Amber Guyger

[brehon]

6 hours ago, Kate in Arabia said:

I think the judge went way over the line.  The case isn't even over, what if there's an appeal or other activity where she could be called upon to act in an official capacity? How is she going to claim to be 100% unbiased now? And speaking as a non-Christian, to have a judge proselytizing from the bench... well, I guess some people of that faith may find it inspiring, but I feel the opposite...

 

I’m Christian and I completely agree with you. That judge was way, WAY out of line. Not inspiring at all to me; horrifying is the adjective I was leaning toward. 

[DoraBora]

On the Dallas ABC affiliate this morning...

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/special-reports/botham-jean/jurors-in-amber-guyger-trial-describe-how-they-made-their-decision/287-73474111-5bee-4834-83a2-78e31e0f2cce

[Scarlett]

31 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Obviously I have big problems with the media coverage of the "forgiveness" videos but I'm troubled by criticizing the judge's behavior. Everything that happened in that courtroom after the sentencing is loaded with history. There's 400 years worth of race relations impacting how everyone acted. Christianity was one of the most effective tools that was used to control African Americans from slavery through today. 

IDK but it's hard for me to be horrified by the strange behavior of victims. Slavery and Jim Crow created generational trauma that is still felt today. 

I don't understand.  You think the judge acted appropriately?  I am much less bothered by however the dead's man's family acts in their grief than I am by a judge who is showing such favor to a convicted defendant.  

[Scarlett]

1 minute ago, Arctic Mama said:

I’m not sure it’s really showing favor when the sentence has already been handed down, impact statements have been made, and they’re just awaiting transfer. There is an ethics complaint against the judge now for this, but since she discharged her duties in the case before approaching not speaking with the convicted killer about her faith, it probably won’t fly.  Judges have a lot of latitude for pontificating and moralizing in the court room by precedent.

Ok, I see.  I guess I didn't realize she was completely finished.  

[ChocolateReignRemix]

56 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

(popping back in as this caught my eye)
I’m not sure it’s really showing favor when the sentence has already been handed down, impact statements have been made, and they’re just awaiting transfer. There is an ethics complaint against the judge now for this, but since she discharged her duties in the case before approaching and speaking with the convicted killer about her faith, it probably won’t fly.  Judges have a lot of latitude for pontificating and moralizing in the court room by precedent.

Correct.  Someone above expressed concerns about any potential appeals being tainted by the judge's actions, but any appeals will go through different judges.

[DoraBora]

More footage from the interview with those two jurors... I am moved by their words (their voices).

https://abcnews.go.com/US/jurors-dallas-police-officer-amber-guyger-case-speak/story?id=66054124

[ChocolateReignRemix]

1 hour ago, Thatboyofmine said:

Yes, but I bet it will still influence other judges, as will the younger brother’s hug.

 

I doubt it.  Appeals are limited in scope.  No different than when a judge makes very negative comments at a sentencing.

[Corraleno]

9 minutes ago, Thatboyofmine said:

I fully support the brother hugging her.  He can do what he wants—we don’t get to dictate what is right and wrong for him regarding his feelings, no matter our color or position or anything else and it *sickens* me that anyone is criticizing this kid.   But, I can almost guarantee it will influence the appeals committee.  And that’s sad, because at the end of the day, a stranger entered another stranger’s home, his place of safety and respite, and shot him to death.    And she is going to prison for 10 years, but probably less.  That’s heartbreaking.  

I haven't seen anyone criticize Brandt Jean himself, although some people feel he should have done it in private to avoid this media circus. But there's no way he could possibly have anticipated how his gesture would be exploited and used against his own community, or that it would totally shift the whole narrative to sympathy and compassion for the murderer. And now the jurors are being interviewed about how poor Amber was so remorseful, she'll never be the same, they cried about sending her to prison, they gave her a light sentence because Botham would have forgiven her. 

Black kids get longer sentences for minor possession or shoplifting, black women get sentenced to 5 years for voting or enrolling a child in the wrong school district. But a white cop who murdered an innocent black man in his own home, who made racist statements and joked about shooting first and carrying a gun, gloves, and a shovel to kill anyone who "got up in my ass," who had about 10 different chances to do the right thing but made the wrong choice every. single. time, who watched an innocent man bleed to death without rendering aid because she was too busy texting her boyfriend about losing her job, who lied that she had shouted warnings and that he was coming after her, only gets 10 years. Because the innocent black man she murdered was a really nice guy?

A white cop is finally held accountable for murder, and media are falling all over themselves to paint her as someone who deserves forgiveness and redemption, and holding up Brandt Jean as an example of how black people should face racism and murder with compassion and forgiveness. A small and all-too-rare victory for the black community, which should have been a catalyst for discussions about racism and police accountability, has been turned into a feel-good story for white people. 

[TechWife]

On 10/2/2019 at 10:05 AM, Scarlett said:

Well, true.   I Am still surprised at the murder charge.  Apparently the sentence could be as little as 5 years and as much as 99.....the court system just blows my mind.  

I’m appalled that the sentence isn’t longer. She will still be a fairly young woman when she gets out, if she serves the whole thing. 

Edited October 4, 2019 by TechWife

[DoraBora]

2 hours ago, Thatboyofmine said:

Son of a b.  I didn’t look at the links above about the jurors, and I’m really glad I didn’t.  This is freaking nuts.  Botham would have forgiven her?!?!  Wth?    Well, Botham is cold and in the ground because she’s a heartless p.o.s., so how can anyone possibly say what Botham would’ve done??  We can’t exactly ask him, now can we??  And who are they to think they have the right to put words in a murdered man’s mouth??  They sound like dumbasses. 

It didn't strike me that they thought they had a right to put words in Botham Jean's mouth.

They said that there were lots of tears in that jury room, and that deciding on a sentence was very hard.  The male juror said that he didn't feel he had any right to speak for "Bo".  The female juror said that this case was unlike any other and that "you can't compare this case to any of those other officers killing unarmed black men".  She went on to explain why she believed that was true.

These two thoughtful, articulate individuals sat in a courtroom and heard all the evidence and then finished their work on that jury.  This was a very difficult case, and I don't envy them. 

Those jurors did what they thought was right.  Obviously, you aren't going to agree with their reasoning or the result, but I hope you will consider hearing them out.  I don't think any of them deserve to be called such an ugly name.

[gardenmom5]

16 hours ago, Kate in Arabia said:

I think the judge went way over the line.  The case isn't even over, what if there's an appeal or other activity where she could be called upon to act in an official capacity? How is she going to claim to be 100% unbiased now? And speaking as a non-Christian, to have a judge proselytizing from the bench... well, I guess some people of that faith may find it inspiring, but I feel the opposite...

 

if the defendant had been a non-Christian (which there is nothing to lead anyone to assume that, even if it's just cultural) - it would have been wildly inappropriate. (and if the races had been reversed. would have been way beyond that)  as it was, I found it weird.  but - it's texas.  dfw - there are many churches, and my times that I have visited there (my dd lives there - and I have other family there), have left me feeling "this is bible belt country"  (some do practice the "my version of the bible - not yours".)

this judge won't oversee any appeal in this case, as appeals go through a different court system.

[Corraleno]

15 minutes ago, DoraBora said:

It didn't strike me that they thought they had a right to put words in Botham Jean's mouth.

They said that there were lots of tears in that jury room, and that deciding on a sentence was very hard.  The male juror said that he didn't feel he had any right to speak for "Bo".  The female juror said that this case was unlike any other and that "you can't compare this case to any of those other officers killing unarmed black men".  She went on to explain why she believed that was true.

Both of the jurors explicitly said that they were influenced by what they thought Botham "would have wanted" and that they thought "he would want to forgive her." The female juror said you can't compare this case to other cases because "ever since she killed that man she has never been the same."  Poor Amber, having her life permanently changed just because she shot and killed a man sitting in his own home minding his own business eating ice cream and watching TV. Sure was a stroke of luck, though, that she murdered such a nice guy so the jurors would let her off easy.

 

[DoraBora]

 

16 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Both of the jurors explicitly said that they were influenced by what they thought Botham "would have wanted" and that they thought "he would want to forgive her." The female juror said you can't compare this case to other cases because "ever since she killed that man she has never been the same."  Poor Amber, having her life permanently changed just because she shot and killed a man sitting in his own home minding his own business eating ice cream and watching TV. Sure was a stroke of luck, though, that she murdered such a nice guy so the jurors would let her off easy.

