, obviously, but either way, it's too late now to save her murdered victim, nor do his family, herself, the DPD, or the city of Dallas any good.
Stupidity kills. Everyone suffers.

Even if Officer Killshot was strictly and scrupulously truthful, this isn't manslaughter.
Because outside the door-that-wasn't-hers, there was a bright red doormat that also wasn't hers. (A material fact which both she and the investigating officer for the Texas Rangers cleverly neglected to mention. How...convenient.)

Even if you're Inspector Clousseau, this is known as a "clue".

And on the outside of that door, even if it was ajar at O-dark-thirty as she claims, even if she didn't pound on it as witnesses have claimed, even if the victim didn't come to the locked door and open it, whereupon she began a verbal altercation-cum-murder, as another witness has claimed,I'll wager handsomely, the apartment number is cleverly affixed outside of the door.

So while there may indeed be an assholian good-old-boys tradition about liquoring up, then deliberately getting into a car, turning the key, driving home, and "accidentally" plowing into a carload of innocent family, and calling it manslaughter, even in Texas, rather than murder, which it is, when you're so tired you're too stupid to look at the door of what is allegedly your apartment, without noticing whether or not it really is, and then you draw and fire and kill someone DRT, there is no good-old-boy custom of saying, "Well, sheeyit, folks, these things jes' happen, so let's call it accidental and drop it to manslaughter."

She purposely entered an apartment, and began a verbal altercation, after discovering what she claims to have believed was the door to her home ajar(!). She didn't call it in, she didn't wait for back-up, and she didn't even do the barest minimum of due diligence to ascertain her own actual location by looking at the door, or noticing the bright red doormat she didn't own at her feet, which is the entire reason this happened, whereupon she capped a black guy watching TV in his apartment.

This is not fatigue bordering on exhaustion. Officer Killshot is trying to have it both ways, and have us believe she was so comatose she violated procedure, common sense, and basic human behavior, right up until she was able to recall her four-year experience and training as a police officer, draw her service weapon, take aim, and 10-ring an unarmed innocent man for the crime of not being in her apartment, killing him with a shot to the chest.

My, how pretty self-servingly convenient that her instincts and training only kicked in for those two seconds, but not at any time beforehand that might have led her to, y'know, not be a murdering douchebadge and then testi-lie afterwards in the most ham-fisted CYA attempt in, oh, the last five minutes from Cops Caught Doing Stupid Things.
"Yessir, that's what happened, I was too fatigued to notice the wrong floor, too fatigued to notice the wrong doormat, too fatigued to notice the wrong apartment number on the door, too fatigued to follow any sort of common sense procedure when it appeared my apartment was or had been burglarized when I noticed the door ajar, too fatigued to call 9-1-1, too fatigued to wait for backup (which would have been about 30 seconds if dispatch had received a call of possible burglary-in-progress at a PD officer's home), too fatigued to follow procedure, too fatigued to turn on a light, but suddenly, like lightning from Zeus' own hand, my academy training and four years on the streets of the big city kicked in, and I was able to calmly and deliberately score a perfect 100% kill-shot on Sumdood in his living room, and then SUDDENLY, I realized "OMG, this is NOT my apartment!"

The only possible reply to a pure fairy tale of that magnitude is this:

"Pull the other one, Officer F**khead, it's got bells on."

Guys with a trunk full to the brim of kilos of heroin claiming "That's not mine; I don't know how it got in there." have more credibility here.

Five-year-olds standing in a living room full of debris and claiming "A cat in a hat with two things - Thing 1 and Thing 2 - came in the door and did all this!" have more credibility here.

So yes, Officer Killshot should have turned on the lights, or her flashlight.

But it's an irrelevant point. The issue is that her story is patently obvious bullshit twenty feet high, and she never should have gotten past the door in the first place, had she even two wits in her entire Diversity Bean-hire empty head.

So let's stop trying to cut her any slack on any part of her story that might have been within a country mile of credibility, or try and categorize calls for murder charges as "angry" as if this was mere emotion in play, rather than calm, deliberate, logical, defensible, and justifiable outrage.

Trying to cast this as mere anger is nothing but fakenews spin, and heaven knows, her PBA shyster will be doing quadruple axels from now until the verdict comes down as it is; they don't need any help from the blogosphere.

