Dallas cop fearing for her life shoots scary black man in apartment

[ElNono]

She's also been placed on paid administrative leave.

Well, that's convenient...

[baseline bum]

She's also been placed on paid administrative leave.

Well, that's convenient...

It pays to murder blacks in Texas.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

why did she shoot? Did he attack? Did he have a weapon?

The report I've seen says he just failed to obey her orders.

Even in your own home, I don't know how you don't stand down and assess the situation here with shooting being your absolute last option as self defense.

That was the arrest warrant for manslaughter...they can always charge her with more if more facts come out that she was grossly negligent...


but that should be for the jury to decide... she should be charged and have the opportunity to present her defense. prosecution shouldn't just be sitting on their hands because "oh geez, she might try to raise a defense!"

also it is highly unlikely that her defense attorney would ever put her on the stand to testify to that point. it would just be an inference made in opening/closing arguments. zimmerman never testified either

Based on the current facts, manslaughter seems like a decent charge. They can always change the charge later. But also, talking to people who get the law and police rights, it's going to be a real stretch to even pin her down for manslaughter.
I talked to a guy who thinks new case law will be made out of this.
You have an officer who was uniformed, therefore not allowed to use lethal force for a home entry situation...OTOH you have mistake of fact virtually protecting her from any manslaughter and up charges...
We shall see how this plays out.

[Blake]

....OTOH you have mistake of fact virtually protecting her from any manslaughter and up charges....

No, I don't see how mistake of fact would protect her here from manslaughter.

I'm not even sure what you're referring to in this case as "mistake of fact"

[Spurs Homer]

That was the arrest warrant for manslaughter...they can always charge her with more if more facts come out that she was grossly negligent...



Based on the current facts, manslaughter seems like a decent charge. They can always change the charge later. But also, talking to people who get the law and police rights, it's going to be a real stretch to even pin her down for manslaughter.
I talked to a guy who thinks new case law will be made out of this.
You have an officer who was uniformed, therefore not allowed to use lethal force for a home entry situation...OTOH you have mistake of fact virtually protecting her from any manslaughter and up charges...
We shall see how this plays out.

I feel the same way - except - the "protecting her" part.
It might or might not keep her from more serious charges - but it could raise questions and force the jury to put a lot more weight on her credibility. If she is super convincing - maybe it makes a difference IMO.

I am also confused by the part regarding her being uniformed therefore NOT allowed to use lethal force?
I don't get that part of your post.

[boutons_deux]

"an officer who was uniformed, therefore not allowed to use lethal force for a home entry situation"

uniformed officers enter homes and kill people, armed and unarmed, kill dogs, throw stun grenades in occupied baby cribs.

[Spurs Homer]

"an officer who was uniformed, therefore not allowed to use lethal force for a home entry situation"

uniformed officers enter homes and kill people, armed and unarmed, kill dogs, throw stun grenades in occupied baby cribs.




:lol

[baseline bum]

:lol

What's funny about that?

[Spurs Homer]

What's funny about that?


Everything.

[baseline bum]

Everything.

It's funny that cops bust into peoples' homes and shoot them, shoot their dogs, etc?

[spurraider21]

Based on the current facts, manslaughter seems like a decent charge. They can always change the charge later. But also, talking to people who get the law and police rights, it's going to be a real stretch to even pin her down for manslaughter.
I talked to a guy who thinks new case law will be made out of this.
You have an officer who was uniformed, therefore not allowed to use lethal force for a home entry situation...OTOH you have mistake of fact virtually protecting her from any manslaughter and up charges...
We shall see how this plays out.
explain how manslaughter is a decent charge

[LaMarcus Bryant]

explain how manslaughter is a decent charge

BC there's no evidence at this moment to accuse her of anything more and if they did and she won, she'd walk with zero punishment..

[LaMarcus Bryant]

No, I don't see how mistake of fact would protect her here from manslaughter.

