Murderer Amber Guyger, Door Ajar or Did Her Victim Open It for Her

[Taxing Matters]

In many political cases, DAG's have been known to provide smoke by going as far as sandbagging their presentment and/or have one stooge impaneled to vote no, can even be the DAG's foreman selected by hand from the presiding judge and from outside the jury pool. But one NO is all it takes for the headlines to deceptively read, "Elected Crook found NOT GUILTY by Grand Jury".

So you assert this is what happens in "many" political cases, do you? What actual evidence do you have of that? Do you have links to any credible studies supporting that, or is this more speculation on your part? And I don't mean a link to just one particular case, but rather a study that shows that this occurs in "many" political cases.

As for a news report that says a "no true bill" finding means the suspect was found "not guilty" that would mean the reporter was grossly misinformed on what a "no bill" finding means. It is not a determination of guilt. It is only a determination that insufficient evidence was presented for the jury to find probable cause. Unlike an actual verdict of not guilty, a no true bill does not preclude the state from trying again later when it has more evidence to present.

You have already made up your mind that murder charges are appropriate even though we do not have nearly all the evidence in this case yet to determine that. Thank God you are not one of the investigators. Investigators that make up their minds on incomplete evidence are among the worst investigators because they then look for evidence to fit the outcome they want rather than getting all the available evidence first and then weighing that evidence objectively to determine what likely occurred. The latter is what good investigators do.

Let's wait for all the evidence before determining the degree of guilt.

[KK1968]

https://fox17.com/news/local/grand-j...-break-the-law

http://www.columbiadailyherald.com/n...-of-wrongdoing

A court decision has determined that former acting TBI Director Jason Locke did not commit a violation of any criminal statute during an affair with another state employee, who the jury also cleared of any wrongdoing.

The Davidson County grand jury decided neither Locke or Sejal West, who was deputy commissioner with the Tennessee Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse when the affair may have begun, should be cleared after reviewing an investigation made by the state.

and FWIW, I know very well how the juries, grand or petite, work in these parts and it isn't how they are supposed to. I know the jury foreman that presided over this session and I can't say I think very much of any involved.

https://www.wkrn.com/news/former-act...ing/1359898206

This happens in these parts often.

Interesting about this case is the ex-directors communication officer was forced to resign for following a direct order from the "exonerated" director and his "exonerated and adulterous" whore, and the director giving that order was him comitting the Class E Felony of Official Misconduct.

This was one of many 'good ol boy' home cooked BS jobs the simpletons in the area never question.

There were published articles in print and also broadcast that actually stated he was FOUND NOT GUILTY BY GRAND JURY and a few that knew better took steps to have those removed.

It is possible that I have more information relevant to the AG case than you.

Get TOR, learn where and how to investigate via those constraints and you might be amazed what ends up where and that you find.

You don't have to be a code and script kiddie to stumble across interesting repositories.

That is how some very interesting things thought protected, hidden or deleted have been 'found'.

I also recommend a way back machine addon for your browser which will pull up archived snapshots of deleted web pages and such.

[cdwjava]

I don't think anyone ever doubted she would be terminated. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of policies in an agency's policy manual. It is inconceivable that in this situation the agency would NOT find some form of "adverse conduct" by her to justify termination. Terminating her is about the only way the city and the agency might be able to mitigate some of the financial hit they're going to take, not to mention that her actions (even if they were not criminal and/or lacked any form of intent or malice) were certainly in violation of several policies.

The fact she was terminated for "adverse conduct" does not foreshadow any pending murder charge. It merely indicates she was found to have acted contrary to one or more policies and terminated as a result.

[KK1968]

I imagine a Garrity case or two are being advanced, even in Texas courts as well as other jurisdictions where the police don't have powerful labor unions.

'even if they were not criminal' and I believe santa really does fly in a sleigh to every house on the planet and slides down their chimneys

She murked him and there is ZERO doubt she is guilty of manslaughter which happens to be a criminal act.

I don't think anyone ever doubted she would be terminated. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of policies in an agency's policy manual. It is inconceivable that in this situation the agency would NOT find some form of "adverse conduct" by her to justify termination. Terminating her is about the only way the city and the agency might be able to mitigate some of the financial hit they're going to take, not to mention that her actions (even if they were not criminal and/or lacked any form of intent or malice) were certainly in violation of several policies.

The fact she was terminated for "adverse conduct" does not foreshadow any pending murder charge. It merely indicates she was found to have acted contrary to one or more policies and terminated as a result.

[cdwjava]

I imagine a Garrity case or two are being advanced, even in Texas courts as well as other jurisdictions where the police don't have powerful labor unions.

'even if they were not criminal' and I believe santa really does fly in a sleigh to every house on the planet and slides down their chimneys

She murked him and there is ZERO doubt she is guilty of manslaughter which happens to be a criminal act.