She murdered an innocent person, and we have a remedy for that. Texas is rather famous for applying it of late. I happily and forthrightly wish they'd behead her, for real, and film it, and force every swinging Richard now and forever at DPD to watch the film before they issue weapons and teach them how to shoot, because those with more privilege owe a higher level of responsibility. But I'll settle for either her death by lethal injection, or LWOP, since that's as far as Texas law allows us to go. (I dislike the latter on principle, since it penalizes the taxpayers - and the victim's family - more than the convict, unless you're also going to require the convict to be horsewhipped daily, then worked to death at hard labor at an advanced rate. In which case, we can talk.)

If she'd been tired and run the guy over in a dark alley on her way home, that would be manslaughter.

Going to the wrong floor, the wrong door, into the wrong apartment, and despite being a badged, sworn, trained, and multi-year experienced police officer doing not one single effing act of due diligence, and then going from  "Narf!" to "WTF?" to "Die, m*****f*****!" in ten seconds or so, makes this simple murder. Nothing less will do.

Otherwise, I claim permanent immunity for everyone who caps everyone else in Dallas henceforth under the "I was tired" defense. Especially if the victims are DPD officers. We'll see if we run out of cops, robbers, or innocent bystanders first, under those ROE.

Jesus Christ On A Pogo Stick, the "Twinkie Defense" had a better basis in reality than this wagonload of horseh...rose fertilizer, even though it elected DiFi all the way to the Senate. If she had any honor or truthfulness or remorse for the act in her at all, she'd have immediately pled guilty and be in prison already. Or just capped herself as an auto da fé at the scene. That, at least, I could respect.

IANAL, but when last I looked, lying after the fact is mens rea, and "consciousness of guilt".
When anyone tells this big a whopper this fast, it merely points out the fact that they're guilty as hell. QED

Some acts are so big, so bad, and so baldly obvious, you cannot mine enough duplicity on the planet to lie your way out of them. This is one of those acts. Anyone who thinks otherwise is sleep-deprived and over-tired, and should probably go lie down for a bit.

She murdered an unarmed, innocent man with reckless indifference to that reality.
There's no amount of lipstick that can suffice to dress that pig for the prom.
For the slaughterhouse, maybe.

Off with her head.

And another thing:
"she states she found the door ajar, that she issued the shadowy figure she encountered commands to stop, and only shot him when he did not comply."
 Let's grant all her recockulous assertions, and give her 100% of the imprimatur that she's being entirely truthful.

A "shadowy" figure?? Because he was black, or because he was in shadow, and as Tam noted, Officer Killshot was too stupid, lazy, incompetent, and/or scared shitless - but armed - to do anything intelligent, like turn on the goddam lights?

Or because her hands were already full of pistol, her vision had shrunk down to Dixie-cup tunnel vision, and the barest shreds of common sense had already run down her leg?
Or both?

And he didn't stop? Stop what?
Was he watching TV, and failed to stop?
Walking away? Backing away?
Walking obliquely?
Coming towards her?

And she shot him because "he did not comply"?!?
So, failure to obey the commands of someone who breaks into your house is a death penalty offense now?
It was could he possibly see her gun?
Know she was armed?
Know she was a police officer?
Did she even ascertain that he spoke and understood English?
Or was it "Respect my authoritay! No? BLAM!"

Bad things can happen when a uniformed officer in a marked cruiser with flashing red and blue lights who's pointing a weapon at you issues commands.
I get that.
But when you have instead, a groggy, dopey, but clearly amped up white chick break into your apartment and start ordering you around in a darkened room, it gets one helluva lot hazier.

And absent some articulable fear of threat of great bodily injury, she never had probable cause to use deadly force.
She didn't say "he tried to kill me" "he had an object in his hand"  nor "he had a weapon" or "grabbed ...something" or any twenty other ways she could have phrased it to get more traction.

"Shot him when he did not comply" says she executed him because he "refused to respect my authoritay".

She hasn't got grounds on probable cause, or castle doctrine, or stand your ground.
Nine chances out of ten, even had she been answering a call, in uniform, in a lit room, this would still  be a bad shoot, and criminal charges pending for her.

Or, she flat-out lost her shit, lost her mind, and dumped a guy who ignored her because she was a cop, and was always right, and it's all she could think of to do.

Wait, let me think back on 90% of the women I've dated, worked with, been married to, or interacted with over thirty or forty years, and see which solution set sounds most plausible, considering all other factors...

