Jax49
Florida Native
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2005
- Messages
- 10,039
- Reaction score
- 30,015
TX - Former Dallas Police Officer Amber Guyger, indicted for Murder of Botham Shem Jean #4
- Thread starter Cobra Jet
- Start date
- Status
DisturbedConcerned
Former Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2018
- Messages
- 484
- Reaction score
- 1,852
I didn't see that quote from Lee Meritt in wfaa's horrible article riddled with ads and crappy scripts. The video appears to be the same one posted 3 or more times in this thread already, no?
wfaa uploads all their stuff to youtube which is far less intrusive into your browser than their actual site.
Jax49
Florida Native
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2005
- Messages
- 10,039
- Reaction score
- 30,015
Sorry for the repeats. I missed the info about the family being notified Sunday. The comment in question is still there.
"Lee Merrit, the attorney representing Jean's family, said that Hall informed him and Jean's parents on Sunday afternoon that she would be firing Guyger."
BTW, re that website, I don't have any problem accessing it.
DisturbedConcerned
Former Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2018
- Messages
- 484
- Reaction score
- 1,852
Not that I have seen and do not know even if it is back as it should be already. Even if it is, I doubt we'll see it anytime soon.
Last edited:
DisturbedConcerned
Former Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2018
- Messages
- 484
- Reaction score
- 1,852
I don't have any problem accessing it, however, my sophisticated and very complex work horse browser tells me exactly what a site is attempting to access from within my browser and ultimately on my hard drive.
With that, you have my recommendation to clear your cookies, install an app or browser add on to vaporize LSO's and avoid wfaa in the future.
Further, the reporter's authoratively offered interpretation of what "adverse conduct" means in this case is irresponsible and if she didn't have a verbatim statement or copy of the alleged email to report, she should have kept her inept legal opinion about what she thinks it means to herself.
That level of irresponsible journalism has caught my attention on that and several news sites more than a few times.
With that, you have my recommendation to clear your cookies, install an app or browser add on to vaporize LSO's and avoid wfaa in the future.
Further, the reporter's authoratively offered interpretation of what "adverse conduct" means in this case is irresponsible and if she didn't have a verbatim statement or copy of the alleged email to report, she should have kept her inept legal opinion about what she thinks it means to herself.
That level of irresponsible journalism has caught my attention on that and several news sites more than a few times.
Last edited:
Jax49
Florida Native
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2005
- Messages
- 10,039
- Reaction score
- 30,015
DisturbedConcerned
Former Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2018
- Messages
- 484
- Reaction score
- 1,852
That reporter did not offer that she was fired merely for being arrested <because she wasn't as that reason would result in DPD getting the pee sued out of them and losing> like the WP reporter did citing unnamed 'police officials', correct?
Last edited:
mickey2942
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2016
- Messages
- 13,922
- Reaction score
- 132,743
Huh, the law sure changes quickly in Texas...
Dallas Chief Police Says Laws Prevents Her from Firing Amber Guyger
Dallas Chief Police Says Laws Prevents Her from Firing Amber Guyger
Jax49
Florida Native
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2005
- Messages
- 10,039
- Reaction score
- 30,015
That change didn't go unnoticed...several articles published today highlight that point. moo
Yes. They have from the beginning not been forthcoming about what time she clocked out. And WFAA reports the brief administrative hearing was this morning Mon 9/24, while NYT states that Mr Merritt spoke to Chief Hall Sunday night and she had already determined to fire Guyger. JMO the Chief received some developed evidence yesterday?... BAC is a quick test, just saying...
DisturbedConcerned
Former Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2018
- Messages
- 484
- Reaction score
- 1,852
From that article:
But contrary to Chief Hall’s assertions, any statement Guyger would make to the department during an administrative investigation is barred by law from being admitted as evidence against her in the criminal investigation.
That statement is FALSE! The investigating board that would conduct it is DPD Internal AND NOT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
See the video at post #7 and then #14 for an explanation of a Garrity warning issued by state agencies vs a Kalkines warning used by federal investigative bodies.