You do understand that officers get terminated for non-criminal policy violations all the time, right? We all KNOW that at least manslaughter charges are pending - as does the agency. The agency does not have to wait for an indictment, a trial, or a conviction before they can act. It doesn't take a brilliant investigator to identify policy violations sufficient to justify a termination, and under the circumstances it is likely that Guyger sidestepped Garrity and declined to answer any questions even to the IA investigator which - by itself - could lead to termination.

The fact that she was let go for "adverse conduct" does not at all imply some new and improved criminal charges! In fact, since this is almost certainly a bifurcated investigation, the agency likely does not have any idea the status of the criminal investigation and any charges that might be recommended (other than any already pending).

I have overseen investigations that resulted in the termination of officers for what might be termed "adverse conduct" in instances where NO criminal charges were pending or even remotely justified. You're reading far too much into a simple statement by the department.

[jk]

You do understand that officers get terminated for non-criminal policy violations all the time, right? We all KNOW that at least manslaughter charges are pending - as does the agency. The agency does not have to wait for an indictment, a trial, or a conviction before they can act. It doesn't take a brilliant investigator to identify policy violations sufficient to justify a termination, and under the circumstances it is likely that Guyger sidestepped Garrity and declined to answer any questions even to the IA investigator which - by itself - could lead to termination.

The fact that she was let go for "adverse conduct" does not at all imply some new and improved criminal charges! In fact, since this is almost certainly a bifurcated investigation, the agency likely does not have any idea the status of the criminal investigation and any charges that might be recommended (other than any already pending).

I have overseen investigations that resulted in the termination of officers for what might be termed "adverse conduct" in instances where NO criminal charges were pending or even remotely justified. You're reading far too much into a simple statement by the department.

where’s our like button? Glad to see a reasonable viewing of the situation.

[KK1968]

In fact, since this is almost certainly a bifurcated investigation, the agency likely does not have any idea the status of the criminal investigation and any charges that might be recommended (other than any already pending).

Bifurcated you say yet, Chief Hall's limited post-firing statement conveyed certainty that the critical part of the investigation had been completed.

Trifurcated would be more correct.

Police officers get unfired very often regardless of being arrested and/or blatant policy violations. Garrity interviews appear quite easy to screw up and especially in jursidictions where the courts view Garrity broadly.

It wouldn't surprise me if one or more of their ethnically segregated unions went on strike over her termination.

[cdwjava]

Bifurcated you say yet, Chief Hall's limited post-firing statement conveyed certainty that the critical part of the investigation had been completed.

Maybe you do not understand what a bifurcated investigation is?

Trifurcated would be more correct.

Is that even a thing? That's certainly not a term utilized in IA and criminal investigation circles I am aware of.

Police officers get unfired very often regardless of being arrested and/or blatant policy violations. Garrity interviews appear quite easy to screw up and especially in jursidictions where the courts view Garrity broadly.

When an agency violates the law, things happen that undo discipline. This also happens in criminal investigations when the police, prosecutor, or court screws up. Suspects do have rights. It might come as a surprise to you, but even suspect cops and ex-cops have rights. However, in the vast majority of those few decisions where the discipline has been overturned, the employee most often negotiates their departure all the same as they know that their future is over. And, in a good number of those cases, the agency DID foul up! And, in some of them, the agency actually pursued an officer for reasons that may have had little to do with discipline and everything to do with political rivalries, personalities, ad nauseum. But, these other unnamed issues are not relevant to the narrow little diatribe you have entered into here.

Oh, and if an agency is biffing Garrity, they are ill-trained in internal investigations and have no business doing one themselves. Garrity is rarely ever where an IA foul-up occurs. (Oh, did I mention that I spent a few years as a Sergeant in IA?)

It wouldn't surprise me if one or more of their ethnically segregated unions went on strike over her termination.

First, such an action would almost certainly be unlawful as those "unions" are not labor organizations and would not have any legal protections. Second, I believe that even in Texas public safety cannot "strike". And, third, why? Labor organizations may posture and gnash their teeth over potential due process concerns - as these might concern all officers, but a strike by minority officers to protest her firing? Why?! What new manner of conspiratorial Hell are you venturing into?

[PayrolGuy]

tri·fur·cate
verb
past tense: trifurcated; past participle: trifurcated
ˈtrīfərˌkāt
divide into three branches or forks.

[flyingron]

Yes, but bifurcated investigation doesn't just mean one split into two parts in this context. It means the investigation into the officers conduct is specifically split between the administrative investigation (job related) and the criminal one. These two are supposed to be conducted independently, and while the can use many of the findings, there is one exception. Often the officer can be compelled to make a statement in the administrative matter (no fifth amendment protection there) and that can't be used in the criminal case.