Now, you tell me which comports more likely with every cop you've ever known (at work, not over beers at a BBQ).
And with every female you've ever known.
When they're convinced they're right.

The prosecution rests, your Honor.
We ask for a short recess before defense proceeds, while the bailiff locates a stout rope.
If you're here from David Codrea or other sites, be sure to read the previous posts and follow-up post.
This isn't manslaughter, or even recklessly induced second degree murder.
It was an execution.
She had a motive.
Murder one. Book her, Dan-o.


W. Fleetwood said...

Not to pick at an old scab, but I say again, as my Training Officer pounded into my head; Ask Questions! You are an armed condotieri, you can always shoot, you can never unshoot.
Wafa Wafa, Wasara Wasara.

SiGraybeard said...

What do you think the chances are that Officer Killshot wasn't tired, but so eff'ed up on some sort of narcotic that she was incapable of thinking?

Not that it excuses the murder, just that it seems easier to be that stupid/unobservant when someone is high.

Anonymous said...

forget the trial--get a rope!

Aesop said...

@Anon 11:23
Would that the citizens of Dallas were not so lambish.
Let's convene the trial right now. Grab any 12 citizens off the street, and let's run this one by them, as is.

I mean, it's not like you're going to find out she had a brain aneurysm. Or the gun jumped out on its own and fired itself. Or that it was the man on the Grassy Knoll.

You've got a dead unarmed guy in his own apartment, two independent witnesses with no axe to grind otherwise who say the cop-chick is lying in two different ways (which statements they made before they knew she was either a neighbor, or a cop), she was in the wrong apartment after failing to figure that out herself in any of multiple simple ways before shooting, and she admits she capped the guy.
And her entire story smells like a pile of something man-high and fly-covered from a scene in Jurassic Park.

This is a one-day trial, and she still gets the needle afterwards.

Your case, counselor.

Anonymous said...

I'll just reiterate what I said the other day, had a non-badged CCW holder done exactly the same thing, under exactly the same circumstances, they'd be sitting in a jail cell facing a second degree murder rap. The fact that she's only up on manslaughter shows that some animals are more equal than others. Hell, had the rightful occupant of the apartment capped her thinking someone was breaking into his home, HE'D probably be sitting in jail now on second degree murder because he killed a cop.

Mark D

Aesop said...

I don't think so, because I think they'd have leaked it out, and happily taken a manslaughter verdict right this minute just to dispose the case.

My suspicion is she was both lazy and stupid, regardless of what factor fatigue did or didn't play, and being on Team Blue, is simply institutionally and constitutionally unable to come out in public like a responsible adult and admit "I totally effed up, I killed somebody who was completely innocent, I'm solely and totally to blame, and I should go to prison forever."
That mindset is simply inimical to everything she's pounded into her tiny head for four-plus years.

You can do that when you're a baseball umpire, but mainly because they don't get to kill the players they throw out of the game.

And when you do kill someone, and there isn't a shred of hope for your story, you stonewall, and hope for one dumbass on the jury to get you a mistrial.

That's all she has left to hang her hopes on, and even odds, she can get at least one jackass and pull it off. Look at OJ.

That alone is why they should have booked her for murder on the spot, thrown her right into jail same night, and should max her out if convicted.

If she isn't convicted she's going to be responsible for the ensuing riots, and I hope she pays for that with her life, because at that point, she might have the blood of dozens more on her hands, including her fellow officers (who should have thrown her to the wolves the minute it became obvious what a disaster her act was, and what a reprehensible slug she is for trying to bs her way out of indefensible culpability.)

It only gets worse from here on out, for her, for the victim's family, for the court, the department, and the city.

By contrast, lopping her head off on the spot, even now, would be a blessing to all concerned.

You have a non-complex crime, and the sole responsible criminal.
It doesn't get any simpler than this short of video of the entire events.
(But conveniently, she had time to change and take any bodycam off, but not be awake enough afterwards to not shoot an unarmed man for the crime of ignoring the instructions of an armed intruder breaking into his house.)
Punish it, with the swiftness of lightning, and utter finality.

FiftycalTX said...

Well, you gotta remember that this is Texas and laws are different here. To wit: Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

SO a home invader is pretty much DRT.

And also consider deadly force can be used to protect property.
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Also your "murder" conviction requires planning to commit the crime. Manslaughter does not. Only time will tell.

BTW, if the neighbors were right and she was "banging on the door", does she live alone? Was she expecting the cat to open the door? Or maybe she got in and saw the black guy and thought her hubby had gone on the "down low" with this guy? Who knows?

Aesop said...

Which is moot, because he wasn't a home invader, she was.
It's only a reasonable belief if her delusion was grounds for the statue to apply.

The entire point is that, absent her delusional, recklessly negligent, and oh btw factually mistaken belief, there was no justification even under Texas law for anything she did, from the time she entered the victim's apartment.
Everything after that is compounding the original offence of breaking and entering.

If, OTOH, you're going to grant justification based on a defendant's delusions, then crazy people have the unmitigated carte blanche right to kill you all, because as they frequently say "you're all trying to kill me."

Was that the form of jurisprudence you meant to argue...?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

So under Texas law, the only person she had the right to use deadly force against, was herself. She was the one breaking and entering, threatening deadly force, and as events show, intent on murdering the lawful resident of the property to which she forced her way in and burglarized, regardless of whatever mental process or lack thereof she was experiencing in her alleged brain.

Unless defense is willing to stipulate that, given a gun and one bullet, defendant agrees to step into the consultation room now and "do the right thing", the statutes in question are moot, and your objection is overruled.

Aesop said...

As to planning a murder:
Was she carrying a gun?
Was it loaded?
Did she enter the victim's domicile uninvited?
Did she draw her weapon?
Did she point it at the victim?
Did she fire it at the victim?
Did she know, or reasonably suspect, that shooting a bullet from her weapon into the defendant's body was likely to cause death or grave bodily injury?

That's planning.
I've lived a long and happy life, and never have I been walking down the street and suddenly, unplanned found myself shooting a complete stranger in the chest as if, for instance, I had sneezed.

Why would you bang on your own door?
because your key didn't work...? major accusative clue
Did you notice the bright red doormat you didn't own? Why Not? major accusative clue {It's already not looking good for the defendant}
Did you notice the large alphanumeric designator on the very door you were pounding on and trying to open, because your key didn't work, wasn't yours? three strikes, you're out, you were recklessly indifferent to the overwhelming probability that you were the burglar
And the moment she entered not-her-apartment with such reckless indifference, she's legally culpable of the crime she committed right then, and all the fruit that proceeds from it.

So, what's Texas law say about shooting someone in the act of burglarizing their home, and attempting to kidnap them (which means moving them any distance, even a foot, against their will) at gunpoint?

Just spitballing, but in most states, murder of anyone during a kidnap is a capital crime that invokes the death penalty.

That applies federally as well.
So even if Ofcr. Killshot gets off because of mistrial in Dallas, I'm pretty sure the federal trial will be for keeps, and she's looking at anything-up-to-life in the federal pen.

Curiously, US Code doesn't grant you the right to kill someone while attempting to kidnap them at gunpoint while they are watching TV in their own home, which, unlike and notwithstanding the machinations of her delusional mind, is what was actually occurring at the time and place in question.

After defendant gets tried in Texas, I'd bet on a federal trial, and concurrent or consecutive sentences.

Stick a fork in her.

I repeat, she should spare society the trouble, and simply kill herself.

It's the only honorable option left, and would be best for all concerned parties, including the defendant.

When justice, morality, ethics, and utility all combine, that's about as close to perfection on earth as human justice ever gets.

And thanks for the text of Texas law, but it's clearly irrelevant.

Anonymous said...

Ah, come on now. Give her a break. She's probably a Democrat and preparing her bona fides to run for president.

Aesop said...

All the more reason to execute her.

Justice is served, and she can vote Democrat in every election for the next 140 years, based on current events.


FiftycalTX said...

Yah, all that is true EXCEPT if she "reasonably believed" she was in her apartment, then the law on deadly force could apply. "Red" throw rug outside? Gee, I might not notice it wearing duty boots and if I didn't look down. APt. numbers on the door? What if they are above the door? What if they just say "13" and NOT the floor #? The biggest point I see is how did she get into the apt.? I know you'd like this to be cut and dried cop stupidity, but I'll wait until we have some EVIDENCE. You know evidence? I wasn't there, so let's see what happened.

Aesop said...

Not notice a bright red doormat? You'd have to have huuuuuuuuge feet, and be blind.
(Or just criminally reckless. Thus guilty on all counts.)
Have you ever known apartment numbers to repeat exactly, ever, anywhere?
What about the floors? Everything on the floors and along the way to her door?
So much for grasping at straws.

