Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 41
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    3,344

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

    Quote Quoting flyingron
    View Post
    Yes, but bifurcated investigation doesn't just mean one split into two parts in this context.
    Was simply telling cdwjava "Trifurcated" was a thing. Not that it applied here.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,407

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

    Quote Quoting PayrolGuy
    View Post
    Was simply telling cdwjava "Trifurcated" was a thing. Not that it applied here.
    I understand what the word means, it is just not a word that is used in law enforcement investigations so KK's use of the word made no sense here. A parallel criminal and administrative investigation must be "bifurcated" but there is no third arm, so none are "trifurcated".

    Given the statement released, it appears to me that the Guyger opted not to make a statement to investigators thus there was no issue with potential bleed over to the criminal side of things from a coerced statement. Many agencies will hold off on a compelled statement so as to prevent even the appearance that information obtained through coercion (in violation of the 5th Amendment) was utilized in a criminal investigation.
    **********
    Retired Cal Cop Sergeant & Teacher

    Seek justice,
    Love mercy,
    Walk humbly with your God

    -- Courageous, by Casting Crowns ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkM-gDcmJeM

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    19,280

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

    In this case, I think she fabricated her statement. In the criminal mattter, this is largely immaterial (people are expected to lie). However, in the case of a police administrative matter, this is a careeer-ending error (and a reason why bifurcated investigations exist).

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,407

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

    Quote Quoting flyingron
    View Post
    In this case, I think she fabricated her statement. In the criminal mattter, this is largely immaterial (people are expected to lie). However, in the case of a police administrative matter, this is a careeer-ending error (and a reason why bifurcated investigations exist).
    Who fabricated what statement? Guyger's initial statement to police? I don't know that there has been enough time to fully flesh that out, yet. If I had to guess the agency is hanging their hat on some other issue or that she refused to speak to them in defiance of a direct order. The latter is the easy way out for the agency.

    When you are an officer and have a serious criminal matter hanging over you, the lawyers will almost always tell you to refuse to speak to an IA investigator. The assumption is that you will be fired anyway, so why give up potentially damaging information that might find its way into a criminal investigation? Also, the federal courts have been known to allow such coerced statements into court for civil proceedings, if not for criminal ones, so there's even more reason not to provide a coerced statement if you know you're losing your job no matter what.
    **********
    Retired Cal Cop Sergeant & Teacher

    Seek justice,
    Love mercy,
    Walk humbly with your God

    -- Courageous, by Casting Crowns ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkM-gDcmJeM

  5. #25
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    189

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

    I was speaking to three separate criminal investigations.

    Dallas PD who certainly took statements from AG and at least one neighbor that evening, then the Rangers who arrested her based on an affidavit bearing a materially differing version of events than given to DPD, and now the DA's office and her investigators are conducting the current ongoing investigation.

    It certainly appears the Ranger's quick investigation was conducted without them having DPD's case file or even securing copies of public record documents filed by DPD or there should have been more charges when she was finally arrested.

    As far as "fleshing out conflicting statements made to LEO, a crime I will remind you even when a police officer does it as a suspect, compare the sworn affidavits by DPD and the Rangers. Would you really presume to have ANYONE believe either of them are going to say they fabricated AG's accounting of events? So "fleshing that out" is a very simple and easy matter. My guess is both officers recorded every word stated by the killer during those two separate interviews.

    I'm still wondering why the actual 911 call hasn't been released yet although the captured radio transmissions from dispatch had them advising that "a security guard shot a patient" and that could have only come from the killer. I'll have a real hard time believing anyone with DPD's dispatch fabricated that to stall and buy her time before HER NAME went over the air as just having killed a man.

    The Wisconsin case cited is on point with AG's case with regards to conflicting statements.

    Garrity Rights - I.U.P.A.

    In Wisconsin v. Brockdorf, 2004 WL 2852118, Docket No. 04-1519-CR (Dec. 14, 2004)(attached) a Police Officer gave two contradictory statements regarding the treatment of a prisoner by her partner. The Officer was then criminally prosecuted for “obstructing an officer.” The issue for the Court was whether the first statement should be excluded due to Garrity.


    The Appeals Court explained:


    “The pivotal issue in this case is whether Brockdorf’s October 3rd statement was given voluntarily. The State argues that Brockdorf was not threatened with job loss if she exercised her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Rather, the only “threat” was that if she did not answer questions, she could be charged with obstruction. Brockdorf admits that she was never told that she would be fired if she refused to answer questions, but that she believed if she was charged with obstruction and caught lying, then she would be fired. The trial court, relying on Garrity, concluded that Brockdorf’s statement was coerced because it was made under threat of an obstruction charge and fear of job loss. This court concludes that Brockdorf’s statement was not coerced; rather, it was voluntarily made and therefore should not have been excluded.”


    The Court relied heavily on the fact that the Officer was not TOLD she would be fired if she refused to answer:


    “She was not told that she would be fired if she exercised her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. She was told that she would be charged with obstruction if she refused to answer questions in the criminal investigation. This, however, does not rise to the level of coercive conduct so as to negate the voluntariness of her statement.”


