Dallas officer enters apartment she mistakes for her own, fatally shoots man inside

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I disagree. Like I said a charge is nothing. The indictment is what counts.

You have yet to even describe the distinction. Let alone factually establish anything you've said. She was charged. A warrant was issued. She's been arrested. She's been before a judge. She's had bail set. She's been released on bond.

There are $300,000 reasons why your claims that this is 'nothing' doesn't amount to much.

. You can be charged with anything and not have to stand trial. The fact that they took this long to even charge her for something they would have arrested and charged anyone else with immediately tells me she spent those three days constructing a cover story with the DA's help.

What are you talking about? They charged her with manslaughter.

The shooting occured on a Thursday. She was arrested on a Sunday. What about this indicates a 'cover up'?

You're really reaching so far.

They issued the manslaughter arrest warrant the day after the incident, but the Texas Rangers asked them to hold off on executing it. Maybe this is what Asclepias is referring to?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

/

 

[Cecilie1200]

I disagree. Like I said a charge is nothing. The indictment is what counts.

You have yet to even describe the distinction. Let alone factually establish anything you've said. She was charged. A warrant was issued. She's been arrested. She's been before a judge. She's had bail set. She's been released on bond.

There are $300,000 reasons why your claims that this is 'nothing' doesn't amount to much.

. You can be charged with anything and not have to stand trial. The fact that they took this long to even charge her for something they would have arrested and charged anyone else with immediately tells me she spent those three days constructing a cover story with the DA's help.

What are you talking about? They charged her with manslaughter.

The shooting occured on a Thursday. She was arrested on a Sunday. What about this indicates a 'cover up'?

You're really reaching so far.

They issued the manslaughter arrest warrant the day after the incident, but the Texas Rangers asked them to hold off on executing it. Maybe this is what Asclepias is referring to?

Yeah, by a whole day, I think it was.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

No, what makes it an officer involved shooting is it involving an officer. They don't call the Texas Rangers for every shooting that happens in Dallas. Nor do we discuss it.

My understanding is that the Texas Rangers were called in because it is not appropriate for a law enforcement agency to investigate itself on any potential criminal act of any officers. The Dallas police chief indicated that in order to maintain transparency they invited the Texas Rangers to conduct the investigation on their behalf and she made a point of indicating that it had nothing to do with lack of confidence in her officers/detectives to conduct the investigation. It's generally a matter of integrity and I don't just mean people integrity I mean the integrity of the case.

 

[Skylar]

No, what makes it an officer involved shooting is it involving an officer. They don't call the Texas Rangers for every shooting that happens in Dallas. Nor do we discuss it.

My understanding is that the Texas Rangers were called in because it is not appropriate for a law enforcement agency to investigate itself on any potential criminal act of any officers.

My point being that the calling of the Texas Rangers was *counter* indicative of a cover up. As they Dallas PD had removed themselves from the investigation.

I've seen nothing to indicate a cover up. Despite Asp's numerous claims.

 

[Asclepias]

I believe she mistakenly believed it was her apartment. No other reason for her to go to the apartment directly above hers

I do not understand her reaction and use of force.
She could have stepped back and called for reinforcement
She could have drawn her gun and left it at that

She had a gun and abused the responsibility it holds

Three additional factors that make this situation atypcal.

1) The doors had no keys. They were opened by FOBs, unlocking as you approached. You could lock the door from the inside with a deadbolt but the door unlocked automatically with the correct FOB. I've never even heard of that, even in hotels.

2) The apartments were accessed via parking garage. If you were on the wrong floor of the parking garage, you'd be on the wrong floor of the apartments.

3) The apartments, more than most, were physically identical. Just one long line after another of identical doors.

And yeah, her reaction seems utterly disproportionate given the evidence we have now. Manslaughter seems an appropriate charge as there doesn't seem to be any malice of forethought, merely spectacularly poor judgement.

No you had to stick a key in the lock to activate the FOB. I posted a video on this thread that shows how the locks work from a resident of the apartments.

 

[Asclepias]

No, what makes it an officer involved shooting is it involving an officer. They don't call the Texas Rangers for every shooting that happens in Dallas. Nor do we discuss it.

My understanding is that the Texas Rangers were called in because it is not appropriate for a law enforcement agency to investigate itself on any potential criminal act of any officers.

My point being that the calling of the Texas Rangers was *counter* indicative of a cover up. As they Dallas PD had removed themselves from the investigation.

I've seen nothing to indicate a cover up. Despite Asp's numerous claims.

I dont know about you but the words "Texas Ranger" leaves the same taste in my mouth as the phrase KKK. They are traditionally just another branch of militant racist white people that were given badges.

 

[Skylar]

I disagree. Like I said a charge is nothing. The indictment is what counts.

You have yet to even describe the distinction. Let alone factually establish anything you've said. She was charged. A warrant was issued. She's been arrested. She's been before a judge. She's had bail set. She's been released on bond.

There are $300,000 reasons why your claims that this is 'nothing' doesn't amount to much.

. You can be charged with anything and not have to stand trial. The fact that they took this long to even charge her for something they would have arrested and charged anyone else with immediately tells me she spent those three days constructing a cover story with the DA's help.

What are you talking about? They charged her with manslaughter.

The shooting occured on a Thursday. She was arrested on a Sunday. What about this indicates a 'cover up'?

You're really reaching so far.

They issued the manslaughter arrest warrant the day after the incident, but the Texas Rangers asked them to hold off on executing it. Maybe this is what Asclepias is referring to?

Asc was just throwing 'cover up' shit on the barn wall and seeing if anything stuck.

He claimed that the use of a grand jury was an indication of a 'cover up' because they are secret in Texas. But grand juries are secret *everywhere*. Removing that characteristic as an indication of a 'cover up'. Oh, and they charged her.

Asc claimed that the timing of the charges demonstrated a cover up. But a national news story involving one of their officers where Dallas PD had to call in another investigative agency.....and it only took 36 hours? That's lightning fast. With zero indications of a 'cover up'.

Asc claimed that her being 'charged' meant nothing and only her being 'indicted' was serious. But he couldn't offer us any meaningful distinction between them. And with the officer having to post bail, there are $300,000 reasons why her being charged with manslaugther was serious.

In claim after claim, Asc offered us meaningless distinctions or 'factors' that didn't indicate any cover up.

 

[Skylar]

No, what makes it an officer involved shooting is it involving an officer. They don't call the Texas Rangers for every shooting that happens in Dallas. Nor do we discuss it.

My understanding is that the Texas Rangers were called in because it is not appropriate for a law enforcement agency to investigate itself on any potential criminal act of any officers.

My point being that the calling of the Texas Rangers was *counter* indicative of a cover up. As they Dallas PD had removed themselves from the investigation.

I've seen nothing to indicate a cover up. Despite Asp's numerous claims.

I dont know about you but the words "Texas Ranger" leaves the same taste in my mouth as the phrase KKK. They are traditionally just another branch of militant racist white people that were given badges.

That's your own personal baggage. And has nothing to do with the integrity of the case.

 

[Asclepias]

No, what makes it an officer involved shooting is it involving an officer. They don't call the Texas Rangers for every shooting that happens in Dallas. Nor do we discuss it.

My understanding is that the Texas Rangers were called in because it is not appropriate for a law enforcement agency to investigate itself on any potential criminal act of any officers.

My point being that the calling of the Texas Rangers was *counter* indicative of a cover up. As they Dallas PD had removed themselves from the investigation.

I've seen nothing to indicate a cover up. Despite Asp's numerous claims.

I dont know about you but the words "Texas Ranger" leaves the same taste in my mouth as the phrase KKK. They are traditionally just another branch of militant racist white people that were given badges.