They did say that, and also that they couldn't speak for him, since he isn't here anymore.  They said they had to consider Ms. Guyger's remorse and "the fact that the shooting was a mistake", perhaps because they heard from other South Side Flats residents who had "wrong apartment" experiences, and because on the 911 call recording, Ms. Guyger says over and over (and over), "I thought it was my apartment".  None of this absolves her of responsibility, but the jury evidently believed it made a difference and that Mr. Jean's reputation and the beliefs by which he lived meant he probably wouldn't have wanted revenge.  If they believed this killing was really an incredibly stupid mistake, should they have sentenced her to years and years just to satisfy some members of his family, or more to the point, to satisfy people who feel the way you do?

You have made it abundantly clear that you have no sympathy for Mr. Jean's killer.  Got it.

I still don't think these jurors should be called dumbasses.

[DoraBora]

56 minutes ago, Thatboyofmine said:

Ok, I watched the juror interview.   It was awful and put my stomach in knots just listening to them. 

I'm very sorry you had such a strong reaction.  Thank you for giving them a hearing anyway.

[SKL]

Does anyone have any factual information about how long the average US sentence for manslaughter is?  I would guess that a 10 year sentence would be similar to or even more than such average.

[Sneezyone]

25 minutes ago, SKL said:

Does anyone have any factual information about how long the average US sentence for manslaughter is?  I would guess that a 10 year sentence would be similar to or even more than such average.

According to this, her sentence (10 years) was about 30% shorter than the average for murder/non-negligent homicide (15 years). The author deemed that difference “not much”. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1062271

[Kate in Arabia]

6 hours ago, gardenmom5 said:

if the defendant had been a non-Christian (which there is nothing to lead anyone to assume that, even if it's just cultural) - it would have been wildly inappropriate. (and if the races had been reversed. would have been way beyond that)  as it was, I found it weird.  but - it's texas.  dfw - there are many churches, and my times that I have visited there (my dd lives there - and I have other family there), have left me feeling "this is bible belt country"  (some do practice the "my version of the bible - not yours".)

this judge won't oversee any appeal in this case, as appeals go through a different court system.

 

I know she won't oversee the appeal.  She still could have activities to perform if the case is appealed.. settling the record, if the case is remanded, etc. etc., perhaps any and all unlikely, and I'm not suggesting she would necessarily show any bias, it is just my opinion that judges should not have any bias and maintain the appearance of the lack of any bias to the best of their ability within the courtroom.

I also understand that it's Texas. And I've read the statements from virtually all the officials around her saying that either they support her, or that "maybe they wouldn't have done that" but they would fight against any action against her because of it. I don't know that there should be any action, I was just commenting that it made me uncomfortable and crossed a line...

[Skippy]

I cringe when I see journalists, celebrities, politicians, people in academia, and others grandstanding about "MY whiteness" and "MY white privilege." I think it is just another form of white supremacy -- anything to keep the focus on white people. "Look at ME and how GREAT I am in my [laughable] 'self-loathing' and wokeness."

It does nothing to put the spotlight on those who are suffering and fearful and does nothing to solve any problems like disparity in education and other areas. Anytime it seems like there may be attention or traction on any of these issues, these types of people try to shift the attention.

An article in the Washington Post referenced above stated: 

Quote: The same Bible that urges forgiveness also urges justice. "Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.” (Isaiah 1:17).

None of this is achieved when people are constantly shifting the focus away from the oppressed to themselves.

[Kate in Arabia]

What's the deal with the bailiff stroking/fixing Guyger's hair?

 

[Sneezyone]

47 minutes ago, Skippy said:

I cringe when I see journalists, celebrities, politicians, people in academia, and others grandstanding about "MY whiteness" and "MY white privilege." I think it is just another form of white supremacy -- anything to keep the focus on white people. "Look at ME and how GREAT I am in my [laughable] 'self-loathing' and wokeness."

It does nothing to put the spotlight on those who are suffering and fearful and does nothing to solve any problems like disparity in education and other areas. Anytime it seems like there may be attention or traction on any of these issues, these types of people try to shift the attention.