    I believe a Texas court would have found in favor of the officer although I agree with this court because she prior gave conflicting accounts which means she was already 'caught lying' and is an oath sworn officer of the courts. Far too many officers of the court are less than candid in our courts these days and it appears to be quite the profitable and/or self-preserving sport.


    A typical Garrity warning (exact wording varies between state or local investigative agencies) may read as follows:

    You are being asked to provide information as part of an internal and/or administrative investigation. This is a voluntary interview and you do not have to answer questions if your answers would tend to implicate you in a crime. No disciplinary action will be taken against you solely for refusing to answer questions. However, the evidentiary value of your silence may be considered in administrative proceedings as part of the facts surrounding your case. Any statement you do choose to provide may be used as evidence in criminal and/or administrative proceedings.

    <this infers that invoking the 5th IS NOT required as you can remain silent and also that refusing to answer, silence, can only be weighted for administrative proceedings, not criminal. All volunteered answers can be used against you for criminal prosecution. >

    Compared to Kalkines warning for those investigated by federal agencies:

    A typical Kalkines warning (exact wording varies between federal investigative agencies) may read as follows:

    You are being questioned as part of an internal and/or administrative investigation. You will be asked a number of specific questions concerning your official duties, and you must answer these questions to the best of your ability. Failure to answer completely and truthfully may result in disciplinary action, including dismissal. Your answers and any information derived from them may be used against you in administrative proceedings. However, neither your answers nor any information derived from them may be used against you in criminal proceedings, except if you knowingly and willfully make false statements.

    <you cannot refuse to answer without possible action taken against you, most likely termination and your answers can be used against you criminally ONLY IF you provide provably false answers>

  6. #26
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    189

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

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XzPxEbKAew

    No other transmissions were captured dispatching to that crime scene.

    https://www.dallasnews.com/news/dall...th-botham-jean

    I'd say several of the bases for denial speaking to some of the requested records are sketchy at best.

    More search warrants issued by the investigative grand jury looking into this since Sept. 10, 2018.

    Partial details available and so far, most all probable cause affidavits filed and plead to obtain the warrants have been sealed by the court.

    My guess is the "grand" jury will be typical of Texas hand picked praetorians that normally are "randomly selected" <joking sarcasm> to serve the agendas of those controlling them and under the supervision of a foreman not selected "randomly", or otherwise from the jury pool.

    ################################################## ################

    Everything after this line was actually posted 10-04-18 at 10 a.m.-ish CST


    "More search warrants issued by the investigative grand jury looking into this since Sept. 10, 2018."



    IF you, the form admin, are going to merge day after "follow-up" information, you should at least enable the edit function for a reasonable amount of time so the distinction can be made for the sake of clarity.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    189

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

    The police scanner recordings where they discuss 'the girlfriend' and speculated about how she got in are quite interesting.

    Can Harley wait to hear the 911 call.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,783

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

    Here’s something for ya


    Like law enforcement, Merritt has previously said there was a noise complaint about Jean's apartment the day he was shot. But Merritt said Wednesday that he learned that was not true.


    Amber Guyger

    Merritt said there hadn't been a noise complaint against Jean in the two months






    that merritt would be attorney lee Merritt, attorney for the family. So, who is making up stories now? It seems whomever started the incorrect reporting of there having been a noise complaint by guyger. Btw: in the original story it was reported the noise compliant was made by a downstairs neighbor and not guyger specifically. Somebody seems to like to take (even obviously invalidated ) stories and twist them to their own benefit to fit their agenda.


  9. #29
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    189

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

    Any way you slice it, you are carrying a torch for no less than an airheaded TWIT who was inexplicably commissioned to carry and brandish a service arm that inexcusably and foolishly took the life of an innocent man in his own apartment although quite a bit looks like this was far more than some reckless accident seated in over-worked and sleep deprived fatigue resulting in a HUGE laspe in judgment.

    There simply is no excusing her actions no matter how much the FOP and others want to cover for the huge stinking mountains of fecal matter she has piled up on the heads of the people hoping they'll all thank her for the spiffy new hats.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    3,344

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

    Any way you slice it, you decided her guilt well before any fact other than there was a shooting and she fired the shot was in.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Search and Seizure: Can the Police Try to Open Your Car Door
    By HP237 in forum Criminal Procedure
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-14-2016, 06:17 PM
  2. Determination of Fault: Car Door Hit While Open
    By m1234 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-07-2013, 01:56 PM
  3. Determination of Fault: My Open Door Was Hit While I Was Parked
    By jmol in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-04-2012, 05:46 AM
  4. Criminal Investigations: Door Kicked in While Open and Naked
    By JRM in forum Police Investigations
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-16-2010, 07:10 PM
  5. Search and Seizure: Can the police open your car door?
    By Duo in forum Criminal Procedure
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-11-2006, 05:20 AM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources