Off duty Police officer mistakenly enters wrong home and kills the occupant

**JAB1985** · 09-19-2018, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

Again, I think we're reading too much into something that is simply a description of the event and not a step by step timeline. CAuse if that's what it's meant to be... it's leaving A LOT out.

That doesn't seem plausible. If the description is the story as it was given by her, than I'd say she's lying. Unless she JUST moved there, why wouldn't she know her address? It's possible, but not reasonable, which to me would make her lying at the very least about that part of the story.

Id agree. theres just too many times that something should have clicked. i pointed out the red mat, in the lit hallway prior to ever trying her key that didnt work as the main issue shes going to have to prove for mistake of fact to be given. getting off at the wrong floor, i think is completely reasonable, but thats about where i think that reasonable part ends. a red mat where you dont have one? a red light or error noise associated to trying your key before entering anyway (we know she tried and it wasnt her lock)? good luck to her, I dont see that as reasonable, and thats based on this account.

the point of that scenario, which i may have described poorly, was that if shes turning on the light and seeing the door at about the same time, and before she looked at the apartment with the lights on, it would fit. I dont know how likely that is, but it would be possible. I think that would be somebody generally unaware of their surroundings, which again is my problem with this incident. I dont think thats a reasonable lack of awareness in comparison to a normal person. thats a high level of incompetence that led to a death, imo.

**darb72** · 09-20-2018, 12:51 AM

Originally Posted by blah3

OK so I think we are getting off target with why I quoted the report.

1) to rebut Darb's claim that "Then the dumb bitch had to go check the door to see where she was. If, IF, she thought she was in her apartment, why did she have to go check the address"
After turning on the lights, she realized she was in the wrong apartment.

AND 2) your comment of "...and only when heading back from getting the apartment number/address (she doesnt know her own address, while still supposedly under the assumption it was her apartment?) did she turn on the lights and look around."
Clearly stated she turned the lights on while on with 911. Sooo, you make the same basic comment as Darb, 'she thinks she's in her own apartment'. Again turning on the lights while on 911 would give tell tale signs she was in the wrong apartment based on the furnishings.

If she had to go to the door to see where she was, why didn't she pay attention to the address in the first place? It's obviously right there on the door.

**Ortizer** · 09-20-2018, 08:07 AM

I know I'm late to this, but...

Originally Posted by JAB1985

i see your point. that makes sense and id agree she wasnt an LEO at that time. it is different in that sense to other cases, and somewhat unique. I also think thats why theyre pointing to it.

I think the point is shes being treated different than a civilian in that same circumstance, solely because she is a cop, even if she wasnt at the time. so special treatment, would still be the connecting factor to the point. that she should have been treated as a civilian in this case because of the above fact, but is being treated as an officer instead and more leniently/easier. that special treatment is whats being pointed to as wrong. This example goes outside of actual line of duty to make that point, which i think shows its not just on the job, that protection remains even when theyre obviously in the wrong, just as much as it does when on the job. the protecting their own is what the article is being critical of, and that bad cops need to be singled out and removed for the better of everybody involved, rather than protected and justified.

There actually was a recording that came out of sheriffs from the county I grew up in on their way back from providing hurricane assistance in the south, who were pulled over, absolutely incredulous that the cops on one of the Carolinas would give fellow brothers a ticket.

Originally Posted by JAB1985

thats not their call to make. Thats for a judge to set bail and determine flight risk.

Its not like shes guilty... shes still innocent until proven otherwise, but its more than enough to know that charges will be coming and safety risk is an issue with any murder suspect. The investigation is whats needed to understand that better, and the cops were in no place to assume that without the investigation.

Don't they immediately end up on a timer to charge once they detain her? Can't just hold people without charges, so that might be part of it, if they were handing off?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

**JAB1985** · 09-20-2018, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by Ortizer

There actually was a recording that came out of sheriffs from the county I grew up in on their way back from providing hurricane assistance in the south, who were pulled over, absolutely incredulous that the cops on one of the Carolinas would give fellow brothers a ticket.

If they broke the law, they broke the law. Why is that incredulous? Ive been in a car where a cop friend was driving and got pulled over, along with 3 other cars. showed his badge, was asked to move to the head of the line, after giving each and every other car a speeding ticket, he let him go. Its my friend and it was just a speeding ticket, but that is treating people with a badge differently than the rest of us.

Don't they immediately end up on a timer to charge once they detain her? Can't just hold people without charges, so that might be part of it, if they were handing off?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

I think it keeps getting overlooked that she admitted to it and it was a homicide. This isnt putting the pieces together to figure out who did it, its simply collaborating her story enough to support her own admission and if that goes inline with criminal charges. being late to this, ill repeat, that they didnt find something new and incriminating to arrest her 3 days later, they used information they had that night, including her own statement of the events.

they do have a timer, which is ironically 3 days for a serious crime. They could have held her, handed it over, and arrested her all in the same timeline that happened, just not let her walk free for those 3 days. thats the entire gripe.