Articulate for us, if there be any way possible, how anyone could reasonably think they were inside the right apartment, given her circumstances, and yet still be in the wrong one. (Recourse to magic or miracles is off-limits in that explanation.)

Then, just for sport, tell me how you'd feel if you lived two flights up from her, or she manages to walk on this in a mistrial or legal technicality, and then does it again, as a private citizen, after she's fired anyway.
If it makes no difference, how many people could she carelessly murder in the exact same manner before you'd admit that perhaps she was at fault? Two? Ten? Fifty? More? At what point and why would things change?

Mr. Meth Head at the corner may think it reasonable that what's mine is his, but the perambulations of his drug-addled frenzy hold no sway in a court of law.
That's why he's not allowed to use that defense at trial, even if it turns out he was in a drug-fueled mental frenzy.

Ofcr. Killshot parked her car on the wrong level, walked onto the wrong floor, went to the wrong door, with the wrong number, with the wrong mat outside, entered the wrong apartment, and rather than say "Whoa, something isn't right here...and someone is sitting there watching TV, and I don't have a TV there, or that kind of chair, maybe I should re-think this a minute..."

Instead, she defaulted to "Respect my authoritay! BLAM!"

One can make a mistake, and plead accident. I've made some myself, and can see the point.

When one makes six, or seven, or more, and then proceeds to dispense deadly force, any shot at pleading reasonableness and an honest error goes right out the window.

Aesop said...

This is what pilots and accident investigators call "The Chain Of Error" that always gets written in blood.

Killshot here had multiple (six/seven/eight/more) opportunities to break that chain. but as the sole perpetrator, she own ALL those mistakes, and the chain of negligence becomes deliberate, considered reckless disregard for the consequences, which in this case, was her proceeding to murder an innocent, unarmed man in his home, without a shred of excuse. Anything that comes out from this point onward only explains her guilt, it cannot exculpate it.

The trial is therefore a formality; there's nothing you can concoct, nor can she, nor anyone else, to make a silk purse out of this sow's ear, and delusion is not a defense, unless she elects to try her hand at insanity and diminished capacity. She pretty much blew that by her response once she realized the enormity of her crime.
Again, that shows that too late, the magnitude of her recklessness, and the incredible story she concocted, only shows consciousness of her own guilt, coupled with a knowledge of the consequences unfolding as inexorably as gravity.

As has been observed, even a dog knows the difference between accidental step on his tail and being kicked, and as one can retrieve on any Judge Judy clip "Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining."

There's one victim here, one admitted culprit, and no mitigating circumstances noted, nor even possible, and were she somehow to achieve some minor success, it would be a travesty of justice, and not its execution.

I'll wait to see what happens, because there's no choice, but when one team walks onto the field with an automatic 100-point deficit, the only way the final outcome is in doubt is via shenanigans, not fair play.

And as other commenters have pointed out, the proof of the disparity of justice and the thumbs already on the scale is that, had the identities been reversed, the dead guy would be sitting in a jail cell with other criminals, contemplating spending the rest of his life in prison, even if he'd been the one to shoot first, and score the goal, in his own living room.

If knowing that a Dallas cop is overwhelmingly likely to be simply a brainless murderer and serial perjurer hurts your feelings, I'm sorry have been the one to break that news to you. I'm relatively certain she isn't the first, there or anywhere else.

If they'd thrown her in jail immediately and charged her adequately at the outset, I would have cared far less about this case than I do, secure in the knowledge that justice was being served, rather than bum-buggered. But the day police can simply kill people for being inconvenient to their delusions, we've crossed a Rubicon that will be filled with blood in short order.

Anonymous said...


Yes, yes, and yes. Agree with your logic on all counts. Just wondering, though, ever hear of Lisa Mearkle? Small town cop who shot an unarmed guy twice in his back, face down, in his own yard. After tasering him. Over an expired vehicle inspection sticker. She was charged with murder & acquitted. Yeah. Here's one of many stories - Google has many more:

Aesop said...

And that's the problem.

They've been getting away with this crap for years.

And everybody's all shocked and surprised when cities finally riot.

0007 said...

Just to spin up the racist motive; on some other site someone pointed out that this sounds like aplanned murder by a coal-burner who got dropped by her mudshark.

Beans said...

