- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Update: MJ Allegedly found w/ Dallas PwC Associate killed by DPD officer
Posted on 9/7/18 at 1:48 pm to LNCHBOX
Posted on 9/7/18 at 1:48 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
Accept for those times when it doesn't go down that way. But those times just don't count because you say so
The one example you've used is a terrible one and you know it. It genuinely cracks me up that you're sticking to it.
1
Posted on 9/7/18 at 1:49 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
Let's see. Was an officer involved?
Why did they stop using the protocol? After all, an officer was involved, right?
Posted on 9/7/18 at 1:49 pm to slackster
quote:
The one example you've used is a terrible one and you know it.
I don't know that though. I think it works just fine. You have no logical argument to not count it other than it makes you look stupid.
quote:
It genuinely cracks me up that you're sticking to it.
It cracks me up you have nothing to actually take it away.
Posted on 9/7/18 at 1:49 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
It sounds like you apparently know everything there is to know about this one. I thought you were an engineer.
We get paid to know everything.
quote:
Didn't realize you were a cop in Dallas. Learn something new everyday.
Didn't and have never said anything close to that
.Posted on 9/7/18 at 1:49 pm to slackster
quote:
Why did they stop using the protocol? After all, an officer was involved, right?
Because they gathered evidence. Any other brain busters?
Posted on 9/7/18 at 1:51 pm to slackster
quote:
a regular civilian would have been arrested with probable cause at the scene. Plain and simple.
Now you are just being stupid. That isn't how it works, that isn't how any of this works. I am done arguing with you since apparently you are the District Attorney of Dallas County or something.
FWIW, it is a huge rarity to arrest a homicide suspect at the scene. Certain legal rights attach automatically at arrest. YOU NEVER want to interview someone post-arrest that you can interview pre-arrest. But you wouldn't understand that from watching TV and pontificating on the internet. What usually happens, for the umpteenth time, is they get them to agree to go to the VCU (Detective Office) and they interview them as long as possible. They only arrest if the suspect attempts to leave, lawyers up (and they have PC) or when they are done interviewing and feel they have enough to sustain the case.
Posted on 9/7/18 at 1:52 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
I don't know that though. I think it works just fine. You have no logical argument to not count it other than it makes you look stupid.
Ronald Gasser was sitting in his own vehicle at a stop light during a road rage incident. Joe McKnight pulled up along side him, got out of his car, and had his hands on the passenger window sill. McKnight was killed, the eyewitnesses were largely unreliable, and Gasser claimed self defense. It took ballistics and an autopsy to prove his self defense claim wrong.
Situation here involves a woman who walked into the wrong apartment and killed the homeowner.
There are only a handful of people in the world that would think they're similar.
Posted on 9/7/18 at 1:53 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
Because they gathered evidence. Any other brain busters?
Well...because they realized this one was going to be too big to sweep under the rug. He was educated with a college degree.
Posted on 9/7/18 at 1:53 pm to slackster
Cling to whatever you need to cling to, you look foolish here with the preferential treatment BS.
Posted on 9/7/18 at 1:54 pm to Displaced
quote:
Apparently she was at the door for some time. Her key was found in the lock. She was making commotion that witnesses overheard. “Open up, open up.”
This is scary
Person banging on your door, you go to see who it is and when you open it, they shoot you to death cause they are drunk/high. No other way to explain as to why she couldn't recognize it was her apartment
Posted on 9/7/18 at 1:55 pm to jbgleason
quote:
FWIW, it is a huge rarity to arrest a homicide suspect at the scene. Certain legal rights attach automatically at arrest. YOU NEVER want to interview someone post-arrest that you can interview pre-arrest. But you wouldn't understand that from watching TV and pontificating on the internet. What usually happens, for the umpteenth time, is they get them to agree to go to the VCU (Detective Office) and they interview them as long as possible. They only arrest if the suspect attempts to leave, lawyers up (and they have PC) or when they are done interviewing and feel they have enough to sustain the case.
And they said they didn't interview her.
You said they didn't formally interview her because it was being treated as an officer-involved shooting protocol where she gets a day or two and gets an attorney.
Now they still haven't interviewed her, yet they've ceased treating it as an officer involved shooting and they're getting a warrant for her.
Ergo, she was given the benefit of the doubt as a fellow officer in the initial handling of the case. Public backlash ensued, and that preferential treatment ended.
This post was edited on 9/7/18 at 1:57 pm
Posted on 9/7/18 at 1:57 pm to Tiger Prawn
quote:
Although it seems like more of a manslaughter or negligent homicide case than murder.
Without knowing more I disagree. Unless she blindlessly drunk, explain to me how she didn't know it wasn't her apt. as soon as the door opened. Further more how did she get in?
Posted on 9/7/18 at 1:59 pm to slackster
How it was or was not handled is a stupid argument, the bottom line is every situation is different and I don't believe I EVER arrested someone on sight like that, although it no doubt happens on occasion when the facts immediately warrant it, but the bottom line is this officer is guilty of manslaughter, she will be charged, she will be convicted, and she will do time.
Posted on 9/7/18 at 2:01 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
Because they gathered evidence. Any other brain busters?
As I said, invoking that protocol is preferential treatment in and of itself. That's not debatable.
Posted on 9/7/18 at 2:01 pm to slackster
quote:
As I said, invoking that protocol is preferential treatment in and of itself. That's not debatable.
Treating a shooting involving an officer as an officer involved shooting is preferential.
Ok.
Posted on 9/7/18 at 2:03 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
Treating a shooting involving an officer as an officer involved shooting is preferential. Ok.
When civilians don't receive that same treatment and the officer was acting as a civilian - yes, unequivocally.
Posted on 9/7/18 at 2:04 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
How it was or was not handled is a stupid argument, the bottom line is every situation is different and I don't believe I EVER arrested someone on sight like that, although it no doubt happens on occasion when the facts immediately warrant it, but the bottom line is this officer is guilty of manslaughter, she will be charged, she will be convicted, and she will do time.
Fair enough, but you wouldn't think suggesting she received the benefit of the doubt at the scene would be so controversial.
Posted on 9/7/18 at 2:06 pm to slackster
quote:
When civilians don't receive that same treatment and the officer was acting as a civilian - yes, unequivocally.
Like I said, cling to whatever you need to. She's behind bars less than 15 hours after the event took place, and will likely be convicted due to proper procedures being followed.
Your melt over this is fricking hilarious.
Posted on 9/7/18 at 2:08 pm to slackster
I imagine it's policy to automatically engage the protocol until it becomes apparent the protocol is not appropriate. The decision was made in what, 16 hours? Probably less when you account for delay in the press.
Whether you want to argue that a policy like that is de facto preferential treatment or not, this seems to have been handled just like it should have been.
Whether you want to argue that a policy like that is de facto preferential treatment or not, this seems to have been handled just like it should have been.
Posted on 9/7/18 at 2:09 pm to GRTiger
quote:
I imagine it's policy to automatically engage the protocol until it becomes apparent the protocol is not appropriate. The decision was made in what, 16 hours? Probably less when you account for delay in the press.
Whether you want to argue that a policy like that is de facto preferential treatment or not, this seems to have been handled just like it should have been.
Good luck getting him to agree with this obvious stuff.
Page 11 of 30
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News