Garrity is necessary because the investigation does indeed involve a criminal act and under those circumstances THEY CANNOT compel her to give statements or force her to waive her 5th amendment rights. Garrity answers are voluntary.
Chief Hall was wrong each time she mislead the public stating the department COULD FORCE her to answer questions and they cannot in a criminal case. If they tried and she refused, the only recourse DPD would have would be to fire her and I am not sure at this point if that would expose DPD to civil liability from a lawsuit brought by her police union. Maybe.
Horrible journalism and very irresponsible.
But contrary to Chief Hall’s assertions, any statement Guyger would make to the department during an administrative investigation is barred by law from being admitted as evidence against her in the criminal investigation.
That statement is FALSE! The investigating board that would conduct it is DPD Internal AND NOT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
See the video at post #7 and then #14 for an explanation of a Garrity warning issued by state agencies vs a Kalkines warning used by federal investigative bodies.
Garrity is necessary because the investigation does indeed involve a criminal act and under those circumstances THEY CANNOT compel her to give statements or force her to waive her 5th amendment rights. Garrity answers are voluntary.
Chief Hall was wrong each time she mislead the public stating the department COULD FORCE her to answer questions and they cannot in a criminal case. If they tried and she refused, the only recourse DPD would have would be to fire her and I am not sure at this point if that would expose DPD to civil liability from a lawsuit brought by her police union. Maybe.
Horrible journalism and very irresponsible.
Last edited:
DisturbedConcerned
Former Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2018
- Messages
- 484
- Reaction score
- 1,852
Note in her dubious seeming back-peddling she didn't remotely assert she was fired merely for being arrested, because she wasn't. Note she said GARRITY when specifying federal protections.
She spent the weekend learning about Garrity, Kalkines and a few other procedures because she didn't seem to understand the complexities well enough to give a sound statement before.
She is correct about compromising the investigation because if even if AG volunteered an answer that swung the charge up a notch or two or kept as it is, and was used to convict her, the Garrity issue would be raised and litigated, likely in Lemine before the start of the trail and certainly could be an appellate issue.
A recently convicted Texas cop that was fired prior to conviction is currently advancing a Garrity argument through the courts right now. The idea is, it is very easy to screw up.
She spent the weekend learning about Garrity, Kalkines and a few other procedures because she didn't seem to understand the complexities well enough to give a sound statement before.
She is correct about compromising the investigation because if even if AG volunteered an answer that swung the charge up a notch or two or kept as it is, and was used to convict her, the Garrity issue would be raised and litigated, likely in Lemine before the start of the trail and certainly could be an appellate issue.
A recently convicted Texas cop that was fired prior to conviction is currently advancing a Garrity argument through the courts right now. The idea is, it is very easy to screw up.
Last edited:
DisturbedConcerned
Former Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2018
- Messages
- 484
- Reaction score
- 1,852
Police union's unofficial voice on Garrity, they like it no more than they like Community Oversight Boards investigating Officer Involved Shootings.
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.
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.
Last edited:
mickey2942
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2016
- Messages
- 13,922
- Reaction score
- 132,743
We really need a meme, of Hall pushing the Killer under a prison bus! Facetiously, of course...
Jax49
Florida Native
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2005
- Messages
- 10,039
- Reaction score
- 30,015
DisturbedConcerned
Former Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2018
- Messages
- 484
- Reaction score
- 1,852
Police Chief U. Renee Hall dismissed Officer Amber Guyger during a hearing Monday, according to a statement posted on Twitter . Guyger is charged with manslaughter in the Sept. 6 shooting that left 26-year-old Botham Jean dead, and she was fired because of her arrest, according to Dallas police.
A statement from police said an internal investigation concluded that on Sept. 9, Guyger "engaged in adverse conduct when she was arrested for Manslaughter." Dallas police spokesman Sgt. Warren Mitchell later said that when an officer has been arrested for a crime, "adverse conduct" is often cited in the officer's termination.