An article in the Washington Post referenced above stated: 

Quote: The same Bible that urges forgiveness also urges justice. "Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.” (Isaiah 1:17).

None of this is achieved when people are constantly shifting the focus away from the oppressed to themselves.

 

Sometimes I do too but I figure that some people really do need to hear things from someone like themselves. It's easy to dismiss the 'oppressed' as bitter and angry and out-of-touch (with what? Their own lives?). I don't know whether that's actually true; it's just my working assumption. I'd also LIKE to think these people can/would/will be allies in making substantive changes in policies (and political representation) to help alleviate disparities in healthcare, education, application of justice, etc.

Edited October 5, 2019 by Sneezyone

[LucyStoner]

8 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

According to this, her sentence (10 years) was about 30% shorter than the average for murder/non-negligent homicide (15 years). The author deemed that difference “not much”. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1062271

 

The issue here for me is that he’s comparing her full sentence to the median actual time served (13.4 in the link).  There might not be a giant difference between 13.4 and 10 but there’s a pretty big difference between the </=5 she is likely to serve and the 13.4 median.  

I know someone who killed a man when he was 15 or 16.  He served, IIRC, 22 on a 30 year sentence. He plead guilty.  There were more mitigating circumstances for him IMO than in this case and his remorse is very different than hers has been thus far.  He did a lot of work on himself in prison and has dedicated his life to helping others.  I honestly don’t see Amber doing what he did- I rather imagine a part of her will always be more sorry she was convicted and lost her job than she is for the loss of an innocent life.  I don’t think she’s going to come out of prison and dedicate her life to undoing racism or educating people about gun violence or helping released prisoners get back on their feet.  Maybe I will be proven wrong but I’m not holding my breath.  

[DoraBora]

3 hours ago, Seasider too said:

I heard the audio of the courtroom forgiveness, and have been reading reactions in this thread, not having a point of view I could well articulate. I confess that as a Christian, I celebrate forgiveness. But I have struggled with genuinely mixed feelings about what transpired in the courtroom. I appreciate the reactions all of you have shared, you’ve helped build a bigger picture than only my own perspective could have produced. 

This article from my twitter feed put words to my swirling thoughts. Justice and mercy go hand in hand. We should clamor for both. I know that over the next 5 years, whenever the Lord brings this case to mind, I will be praying that Amber Guyger will emerge from prison an educated advocate and voice for justice for her *entire* community. 

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/october-web-only/botham-jean-forgiveness-amber-guyger.html

It's not surprising, though, that the "forgiveness" video got more press than the "justice" video.  We humans love forgiveness and mercy.  We love justice (usually meaning punishment, or at least unpleasant consequences) for others.  But we don't love it for ourselves, which is probably the reason most of us don't want to take Mrs. Jean's words to heart and examine ourselves. 

It's not surprising because it happens all of the time.  People wanting to flout God's laws -- even people who claim no faith -- readily quote Jesus words, "Judge not, and you will not be judged", all the while ignoring his less popular teachings about God's righteous judgement and punishment of sinful deeds.  No one likes that.  No one wants to hear that.

[LucyStoner]

1 hour ago, Skippy said:

I cringe when I see journalists, celebrities, politicians, people in academia, and others grandstanding about "MY whiteness" and "MY white privilege." I think it is just another form of white supremacy -- anything to keep the focus on white people. "Look at ME and how GREAT I am in my [laughable] 'self-loathing' and wokeness."

It does nothing to put the spotlight on those who are suffering and fearful and does nothing to solve any problems like disparity in education and other areas. Anytime it seems like there may be attention or traction on any of these issues, these types of people try to shift the attention.

An article in the Washington Post referenced above stated: 

Quote: The same Bible that urges forgiveness also urges justice. "Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.” (Isaiah 1:17).

None of this is achieved when people are constantly shifting the focus away from the oppressed to themselves.

 

I generally reference that I have white privilege and am not immune from racism myself when other white people feel they are being called racist or eye rolling at the concept of privilege.  Not as an “I’m soooo woke thing” (I really dislike that word) but as a “I’m not bludgeoning you with this, this is something I take responsibility for myself.”  I also will try to push back against the “I can’t be racist if I have a black friend” stuff by pointing out that I have black family members  and I’m still not immune and I still have a lot of privilege. 