**Ortizer** · 09-20-2018, 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by JAB1985

If they broke the law, they broke the law. Why is that incredulous? Ive been in a car where a cop friend was driving and got pulled over, along with 3 other cars. showed his badge, was asked to move to the head of the line, after giving each and every other car a speeding ticket, he let him go. Its my friend and it was just a speeding ticket, but that is treating people with a badge differently than the rest of us.

I think it keeps getting overlooked that she admitted to it and it was a homicide. This isnt putting the pieces together to figure out who did it, its simply collaborating her story enough to support her own admission and if that goes inline with criminal charges. being late to this, ill repeat, that they didnt find something new and incriminating to arrest her 3 days later, they used information they had that night, including her own statement of the events.

they do have a timer, which is ironically 3 days for a serious crime. They could have held her, handed it over, and arrested her all in the same timeline that happened, just not let her walk free for those 3 days. thats the entire gripe.

The first part was more to point out that there is a double standard. The guys were incredulous in my example it wasn't exercised for them.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

**JAB1985** · 09-21-2018, 07:35 AM

Originally Posted by Ortizer

The first part was more to point out that there is a double standard. The guys were incredulous in my example it wasn't exercised for them.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

I misread what you were saying. I thought you were speaking as yourself about them. Going back to my example, my buddy was pissed the entire time for even being pulled over and saying if the dont let him go how fucked up it was. Same thing. Not only is it proof that it happens, its expected.

**blueridgemtnman** · 09-24-2018, 04:33 PM

Not much new on this story, except that she got fired and a bit of commentary, etc. For example...."weeks after a racially charged shooting". Leave up to the MSM.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/da...cid=spartanntp

**darb72** · 09-24-2018, 11:51 PM

Originally Posted by blueridgemtnman

Not much new on this story, except that she got fired and a bit of commentary, etc. For example...."weeks after a racially charged shooting". Leave up to the MSM.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/da...cid=spartanntp

This is the reason MSM is disdained so much. I believe she should be charged with murder. She royally fucked up and a man, who by all accounts was a good man, lost his life. "Racially charged"? Get the hell out of here with that.

**JAB1985** · 09-25-2018, 07:53 AM

funny thing is, its a fox news article.

**blueridgemtnman** · 09-25-2018, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by JAB1985

funny thing is, its a fox news article.

True, it is, but the AP has their names on it, too. So, it's tough to say who wrote what. Sometimes, the AP throws stuff out there and different news agencies grab it, send it out and as long as they acknowledge the AP, it goes out and they can slap their names on it. Fox may even have to leave it as written, all depends. Not sure exactly how that works (?). But, your point is a good one. Also, it's a very poorly written article, I am surprised anyone would want to attach their names to it, be it Fox or the AP.

**blueridgemtnman** · 09-25-2018, 08:28 AM

Originally Posted by darb72

This is the reason MSM is disdained so much. I believe she should be charged with murder. She royally fucked up and a man, who by all accounts was a good man, lost his life. "Racially charged"? Get the hell out of here with that.

The "racially charged" stuff is what bothers some people. Why can't the media just report the news (we know the answer)? Actually, the OP (?) who started/named this thread wrote it just the way it should be written.

**JAB1985** · 09-25-2018, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by blueridgemtnman

True, it is, but the AP has their names on it, too. So, it's tough to say who wrote what. Sometimes, the AP throws stuff out there and different news agencies grab it, send it out and as long as they acknowledge the AP, it goes out and they can slap their names on it. Fox may even have to leave it as written, all depends. Not sure exactly how that works (?). But, your point is a good one. Also, it's a very poorly written article, I am surprised anyone would want to attach their names to it, be it Fox or the AP.

Its written by a fox news writer (you can find him on their website). MSN is merely publishing it as is. theyre not allowed to alter a story when posting it from another source, or claim it as their own, that would fall under plagiarism and/or copyright laws. they needed his/fox permission to post it legally.

Id agree with the last sentiment. its still wrong. The mom has asked the question if race was a factor and some clearly want to attach it to it, but its not an issue in this case otherwise. Its poorly written because of that. Not trying to defend them, but you could argue that a fraction of the population do believe this was racially motivated, even without support for it. when "reporting", it gets a little gray in how you describe it. this article seems to take that minor view and pass it along as the popular view, thats the issue. adding the qualifier "some" in relation to those that think its racially motivated, would clarify and make it much more inline with reality.