Mitchell said that adverse conduct is "conduct which adversely affects the (morale) or efficiency of the Department or which has a tendency to adversely affect, lower, destroy public respect and confidence in the Department or officer."
She was not fired because she was arrested and there are many reasons why that is true. Note Sgt. Mitchell is quoted and he DOES NOT say she was fired because she was arrested.
internal investigation concluded that on Sept. 9, Guyger "engaged in adverse conduct when she was arrested for Manslaughter."
Had she been terminated due to being charged and or arrested, the statement would have read like this, "no internal investigation was needed and Guyger was terminated for being charged and arrested for a crime".
I can only guess is DPD or the DAG does not want to attempt explaining why her termination wasn't due to the fact she was charged and arrested, but, actual adverse conduct directly attributable to something incidental to the actual charge DPD must walk the fine line of extending her the presumption of innocence.
Chief Hall said even less on the subject and until she is indicted, I doubt she will. As it is now she cannot be prosecuted and successfully convicted until a Grand Jury has found probable cause to believe she commited a crime, unless she waives that right for it to be bound over. She won't and if she does it would be because they have offered her a cream puff deal that will result in riots in Dallas.
That being said, I am surprised Meritt allegedly allowed himself to be quoted as knowing her termination was predetermined prior to her hearing. That was not smart if he really did make the statement about knowing Sunday night, on the record.
A statement from police said an internal investigation concluded that on Sept. 9, Guyger "engaged in adverse conduct when she was arrested for Manslaughter." Dallas police spokesman Sgt. Warren Mitchell later said that when an officer has been arrested for a crime, "adverse conduct" is often cited in the officer's termination.
Mitchell said that adverse conduct is "conduct which adversely affects the (morale) or efficiency of the Department or which has a tendency to adversely affect, lower, destroy public respect and confidence in the Department or officer."
She was not fired because she was arrested and there are many reasons why that is true. Note Sgt. Mitchell is quoted and he DOES NOT say she was fired because she was arrested.
internal investigation concluded that on Sept. 9, Guyger "engaged in adverse conduct when she was arrested for Manslaughter."
Had she been terminated due to being charged and or arrested, the statement would have read like this, "no internal investigation was needed and Guyger was terminated for being charged and arrested for a crime".
I can only guess is DPD or the DAG does not want to attempt explaining why her termination wasn't due to the fact she was charged and arrested, but, actual adverse conduct directly attributable to something incidental to the actual charge DPD must walk the fine line of extending her the presumption of innocence.
Chief Hall said even less on the subject and until she is indicted, I doubt she will. As it is now she cannot be prosecuted and successfully convicted until a Grand Jury has found probable cause to believe she commited a crime, unless she waives that right for it to be bound over. She won't and if she does it would be because they have offered her a cream puff deal that will result in riots in Dallas.
That being said, I am surprised Meritt allegedly allowed himself to be quoted as knowing her termination was predetermined prior to her hearing. That was not smart if he really did make the statement about knowing Sunday night, on the record.
Last edited:
DisturbedConcerned
Former Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2018
- Messages
- 484
- Reaction score
- 1,852
Dallas Police Dept on Twitter
The actual official statement which is carefully vague as have been DPD's official follow up interview(s?) and no additional published official statements.
The actual official statement which is carefully vague as have been DPD's official follow up interview(s?) and no additional published official statements.
Last edited:
DisturbedConcerned
Former Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2018
- Messages
- 484
- Reaction score
- 1,852
Dallas Police Dept on Twitter
Posted an hour after her termination was announced.
There are followups regarding "implicit bias and social justice".
Posted an hour after her termination was announced.
There are followups regarding "implicit bias and social justice".
Last edited:
- Status
DNASolves
Staff online
-
TriciaManager Websleuths.com
Online statistics
- Members online
- 126
- Guests online
- 4,387
- Total visitors
- 4,513