That's your own personal baggage. And has nothing to do with the integrity of the case.

I disagree. Why give this case to such an organization filled with racists?

 

[Skylar]

No, what makes it an officer involved shooting is it involving an officer. They don't call the Texas Rangers for every shooting that happens in Dallas. Nor do we discuss it.

My understanding is that the Texas Rangers were called in because it is not appropriate for a law enforcement agency to investigate itself on any potential criminal act of any officers.

My point being that the calling of the Texas Rangers was *counter* indicative of a cover up. As they Dallas PD had removed themselves from the investigation.

I've seen nothing to indicate a cover up. Despite Asp's numerous claims.

I dont know about you but the words "Texas Ranger" leaves the same taste in my mouth as the phrase KKK. They are traditionally just another branch of militant racist white people that were given badges.

That's your own personal baggage. And has nothing to do with the integrity of the case.

I disagree. Why give this case to such an organization filled with racists?

Who says the organization is filled with racists?

 

[Aba Incieni]

No, what makes it an officer involved shooting is it involving an officer. They don't call the Texas Rangers for every shooting that happens in Dallas. Nor do we discuss it.

My understanding is that the Texas Rangers were called in because it is not appropriate for a law enforcement agency to investigate itself on any potential criminal act of any officers.

My point being that the calling of the Texas Rangers was *counter* indicative of a cover up. As they Dallas PD had removed themselves from the investigation.

I've seen nothing to indicate a cover up. Despite Asp's numerous claims.

I dont know about you but the words "Texas Ranger" leaves the same taste in my mouth as the phrase KKK. They are traditionally just another branch of militant racist white people that were given badges.

That's your own personal baggage. And has nothing to do with the integrity of the case.

I disagree. Why give this case to such an organization filled with racists?

As a REAL black person, give us what you know about Haitians.

 

[Asclepias]

My understanding is that the Texas Rangers were called in because it is not appropriate for a law enforcement agency to investigate itself on any potential criminal act of any officers.

My point being that the calling of the Texas Rangers was *counter* indicative of a cover up. As they Dallas PD had removed themselves from the investigation.

I've seen nothing to indicate a cover up. Despite Asp's numerous claims.

I dont know about you but the words "Texas Ranger" leaves the same taste in my mouth as the phrase KKK. They are traditionally just another branch of militant racist white people that were given badges.

That's your own personal baggage. And has nothing to do with the integrity of the case.

I disagree. Why give this case to such an organization filled with racists?

Who says the organization is filled with racists?

History.

 

[Skylar]

My point being that the calling of the Texas Rangers was *counter* indicative of a cover up. As they Dallas PD had removed themselves from the investigation.

I've seen nothing to indicate a cover up. Despite Asp's numerous claims.

I dont know about you but the words "Texas Ranger" leaves the same taste in my mouth as the phrase KKK. They are traditionally just another branch of militant racist white people that were given badges.

That's your own personal baggage. And has nothing to do with the integrity of the case.

I disagree. Why give this case to such an organization filled with racists?

Who says the organization is filled with racists?

History.

You're gonna need to be a little more specific and a tad more relevant. What the Texas Rangers did in say, 1870....doesn't have much relevance to this case.

You're offering us the overgeneralization fallacy. And this after a litany of 'cover up' indications that didn't indicate a cover up.

 

[Asclepias]

I dont know about you but the words "Texas Ranger" leaves the same taste in my mouth as the phrase KKK. They are traditionally just another branch of militant racist white people that were given badges.

That's your own personal baggage. And has nothing to do with the integrity of the case.

I disagree. Why give this case to such an organization filled with racists?

Who says the organization is filled with racists?

History.

You're gonna need to be a little more specific and a tad more relevant. What the Texas Rangers did in say, 1870....doesn't have much relevance to this case.

You're offering us the overgeneralization fallacy. And this after a litany of 'cover up' indications that didn't indicate a cover up.