I used to have a policy of not talking about race to white people who didn’t get it because I was exhausted.  But then I realized that my exhaustion wasn’t anything compared to a black person’s AND by opting out of that discussion,  I’m leaving the work to others.  Which is kind of ugly.  Who am I to be exhausted by this?  No one.  No matter how close to this issue I have lived, including us leaving town for safety reasons after being targeted by skinhead types, I don’t have to face much of anything that a black person in America has to.  

 

Edited October 5, 2019 by LucyStoner

[Sneezyone]

34 minutes ago, DoraBora said:

It's not surprising, though, that the "forgiveness" video got more press than the "justice" video.  We humans love forgiveness and mercy.  We love justice (usually meaning punishment, or at least unpleasant consequences) for others.  But we don't love it for ourselves, which is probably the reason most of us don't want to take Mrs. Jean's words to heart and examine ourselves. 

It's not surprising because it happens all of the time.  People wanting to flout God's laws -- even people who claim no faith -- readily quote Jesus words, "Judge not, and you will not be judged", all the while ignoring his less popular teachings about God's righteous judgement and punishment of sinful deeds.  No one likes that.  No one wants to hear that.

 

Indeed. It wasn't/isn't surprising at all but it is important to see it for what it is, acknowledge it, and DELIBERATELY shine a light on the lesser-seen parts.

[Kate in Arabia]

3 hours ago, Arctic Mama said:

Searching for weapons or any contraband that’s might have been hidden there.

 

I don't think that's it.  They mention/show it in this Inside Edition video at the 00:15 mark... do they all know her or something? It's just... so strange/wrong...

 

[EmseB]

35 minutes ago, Kate in Arabia said:

 

I don't think that's it.  They mention/show it in this Inside Edition video at the 00:15 mark... do they all know her or something? It's just... so strange/wrong...

 

They might know her since she was a cop, but I'm pretty sure that reporter was wrong about what's happening there wrt her hair.

[Tree Frog]

Wow! Listening to the video from the CT link, Mother Allison is a very eloquent speaker. (I read one of the links that referred to her as Mother Allison, so I'm doing the same. If I need to edit her name, I would be glad to.) I'm not sure I would have as much composure as she had following the sentencing of her son's killer. I wish both members' perspectives were equally shared on mainstream media. Of the two, I believe the message that is more important is Mother Allison's. But it's also the more difficult message to hear.

Will DPD take it to heart?

[Kate in Arabia]

1 hour ago, EmseB said:

They might know her since she was a cop, but I'm pretty sure that reporter was wrong about what's happening there wrt her hair.

 

Yeah, I shouldn't have said "wrong" because I don't really know what's going on.. it doesn't look like comforting, and it doesn't really look like searching either (to me), I thought maybe someone on here had seen/heard something about that, since it's being pulled into the discussion on some websites I've seen.

 

[Corraleno]

13 minutes ago, Kate in Arabia said:

Yeah, I shouldn't have said "wrong" because I don't really know what's going on.. it doesn't look like comforting, and it doesn't really look like searching either (to me), I thought maybe someone on here had seen/heard something about that, since it's being pulled into the discussion on some websites I've seen.

This "explanation" is all over social media, but I have not seen a single statement from anyone who was actually there, or knows what was really going on, saying that the bailiff was "searching for contraband." If you see the full video, the officer walks over to the side of the room and gets two tissues or paper towels or something and hands one to Guyger, who appears to be crying and uses it to dab her eyes or nose.  Then, after handing her the tissue, the officer strokes Guyger's hair just before the lawyers sit down next to her. 

Why would a bailiff be "looking for contraband" while Guyger was sitting in the courtroom instead of before she entered? Why stroke her hair but not check her clothes or her shoes or even make her stand up? Why would they think she'd be hiding drugs or weapons in her hair — and where could she possibly have gotten those while sitting in a courtroom with police right beside her?

 

[EmseB]

45 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

This "explanation" is all over social media, but I have not seen a single statement from anyone who was actually there, or knows what was really going on, saying that the bailiff was "searching for contraband." If you see the full video, the officer walks over to the side of the room and gets two tissues or paper towels or something and hands one to Guyger, who appears to be crying and uses it to dab her eyes or nose.  Then, after handing her the tissue, the officer strokes Guyger's hair just before the lawyers sit down next to her. 