Even if you let her get away with bad logic in not noticing the floor and environment, the doormat, the door, the apartment when the door opens (all of which a trained LEO is supposed to do) and she uses the argument that she was 'tired', then she's toast.

First responsibility of a gun user. Be aware/awake/sober/not-stoned or altered enough to properly function. The fact that she drilled him one shot-one kill belies any tired/drunk/stoned defense.

She blew someone away, after hours, not on cop-time, when she knew she was altered one way or another.

Tough cookies, Cookie.

She should be up for 2nd degree murder, at least. My feeling? First degree murder. Why? Well, if targeting a cop is an enhancement, or operating in an altered state is an enhancement, then a cop who was altered for any reason should face the same enhancement penalty.

Screw her. Screw her hard. And toss that Noor dude from Minneapolis in the fire with her.

lineman said...

Regarding your linked article and this just reinforces that women should not be cops...

Aesop said...

Some women should not be cops. Neither should some men.
While they shouldn't try to break up bar fights with hulking guys, they do have skill sets.

I've seen female cops talk people out of doing stupid stuff, instead of going in like a guy, leading with a PR-24. Sometimes.
Other times, I've seen them try that, and the guy who's leading the pack decides she's easy pickings, and it starts the fight.
Depends on the cop, and depends on the perp.

I imagine they might make dandy hostage negotiators on average, because that job is hugely more verbal, psychological, and communicative, which is where the female of the species, on average, positively shines compared to most guys.

What's manifestly clear is this woman shouldn't be a cop. She went in leading with her gun instead of her brain, and that led to a poor outcome, all around.

Firefighter/paramedics is a different thing.
1) Because they frequently bunk in the same quarters for a 24-hr. shift, unlike police. Ask the Navy how that works out. Or ask Mrs. Firefighter.
2) Because their job, whether fighting fires of doing medical runs, is multiple times more physical every day than policing ever is in anything less than citywide rioting.
Go on YouTube to see the vids of 90# Firefighter Barbie struggling to set a ladder against a building.
Now imagine her as half the ambulance crew trying to get a patient on a gurney down 3 flights of stairs.
Now imagine the pt. is rather stout.

I don't give a tinker's dam whether a firefighter has genitalia mounted internally or externally.
I just want all of them to be able to run up three flights of stairs with a hose pack and wearing their SCBA, chop down the door, put out the fire, and cart my unconscious ass back down, without calling in a battalion task force and a medevac to get it done, or sitting on the second floor landing trying to catch their breath while I burn, because they can't hack the job. Male or female, same-same.
Non-hacker = wash out.

If Barbie can do that, she's in.
If not, the city or county has literally hundreds of jobs for her where the heaviest thing she has to lift all day is her briefcase or a ream of copier paper, and she won't kill anyone if she takes her time.

Bottom line, the diversity bean bullshit has to cease.
Either you pack the mental ability, psychological temperament, and physical skills for the job, whatever it is, and you're better than everybody else - not barely qualified but fill a quota - or else you get sent packing.

We don't need more lesbians of color in government jobs, we need more top-notch most-qualified people in those jobs. If they tick an EEOC box or three, spiffy, but that's icing on the cake, not the entry fee, and we shouldn't even be looking at hiring time. We should be taking the people at the top of all categories. Every time, from hiring to each promotion up the ladder.

Y'know, as if actually doing the job right was what mattered most.
Oh, and not murdering people from sheer incompetence and recklessness.

I also want a pony, the phone number of the Playmate of the Year, and the winning powerball ticket.
And world peace.

Beans said...

Aesop, as to your last comments at 11:03, lots of goodness in there.

Good female cops can de-escalate the situation quicker and calmer than most male cops. Maybe it's because they seem less threatening, or more nurturing or whatever.

They also are needed due to the increase in criminal activity by, well, females. Can't have a guy do a pat-down in this day and age.

But... Yeah, if they can hack it at the same requirements as the male cop, great. Otherwise, nope. Seen too many 'chicks' use their 'chickliness' to get what they want. I've also seen female cops who can mostly mix it up with the boys, and did well. Good for them.

There's lots of positions in the fire, EMS and police services that don't need, well, knuckle-draggers. But those are in comm-center, records, supply, you know, support services.

Like the unsettling trend I see in local hospitals to have Asian nursing staff. Short little ladies and men that can't handle a normal anglo male or female, let alone the more robust of us. Now there's 'Fall Teams' for every other floor, usually two big dudes and two big females, who spend all their shift shifting people. Scary and weird. Don't know if the same is at your hospitals.

sodbuster said...

@007 Explains the banging on the door, let me in I'm horny. Dead Guy must have known she was looney, otherwise what guy doesn't let some cute chick in who wants sex. They knew each other?

Aesop said...

The odds she knew the guy are astronomically small, and I've seen nothing credible that suggests it.

But hypothetically, if there was actually any sort of that kind of link, everything she said goes out the window, this becomes murder one, and she rates the needle.

Angus McThag said...

The witnesses say she was pounding on the door.

I'm trying to figure out why she'd be hammering on her own door when her key didn't work.

I've lived alone a couple times and when I locked myself out, no amount of pounding on the door was going to get the nobody inside to unlock it.

Anonymous said...

Affirmative-Action Hires...

"How do you like it now, Gentlemen?"

dmv gringo said...

Her statement is the kind of BS that Blacks
respond to with the reply, "nigger please!"

Anonymous said...

This just in: Video showing how heavy metal fire doors automatically slam shut in building where white Dallas cop shot her black neighbor and apartment numbers are lit up in NEON contradict her story


dmv gringo said...

Wayne Brady vs the NYPD

Henry said...

I’m with the entire article here, except I don’t understand this statement:

“She hasn’t got grounds on … castle doctrine, or stand your ground.”

Are you saying that even if you take the cop’s story at face value that she didn’t have those grounds (because I believe she would have), or are you saying that she doesn’t have the grounds solely because you are discounting her narrative?

Aesop said...

She doesn't have recourse to castle doctrine because it wasn't her castle.
She doesn't have recourse to "stand your ground" because she was
a) the aggressor, not the defender, and
b) she had no probable cause at any point to use deadly force, i.e.
i)victim was not threatening her
ii) victim was not aggressive nor hostile
iii) victim was not armed nor believed to be so
iv) defendant had no articulable reason to be waving her gun around, nor even have it out of her holster, at any point in time. Even in uniform, as a cop.

Her assertions that she "thought" she was in her apartment are neither reasonable, nor true in fact.
She ignored six to eight obvious flags that a reasonable, prudent person would have used to determine, long before ever crossing the threshold, that she was at the wrong place.
Failing to act reasonably, she is therefore not reasonable in her delusion.

A hopped up meth-head or heroin junkie may claim they "thought" my stuff was their stuff, but we do not allow them to use that rationale to excuse stealing from or robbing us, not did the Texas legislature so intend when writing the statutes.
A drunk may have "thought" he was driving safely when he swerves across the double yellow and kills the driver of an oncoming car, but we don't let them use their intoxication, not state of mind, as exculpatory carte blanche for their crime.

Just because the officer was delusionally mistaken at best (and probably lying her ass off - see my follow up articles on this topic), she does not have recourse to good faith and reasonableness defenses of her actions, because she was not making reasonable assumptions, unless we are fatigued, intoxicated, or on drugs as well.

"Reasonable" is that she should have noticed she parked on the wrong level, entered the door to the wrong floor, that none of the door numbers in the hallway matched her floor, that the apartment number she stopped at was not her apartment, and that the big red doormat outside the door that was not hers, and an obvious literal red flag that it wasn't her door, especially when she'd have to looking right at it when inserting her key into the lock.

There's also no way the door was "ajar", because all the doors in the complex are rated fire doors with automatic closers, and lock when you let them go.
So the "door ajar" statement was a lie.

As later facts have come out underlining this, it turns out she also had a motive for the confrontation with her upstairs neighbor (multiple noise complaints), which material fact she concealed, simultaneously revealing both the motive and consciousness of guilt.

(It also explains why her "I was tired" excuse is such an obvious fairytale load of horse cobblers.)

The legal term is mens rea ("guilty mind"), and when combined with motive, means, and opportunity, it generally should result in a reasonable jury and judge giving her either LWOP, or the needle, for first degree pre-meditated murder, under color of authority.

Her b.s. story goers away if she turns on the light at the front door.
The whole confrontation goes away if she demonstrates the least bit of due diligence, and never enters the wrong apartment.
She goes away when the dungheap of lies inherent in her story come out, and she has to answer at trial for murder.

If she hangs herself or eats her gun pending trial, that would alright as well, and the only indication to date that she possesses the merest shred of conscience or personal responsibility. If she doesn't do it, she's a psychopath.