Why do I need to be more specific? I think history is pretty specific. Yeah it does have relevancy but thats not the last time they have a racial issue.

 

[Skylar]

That's your own personal baggage. And has nothing to do with the integrity of the case.

I disagree. Why give this case to such an organization filled with racists?

Who says the organization is filled with racists?

History.

You're gonna need to be a little more specific and a tad more relevant. What the Texas Rangers did in say, 1870....doesn't have much relevance to this case.

You're offering us the overgeneralization fallacy. And this after a litany of 'cover up' indications that didn't indicate a cover up.

Why do I need to be more specific? I think history is pretty specific. Yeah it does have relevancy but thats not the last time they have a racial issue.

Because you're using the overgeneralization fallacy.....offering us vague and general reference to some 'history'. While giving us nothing on the relevance to the specifics of this case.

Just like the use of a grand jury wasn't an specific indication of a 'cover up'.

Or a 36 hour shooting to arrest wasn't a specific indication of a 'cover up'.

 

[Asclepias]

I disagree. Why give this case to such an organization filled with racists?

Who says the organization is filled with racists?

History.

You're gonna need to be a little more specific and a tad more relevant. What the Texas Rangers did in say, 1870....doesn't have much relevance to this case.

You're offering us the overgeneralization fallacy. And this after a litany of 'cover up' indications that didn't indicate a cover up.

Why do I need to be more specific? I think history is pretty specific. Yeah it does have relevancy but thats not the last time they have a racial issue.

Because you're using the overgeneralization fallacy.....offering us vague and general reference to some 'history'. While giving us nothing on the relevance to the specifics of this case.

Just like the use of a grand jury wasn't an specific indication of a 'cover up'.

Or a 36 hour shooting to arrest wasn't a specific indication of a 'cover up'.

Yeah history is the best indicator of present and future behavior. You dont have to believe history is relevant but that wont stop me from believing it is.

 

[Skylar]

Who says the organization is filled with racists?

History.

You're gonna need to be a little more specific and a tad more relevant. What the Texas Rangers did in say, 1870....doesn't have much relevance to this case.

You're offering us the overgeneralization fallacy. And this after a litany of 'cover up' indications that didn't indicate a cover up.

Why do I need to be more specific? I think history is pretty specific. Yeah it does have relevancy but thats not the last time they have a racial issue.

Because you're using the overgeneralization fallacy.....offering us vague and general reference to some 'history'. While giving us nothing on the relevance to the specifics of this case.

Just like the use of a grand jury wasn't an specific indication of a 'cover up'.

Or a 36 hour shooting to arrest wasn't a specific indication of a 'cover up'.

Yeah history is the best indicator of present and future behavior. You dont have to believe history is relevant but that wont stop me from believing it is.

That's more overgeneralization fallacy. It works better when applied to specific people. But not broader, more generalized groups.

If you have something specific that indicates that the Texas Ranger leading the investigation is a racist, present it. But you don't. You're offering us vague allusions to 'history', while offering us nothing actionable, nothing relevant to this investigation.

Nor can you offer us a single specific indication of a cover up. With your every 'example' providing zero indication of a cover up.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Asc was just throwing 'cover up' shit on the barn wall and seeing if anything stuck.

He claimed that the use of a grand jury was an indication of a 'cover up' because they are secret in Texas. But grand juries are secret *everywhere*. Removing that characteristic as an indication of a 'cover up'. Oh, and they charged her.

Asc claimed that the timing of the charges demonstrated a cover up. But a national news story involving one of their officers where Dallas PD had to call in another investigative agency.....and it only took 36 hours? That's lightning fast. With zero indications of a 'cover up'.

Asc claimed that her being 'charged' meant nothing and only her being 'indicted' was serious. But he couldn't offer us any meaningful distinction between them. And with the officer having to post bail, there are $300,000 reasons why her being charged with manslaugther was serious.