Why would a bailiff be "looking for contraband" while Guyger was sitting in the courtroom instead of before she entered? Why stroke her hair but not check her clothes or her shoes or even make her stand up? Why would they think she'd be hiding drugs or weapons in her hair — and where could she possibly have gotten those while sitting in a courtroom with police right beside her?

 

I thought it was standard procedure before going into jail after court because a defendant can wear street clothes and such to court (too much reality TV about jail) and since it was the same officer processing her in ther other clips it made more sense that she was doing something purposeful rather than the officer just standing there fondling her hair. I haven't read other sites talking about this; I just watch the clip posted above. 

[Corraleno]

27 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I thought it was standard procedure before going into jail after court because a defendant can wear street clothes and such to court (too much reality TV about jail) and since it was the same officer processing her in ther other clips it made more sense that she was doing something purposeful rather than the officer just standing there fondling her hair. I haven't read other sites talking about this; I just watch the clip posted above. 

 

But Guyger wasn't entering jail or being "processed," she was just sitting in the courtroom after the guilty verdict was read. Guyger was crying, the officer went and got a paper towel for her, which she dabbed against her face, and then the officer ran her fingers through part (not even all) of Guyger's hair, which was slightly tangled, before stepping away. It was exactly the sort of gesture someone would do if a friend was crying after getting bad news. The claim that the officer was "searching for contraband" rather than expressing sympathy has no basis in fact, and doesn't even make sense, yet it's been repeated over and over as a way of dismissing comments from those who were upset by it.

[brehon]

1 hour ago, Medicmom2.0 said:

I think the court officer is comforting her in that clip. I’ve testified in plenty of court cases, and that’s just...weird to me.  But as a police officer Guyger would have testified frequently and maybe they did know her. I’m still surprised a change of venue wasn’t granted.

For whatever it’s worth, the jury(12 plus four alternates) contained 12 people of color.  They were unanimous when polled on both guilt and a ten year sentence.  https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/10/04/amber-guyger-conviction-what-we-know-dont-know-about-how-diverse-juries-behave/%3foutputType=amp

Please don’t quote the following,

<snip>

But maybe it also speaks to the increased need for available psychological services, better training and less willingness to just shoot someone.  I’ve walked into many situations as a paramedic that turned dangerous and I needed to retreat. Times in the ambulance where a patient attacked me; I’ve even been stabbed once on duty.  I always found ways other than shooting or beating a person to death in order to keep myself safe. 

 

You and me both, sister. Of course, we don’t carry firearms, either.

I mean, I’m sure my monitor or drug box is heavy enough to brain someone, but, honestly, I have a hard time lifting them let alone swinging them at someone. (Have you hefted the LP15? Holy rotator cuff injury, Batman!) 

[EmseB]

35 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

 

But Guyger wasn't entering jail or being "processed," she was just sitting in the courtroom after the guilty verdict was read. Guyger was crying, the officer went and got a paper towel for her, which she dabbed against her face, and then the officer ran her fingers through part (not even all) of Guyger's hair, which was slightly tangled, before stepping away. It was exactly the sort of gesture someone would do if a friend was crying after getting bad news. The claim that the officer was "searching for contraband" rather than expressing sympathy has no basis in fact, and doesn't even make sense, yet it's been repeated over and over as a way of dismissing comments from those who were upset by it.

Okay, when watching the clip it just seemed off that a court officer would be stroking her hair (not so much supplying tissues). It doesn't even make sense to me that's what she's doing, but I'm not trying to dismiss anyone upset by it. 

Edited October 5, 2019 by EmseB

[Terabith]

https://www.lovebscott.com/joshua-brown-neighbor-botham-jean-testified-former-cop-amber-guyger-shot-killed-dallas?fbclid=IwAR2tW0W0cUAtH9nR2E08iJV_-Bs0vPC3C2JudDCl9_viVzl9ILiRYBcIOYE

[DoraBora]

27 minutes ago, Terabith said:

https://www.lovebscott.com/joshua-brown-neighbor-botham-jean-testified-former-cop-amber-guyger-shot-killed-dallas?fbclid=IwAR2tW0W0cUAtH9nR2E08iJV_-Bs0vPC3C2JudDCl9_viVzl9ILiRYBcIOYE

That is just so sad.

