Whether she was acting as a police officer or not, she could and should have backed out of the door and called for backup. IMHO, the fact that she is a police officer makes it WORSE: she had the training and moreover the equipment to deal with the situation rationally, while a frightened civilian would not.
I think that the statement was just poorly worded and “adverse conduct” is meant to refer to the actions that caused her to be arrested for manslaughter.
I also think that firing her is a clear signal that the department administration does not support her.
According to a news release today, the “adverse conduct” was “getting arrested for manslaughter”.
Apparently Dallas PD uses “adverse conduct” for all or most firings of police officers.
The problem with the statement is that it may prejudice or taint the jury pool. The officer should have been suspended pending the outcome of the criminal trial.
I don’t see why. Are other murderers immune from being fired?
I’m not at all sympathetic to Guyger, but it’s weird that getting arrested for manslaughter is “adverse conduct.” If a police officer was arrested for manslaughter, but later cleared because of mistaken identity, they shouldn’t be fired. Getting arrested for a crime isn’t the same as doing the crime.
She should have been fired for shooting instead of backing up. We know she is guilty of that.
@maya54: Although well written & specific to the actual situation & better than my first suggestion in post #478 above, I disagree with your phrasing of the issue in post #479 above because her claimed belief that it was her apartment would be subject to a “reasonableness” standard as would her belief about the presence of another as an intruder/trespasser/burglar.
As worded in your post #479 above, an affirmative finding by the jury would go too far without more precisely addressing the reasonableness of her asserted beliefs.
In my opinion, it must first be determined as to whether the actions of an officer in full uniform in transit from work after her shift ended is still acting in the role of a police officer (regardless of the circumstances).
Of course, how the issues are worded will be an important factor in this matter.
Nevertheless, the issue of reasonableness must then be presented to the jurors if the jury finds that the officer was acting in the role of a police officer at the time of the incident; reasonableness is NOT presumed simply because one was acting in the role of a police officer. A police officer on duty can be found guilty of manslaughter or murder.
This is not easy & we do not know all of the facts, circumstances, defenses or charge(s) yet.
But, what we do know, is that it is imperative for the fact finder to make a determination as to whether or not the defendant was acting in the role of a police officer at the time of the shooting. One reason is that, even if not her apartment & therefore not subject to a castle law defense, police officers have no duty to retreat.
Are you telling me that a police officer is justified in shooting a suspect just by virtue of their being a suspect, @Publisher? There is never a case where the officer should avoid shooting someone?
@CardinalFang: I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
I believe that this was a murder of an innocent man.
Whether or not one has a duty to retreat does not make a shooting justified.
MODERATOR’S NOTE: Since this thread has become a debate, I am closing it.