In claim after claim, Asc offered us meaningless distinctions or 'factors' that didn't indicate any cover up.

I dont' know enough about the grand jury process to comment on it but I do know that anything done is secret is pretty much suspect.

That's how FISA warrants are obtained, that's how the FBI uses national security letters to get our financial, cell phone, insurance & maybe even our medical records, and in my state they have what are called "secret warrants" which police detectives have used to obtain evidence that they normally would not legally be able to get their hands on. Evidence presented to a judge in secret, the subject/victim/defendant has no right even know of the precedings let alone contest them or any of the evidence presented against him therein, etc.

My understanding is that any time our government is conducting business on behalf of the people it represents, the people have a right to know what they're doing with very few exceptions generally regarding open investigations and national security concerns. As a member of several disenfranchsed groups, I at least understand what Asclepias is saying.

One last thing, anyone else who shot and killed someone in a state without a stand your ground law and was not claiming self-defense would have spent Friday, Saturday & Sunday in jail while they figured things out and finally set bail. This officer was allowed to remain free and from what I've read she was able to bail out pretty much immediately.

Obscure law used by prosecutors is ‘sneak-and-peek stuff’
Washington justices OK warrantless review of bank records

 

[Skylar]

Asc was just throwing 'cover up' shit on the barn wall and seeing if anything stuck.

He claimed that the use of a grand jury was an indication of a 'cover up' because they are secret in Texas. But grand juries are secret *everywhere*. Removing that characteristic as an indication of a 'cover up'. Oh, and they charged her.

Asc claimed that the timing of the charges demonstrated a cover up. But a national news story involving one of their officers where Dallas PD had to call in another investigative agency.....and it only took 36 hours? That's lightning fast. With zero indications of a 'cover up'.

Asc claimed that her being 'charged' meant nothing and only her being 'indicted' was serious. But he couldn't offer us any meaningful distinction between them. And with the officer having to post bail, there are $300,000 reasons why her being charged with manslaugther was serious.

In claim after claim, Asc offered us meaningless distinctions or 'factors' that didn't indicate any cover up.

I dont' know enough about the grand jury process to comment on it but I do know that anything done is secret is pretty much suspect.

That's how FISA warrants are obtained, that's how the FBI gets our financial, cell phone, insurance & maybe even our medical records, and in my state they have what are called secret warrants which police detectives have used to obtain evidence that they normally would not legally be able to get their hands on. Evidence presented to a judge in secret, the subject/victim/defendant has no right even know of the precedings let alone contest them or any of the evidence presented against him therein, etc.

My understanding is that any time our government is conducting business on behalf of the people it represents, the people have a right to know what they're doing with very few exceptions generally regarding open investigations and national security concerns. As a member of several disenfranchsed groups, I at least understand what Asclepias is saying. Let me know if the Seattle Times news article is inaccessible. I think you have allow ads to display in order to access their site.

One last thing, anyone else that shot and killed someone would have spent Friday, Saturday & Sunday in jail while they figured things out and finally set bail. This officer was allowed to remain free and from what I've read she was able to bail out pretty much immediately.

Obscure law used by prosecutors is ‘sneak-and-peek stuff’
Washington justices OK warrantless review of bank records

The use of a grand jury isn't indicative of a 'cover up'. There's been zero indications of a cover up. For crying out loud, they charged her. If they'd exonerated her, perhaps you could make an argument. In fact, this case has been text book of what you're *supposed* to do when an officer shoots someone, especially when there is a racial component.

The charges have been reasonable and timely. The investigation was given to an outside law enforcement office. And the Dallas PD is keeping the public informed.

And the officer isn't 'anyone else'. If she was, we wouldn't be talking about her. They also wouldn't have given the case to the Texas Rangers. The involvement of the officer and the calling in an independent investigative team added about 48 hours to the case.

There is so far, zero indication of a cover up.