[brehon]

2 hours ago, Medicmom2.0 said:

 

My last job had lifepacks. I hated them. We finally got the Zoll X and it’s so light....

We just switched from Philips MRx to LP. We trialed both the Zoll and LP and, well, LP won  But daayyaammm is it HEAVY! We really wanted to stay with the Philips; unfortunately, their next version is barely in the FDA queue for approval of the defibrillator. That’s kinda an important function of a monitor.

Please no one get me wrong; I am very thankful for the cops with weapons who show up or accompany me.  But so many of these cop shooting cases seem very reactionary to a situation that needed an extra few seconds to de-escalate or, in this case, ascertain true danger. I am not speaking of times when, say, a suspect is shooting at an officer or civilian. But this one just needed a few extra seconds.

  I freely admit to having a lot of mixed feelings on this one. And I have walked into my apartment where someone unexpected was standing(turned out to be a maintenance man), I had a patient stab my leg, I’ve even had a family shoot at my ambulance. I’m not unsympathetic to or unfamiliar with that feeling of urgent danger, but people don’t have to die over it. 

I agree with you re: PD. They’ve saved my bacon more than once and I’m very grateful for that. They’ve also caused me to have to chemically sedate patients who became combative solely because of the officers’ needlessly aggressive (almost always verbally) behaviors. I spend *a lot* of my time de-escalating situations that should never have escalated in the first place. 

[MercyA]

12 hours ago, Terabith said:

https://www.lovebscott.com/joshua-brown-neighbor-botham-jean-testified-former-cop-amber-guyger-shot-killed-dallas?fbclid=IwAR2tW0W0cUAtH9nR2E08iJV_-Bs0vPC3C2JudDCl9_viVzl9ILiRYBcIOYE

There's no way that's a coincidence. #&$%*. 😡

[Scarlett]

1 hour ago, MercyA said:

There's no way that's a coincidence. #&$%*. 😡

That is horrifying.  

[Valley Girl]

7 minutes ago, Dotwithaperiod said:

The realist in me believes it was cops, or paid for by a cop group. We are again in a period of history where wrongdoing can be done right out in the open. This is beyond shameful. There’s no way in hell the Dallas PD should be in charge of this investigation.

That was the first reaction of people I've talked to about it as well. I agree that the DPD should let this investigation be taken over by someone else, for its own sake as much as anyone else's. This is just awful.

[Terabith]

He had expressed great fear of this happening.  

[MercyA]

The cops think they can do whatever the hell they want--because 99% of the time, they can. I suspect this is yet another example. Disgusting.

Poor Joshua. His life gone and over for doing the right thing.

AND now people are going to be more scared than ever to speak out against law enforcement. Because, you know, you just might end up dead. 😞 

Edited October 6, 2019 by MercyA

[Corraleno]

4 hours ago, Dotwithaperiod said:

The realist in me believes it was cops, or paid for by a cop group. We are again in a period of history where wrongdoing can be done right out in the open. This is beyond shameful. There’s no way in hell the Dallas PD should be in charge of this investigation.

Given the way DPD tried to smear Botham Jean to protect their own, I wouldn't be surprised if they manage to "find" drugs on Joshua Brown and claim it was a drug deal gone wrong. 

[MercyA]

37 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Given the way DPD tried to smear Botham Jean to protect their own, I wouldn't be surprised if they manage to "find" drugs on Joshua Brown and claim it was a drug deal gone wrong. 

Seriously. When I told my husband, he said, "But he was in a gang, right?" [sarcasm]

[DoraBora]

2 hours ago, MercyA said:

The cops think they can do whatever the hell they want--because 99% of the time, they can. I suspect this is yet another example. Disgusting.

Poor Joshua. His life gone and over for doing the right thing.

AND now people are going to be more scared than ever to speak out against law enforcement. Because, you know, you just might end up dead. 😞 

The thing is, no matter who or what was actually behind this young man's murder, DPD is already culpable in the eyes of many. 

Even if the FBI comes in to conduct an investigation and finds that Joshua Brown's murder was unrelated to this trial, some people will always believe it was a retaliatory "hit" and that a cover up was involved.  There will be no shortage of condemnation of our police department, regardless of the investigation's outcome, unless or until a police officer (or someone acting on behalf of the police) is held responsible.  The efforts of all people in our community who want to bring about justice, understanding, and change will be further stymied.  That is frustrating.

... and another young man is dead.

Edited October 6, 2019 by DoraBora

[DoraBora]

50 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Given the way DPD tried to smear Botham Jean to protect their own, I wouldn't be surprised if they manage to "find" drugs on Joshua Brown and claim it was a drug deal gone wrong. 

I haven't yet seen anything about the DPD trying to smear Mr. Jean, but I could have missed it.  The Texas Rangers released their findings after searching the crime scene, saying that they found a small quantity of marijuana in his apartment.  This didn't sit well with his family.

There was a question about contaminating the crime scene because one of the DPD officers may have moved Mr. Jean's shoes while the officers who responded to the 911 call rendered aid.

Edited October 6, 2019 by DoraBora

[DoraBora]

nvm  (Double post)

Edited October 6, 2019 by DoraBora

[Corraleno]

41 minutes ago, DoraBora said:

I haven't yet seen anything about the DPD trying to smear Mr. Jean, but I could have missed it.  The Texas Rangers released their findings after searching the crime scene, saying that they found a small quantity of marijuana in his apartment.  This didn't sit well with his family.

Yeah, you missed it. DPD, not the Rangers, obtained a search warrant within hours of the shooting and seized his laptop and a very small amount of marijuana the same night he was killed. The search warrant said that Guyger was "confronted by an unknown male" at the door of the apartment (which was a lie) and the family's lawyer, Lee Merrit, said the wording of the search warrant made it clear they were specifically looking for drugs.

ETA: The information that they found marijuana in his apartment was made public on the day of Jean's funeral. To say that "didn't sit well with Jean's family" is an understatement. 

Edited October 6, 2019 by Corraleno

[DoraBora]

55 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Yeah, you missed it. DPD, not the Rangers, obtained a search warrant within hours of the shooting and seized his laptop and a small amount of marijuana the same night he was killed. The search warrant said that Guyger was "confronted by an unknown male" at the door of the apartment (which was a lie) and the family's lawyer, Lee Merrit, said the wording of the search warrant made it clear they were specifically looking for drugs.

Thank you.  I hadn't seen that report.  I just found a newspaper story about a DPD search warrant that was sworn out before Guyger was interviewed and before the state police took over.  I am very disappointed in the procedure for obtaining a search warrant.  The arrest warrant executed by the Texas Rangers did read differently as to Mr. Jean's position at the time of the shooting.  Since the DPD evidently seized his laptop and phone, it does seem that they were looking for a way to justify the shooting at his expense.  Horrifying!

I hope Chief Hall has already requested federal assistance in investigating Mr. Brown's murder, though I'm not sure it will be of much help at this point.

[DoraBora]

1 hour ago, Corraleno said:

Yeah, you missed it. DPD, not the Rangers, obtained a search warrant within hours of the shooting and seized his laptop and a very small amount of marijuana the same night he was killed. The search warrant said that Guyger was "confronted by an unknown male" at the door of the apartment (which was a lie) and the family's lawyer, Lee Merrit, said the wording of the search warrant made it clear they were specifically looking for drugs.

ETA: The information that they found marijuana in his apartment was made public on the day of Jean's funeral. To say that "didn't sit well with Jean's family" is an understatement. 

I can see why.  

[Corraleno]

A lot of the news stories are incorrectly stating that Brown's murder happened at the apartment building where Botham and Guyger lived, because the reports say he was killed "outside his apartment building." In fact he had recently moved to another apartment 5 miles away, in part because he feared for his life. He was ambushed and shot while getting out of his car in the parking lot at the new building, so it was clearly a targeted hit and not a random drive-by shooting or a drug deal gone wrong. Whoever killed him had to have known his new address and what car he drove, and according to Brown's family he was shot in the mouth and chest. If that's true, then shooting someone in the mouth seems like a pretty clear message. 

Edited October 6, 2019 by Corraleno