TX - Former Dallas Police Officer Amber Guyger, indicted for Murder of Botham Shem Jean #4

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Please continue discussion here.

Remember, do not introduce race into the discussion unless it becomes known via MSM or LE that it was a factor in this tragedy.

Also, please be respectful towards one another; so no snark, sarcasm, rudeness, personalizing. There is no need to show disrespect to anyone, even if their opinion or view may be different than yours. If you just can't handle another member's point of view, scroll and roll or use the Ignore feature so you won't see their posts.

And ... Please stay on topic.
 
Dallas officer Amber Guyger fired after manslaughter charge for killing Botham Jean | Dallas Police | Dallas News

"Police said in a news release that Police Chief U. Renee Hall fired Guyger after an internal investigation found she had engaged in "adverse conduct" when she was charged with manslaughter."

This is appears to be a step in the direction of a Murder charge as "adverse conduct" conflicts with the elements of the Manslaughter charge.

My gut tells me Murder 1 with Murder 2 being a slam dunk for sure.

The two sworn accounts to two different LEO agencies being alarmingly conflicting provides extremely strong presumption of intent to conceal truth.
 
Last edited:
Hard to say in light of the search warrants issued after her arrest and what was being sought, as well as it being unknown what they obtained.

What is known is that she gave an accounting to DPD then to the Rangers a day or three later and they were inexcusably and inexplicably materially conflicting.

Since the 911 call hasn't been released, there very well may have been more deception from that night than just the accounting of the "incident".

IF they bought her story sufficient to charge manslaughter instead of at least M-2, that would mean they believed she was less culpable for her actions resulting from her state of mind perhaps due to reduced mental capacity.

The adverse conduct does not sound good for maintaing this was Manslaughter.

ALSO, do note the reporter only quoted "adverse conduct" in referencing what Chief Hall said. I imagine somebody will soon post an official filmed press statement.



Isabelle said:
Wonder what that means, “ engaged in adverse conduct when she was charged with manslaughter”? Anyone?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Isabelle said:
Wonder what that means, “ engaged in adverse conduct when she was charged with manslaughter”? Anyone?
Click to expand...

She was fired because she was arrested*. That's what I thought but wanted to find it in print.

The statement says Guyger “engaged in adverse conduct when she was arrested,” but police told The Washington Post that she was fired simply because she had been arrested — not for anything she did during the apprehension.
Click to expand...

Dallas police fire officer who killed Botham Jean in his apartment

*ETA - It was the reason given for firing her. IMHO, she could and should have been fired weeks ago. Someone or a group made up their minds it was time for the DPD to cut their loses. moo
 
Last edited:
DPD has declined firing many officers for merely being arrested and if that is why she was fired, she would have been fired on the day of her arrest.

Chief Hall's stated positions prior conflict the notion that her being arrested was the reason she was fired.

You found it in print although "<unnamed> police told" is not the same as Chief Hall's official statement.

Jax49 said:
She was fired because she was arrested. That's what I thought but wanted to find it in print.

The statement says Guyger “engaged in adverse conduct when she was arrested,” but police told The Washington Post that she was fired simply because she had been arrested — not for anything she did during the apprehension.

Dallas police fire officer who killed Botham Jean in his apartment
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Dallas police officer Amber Guyger fired over Botham Jean shooting

Chief Renee Hall fired Guyger, 30, after a "very short" internal affairs investigation and hearing Monday morning, sources told WFAA.

The news release said the investigation concluded that Guyger "engaged in adverse conduct" when she was arrested for manslaughter for fatally shooting Jean at his South Side Flats apartment on the night of Sept. 6.
Click to expand...
 
I've tried to keep up with the other threads, but I may have missed it … has there been a release of her tox screen/blood test?
 
Unions offer a lot of resources and protection. She cannot be fired for the actual manslaughter charge, because the investigation is not complete regarding the charge. That's just how it works. The chief was actually right about that. IMO, they fired her for what they could. The investigation into the arrest itself (not the charges) does not take long to complete. They fired her for the fact that she was arrested, because that is quickly open and shut. They would be in a whole host of violations, if they fired her for a charge that is still under investigation.

It's complicated and I'm glad they fired her for something.
 
I am thinking lying to EITHER OR BOTH DPD Detective Arredondo and/or then the Ranger who swore her arrest warrant was a cause easily determined in the public record? hearing that would not jeopardize the ongoing investigation.

Jax49 said:
She was fired because she was arrested. That's what I thought but wanted to find it in print.



Dallas police fire officer who killed Botham Jean in his apartment
Click to expand...
blue22 said:
Unions offer a lot of resources and protection. She cannot be fired for the actual manslaughter charge, because the investigation is not complete regarding the charge. That's just how it works. The chief was actually right about that. IMO, they fired her for what they could. The investigation into the arrest itself (not the charges) does not take long to complete. They fired her for the fact that she was arrested, because that is quickly open and shut. They would be in a whole host of violations, if they fired her for a charge that is still under investigation.

It's complicated and I'm glad they fired her for something.
Click to expand...
 
From Wikipedia

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 adminstrative proceedings, not criminal. All 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 and your answers can be used against you criminally ONLY IF you provide provably false answers>



 
Last edited:
Consider the reason the agency is reluctant to have this hearing; I believe it is public record. If they have horrible stuff like videos showing her accounting is materially false to conceal an element of M-1 or M-2, the dope was hers, or she had a rigged key to get in, they aren't going to let any of that out until she has been indicted for a more appropriate charge.

That's my opinion.........

Beware of statements published from unnamed "insiders" or simply stated to be "police officials" etc.

Jax49 said:
I'm curious as to why she was fired now. Did some of the info mentioned in the warrants (locks and video, etc.) come back?
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 181 more.
Total: 1,800 (members: 182, guests: 1,618)

Online statistics

Members online
182
Guests online
1,618
Total visitors
1,800
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,354
Messages
18,107,325
Members
230,992
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top