I'm not even sure what you're referring to in this case as "mistake of fact"

In regards to manslaughter she'd have to be acting reckless, which can be tough to prove
That's why we need more facts to come out, regarding door locked, or closed, shooting in doorway, or in the domicile, whether or not the red floor mat is judged to have been important, etc.
Gotta wait out the process at this point.

[spurraider21]

BC there's no evidence at this moment to accuse her of anything more and if they did and she won, she'd walk with zero punishment..
no seriously. what facts in this case point to manslaughter.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

No, I don't see how mistake of fact would protect her here from manslaughter.

I'm not even sure what you're referring to in this case as "mistake of fact"

Theres some silly law, paraphrasing here, not a lawyer, but essentially covers cops from making mistakes if they truly truly believe they were right about their facts..IE if the judge/jury 100% believes she THOUGHT it was her apt, and she THOUGHT she was in danger, then she's not at blame..
Check a google on it for exact wording

[LaMarcus Bryant]

:lol wish i was making this up

[LaMarcus Bryant]

no seriously. what facts in this case point to manslaughter.

Texas says manslaughter is “recklessly causes the death of an individual.”
We have a death, and we don't know about the reckless part. Which is why some say she's doubtful to be found guilty of manslaughter.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

So basically they have to PROVE she's being reckless to find her guilty of manslaughter
Or PROVE she was negligent to find her guilty of 1 tier lower, which is criminally negligent homicide.

The fact that all she has to do is convince a jury or judge she THOUGHT what she THOUGHT was TRUE, then you begin to see how it's possible for her to walk.

[Spurs Homer]

Theres some silly law, paraphrasing here, not a lawyer, but essentially covers cops from making mistakes if they truly truly believe they were right about their facts..IE if the judge/jury 100% believes she THOUGHT it was her apt, and she THOUGHT she was in danger, then she's not at blame..
Check a google on it for exact wording


This is why I was trying to point to the Penal Code - Use of Deadly Force - regarding a uniformed cop.
If she competently describes how she specifically performed a "lawful police action" and a jury finds her testimony credible - then this only leaves her "mistake" (wrong apt) as a deciding factor as to whether they should judge her independently of the "mistake."

They could decide that she is full of shit and charge her with whichever crime she is ultimately charged with and just say - mistake or no mistake - she is guilty.

But if she is actually telling the truth and she is credible - they have to make a tough call IMO.

[Blake]

Theres some silly law, paraphrasing here, not a lawyer, but essentially covers cops from making mistakes if they truly truly believe they were right about their facts..IE if the judge/jury 100% believes she THOUGHT it was her apt, and she THOUGHT she was in danger, then she's not at blame..
Check a google on it for exact wording

She wasn't acting as a police officer here from what we know so far.

What we know so far is that she says she mistakenly entered the wrong apartment and shot a defenseless man.

Do you really believe that's not "reckless"?

[Winehole23]

it's a clear case of murder. you'd have to be a badge-licker or a cop not to see that.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

This is why I was trying to point to the Penal Code - Use of Deadly Force - regarding a uniformed cop.
If she competently describes how she specifically performed a "lawful police action" and a jury finds her testimony credible - then this only leaves her "mistake" (wrong apt) as a deciding factor as to whether they should judge her independently of the "mistake."

They could decide that she is full of shit and charge her with whichever crime she is ultimately charged with and just say - mistake or no mistake - she is guilty.

But if she is actually telling the truth and she is credible - they have to make a tough call IMO.


She wasn't acting as a police officer here from what we know so far.

What we know so far is that she says she mistakenly entered the wrong apartment and shot a defenseless man.

Do you really believe that's not "reckless"?

That's why this case is unique and there may be precedent set here. If you're uniformed, you're not fully considered "off duty", you're still considered to act as a cop. And she was fully uniformed.
So we just gotta wait and see.

Personally I think she's guilty AF of murder.

But realistically there's a good chance she walks. Anything further along the homicide-manslaughter-murder tier is the city of Dallas making her a sacrificial lamb bc of the other shit going on with it and it's police dept

[LaMarcus Bryant]

it's a clear case of murder. you'd have to be a badge-licker or a cop not to see that.

That's why laws and lawyers suck balls, bc it's not a clear case of murder at all.

[boutons_deux]

A drunken driver who THINKS he's OK to drive then causes a wreck that kills people is DUI guilty

[Blake]

That's why this case is unique and there may be precedent set here. If you're uniformed, you're not fully considered "off duty", you're still considered to act as a cop. And she was fully uniformed.
So we just gotta wait and see.

Personally I think she's guilty AF of murder.

But realistically there's a good chance she walks. Anything further along the homicide-manslaughter-murder tier is the city of Dallas making her a sacrificial lamb bc of the other shit going on with it and it's police dept

If the info stays the same I don't see any way she walks.

I still have no idea where you are getting "mistake of fact" in this case.

I don't know any protocol or procedure that calls for an officer to shoot an unarmed person for simply falling to obey the officer's orders. Do you?

[LaMarcus Bryant]

If the info stays the same I don't see any way she walks.

I still have no idea where you are getting "mistake of fact" in this case.

I don't know any protocol or procedure that calls for an officer to shoot an unarmed person for simply falling to obey the officer's orders. Do you?

We don't know the real info other than she shot him. The judge affidavit and the texas ranger arrest warrant are in conflict. Again, just gotta wait and see.
Regarding your question, you didn't read anything of what I posted.

[spurraider21]

Texas says manslaughter is “recklessly causes the death of an individual.”
We have a death, and we don't know about the reckless part. Which is why some say she's doubtful to be found guilty of manslaughter.
i see no facts to indicate it was reckless. she fired the gun intentionally. she intended to hit him.

mistake of fact could be a defense to murder. it wouldn't be grounds to knock it down to manslaughter as it fails to create any "recklessness"

[LaMarcus Bryant]

i see no facts to indicate it was reckless. she fired the gun intentionally. she intended to hit him.

mistake of fact could be a defense to murder. it wouldn't be grounds to knock it down to manslaughter as it fails to create any "recklessness"

Right, but they don't have to knock it down to manslaughter, it's already at manslaughter.

[spurraider21]

Right, but they don't have to knock it down to manslaughter, it's already at manslaughter.
which makes no sense.

texas penal code defines manslaughter as the reckless killing of another. same penal code defines murder as intending to cause serious bodily injury to another and commits an act dangerous to human life that leads to the person's death.

only the latter could potentially apply to the facts of the case. whether the mistake of fact is enough to get her off is a different question. there is no scenario at all where manslaughter makes sense whatsoever. unless the cop changes her story to say she meant to fire a warning shot around him but accidentally hit him. or the weapon discharge was accidental. but that's not her story.

[Spurs Homer]

which makes no sense.

texas penal code defines manslaughter as the reckless killing of another. same penal code defines murder as intending to cause serious bodily injury to another and commits an act dangerous to human life that leads to the person's death.

only the latter could potentially apply to the facts of the case. whether the mistake of fact is enough to get her off is a different question. there is no scenario at all where manslaughter makes sense whatsoever. unless the cop changes her story to say she meant to fire a warning shot around him but accidentally hit him. or the weapon discharge was accidental. but that's not her story.

Maybe - the fact that she thought she was in her own apt - is the reckless part?

If that is what they based their decision to charge her with manslaughter instead of murder - this would make some sense - but I have no idea if that is a fact.

Sometimes you have to look at the entire picture instead of of just saying "intending to cause serious bodily injury" and then - boom - just call it murder.
I think one should look at the totality - and not just interpret literally, a statute.

[spurraider21]

Maybe - the fact that she thought she was in her own apt - is the reckless part?

If that is what they based their decision to charge her with manslaughter instead of murder - this would make some sense - but I have no idea if that is a fact.

entering the apartment didn't cause his death. the gunshot did. that was fired intentionally.


Sometimes you have to look at the entire picture instead of of just saying "intending to cause serious bodily injury" and then - boom - just call it murder.
I think one should look at the totality - and not just interpret literally, a statute.
statutes are there for a reason. to be applied as written. the jury is the one who can look at the situation and say she shouldn't be convicted

[Spurs Homer]

entering the apartment didn't cause his death. the gunshot did. that was fired intentionally.


statutes are there for a reason. to be applied as written. the jury is the one who can look at the situation and say she shouldn't be convicted

I get it - but isn't it the prosecutor the one to charge her?
He could have just said - ok- penal code says she intended to cause bodily injury or death - boom murder!

Or he could say "she is alleging that she was convinced she was entering her home, she was tired, it was dark, it happened in a milli-second - It appears to be manslaughter unless the facts show her statement to be false."

[spurraider21]

I get it - but isn't it the prosecutor the one to charge her?
He could have just said - ok- penal code says she intended to cause bodily injury or death - boom murder!

Or he could say "she is alleging that she was convinced she was entering her home, she was tired, it was dark, it happened in a milli-second - It appears to be manslaughter unless the facts show her statement to be false."
so you think the prosecutor should act as a defense attorney and buy the suspect's story wholesale and use that in deciding whether or not to press charges?

[Spurs Homer]

so you think the prosecutor should act as a defense attorney and buy the suspect's story wholesale and use that in deciding whether or not to press charges?

No.
Think about it. The public prosecutor is responsible for charging a person accused of a crime. The preliminary facts are brought to him. A police report, witness statements, videos, recordings, bodies, person accused of committing the crime,etc...

He has to bring this puzzle into a coherent piece with what is available at the time. A lot of facts are gathered later through an investigation.

For now, he has to make the puzzle pieces fit - and make a determination - a preliminary determination that a crime has been committed and which crime and who to charge, etc...

He can say murder immediately even though her testimony has some grey areas. He can say he can PROVE murder with what he has. If there is a clear picture he will do that. Apparently, what he had at the time pointed to what he reasonably thought could be proven in a trial.

If new facts come to light he can upgrade - or down grade his charge.
He is not buying her story wholesale - but he is factoring what she alleges in his decision.

I am just playing devil's advocate here. I am really curious if her - mistake - (wrong apt) is going to actually be allowed as a determining factor or not. If it is - it will get interesting and critics will howl police corruption - but this is how the law works.

[Spurs Homer]

On top of the previous steps...

The prosecutor then takes all this to a preliminary hearing - where a Judge will decide if the facts consitute a crime and if the charges are warranted -

before proceeding.

[spurraider21]

a) regardless of anything you said, there are no facts supporting manslaughter here unless the discharge was accidental or she did not mean to strike him with a bullet
b) this would be going to a grand jury, not a preliminary hearing. the prosecutor can present the grand jury with a bunch of charges, and maybe the grand jury will agree with you and not indict on murder charges, but maybe a lesser crime. but you are suggesting that the prosecutor should default to a lesser charge based on the word of the suspect. that's absurd.

[Winehole23]

Spurs Homer: have you considered that Guyger surrendered in Kaufman County very possibly because, as Councillman Kaufman suggested, Dallas judges wouldn't sign off on manslaughter charges?

[Blake]

Maybe - the fact that she thought she was in her own apt - is the reckless part?

The firing of the gun without a good reason is the reckless part.

[Spurs Homer]

a) regardless of anything you said, there are no facts supporting manslaughter here unless the discharge was accidental or she did not mean to strike him with a bullet
b) this would be going to a grand jury, not a preliminary hearing. the prosecutor can present the grand jury with a bunch of charges, and maybe the grand jury will agree with you and not indict on murder charges, but maybe a lesser crime. but you are suggesting that the prosecutor should default to a lesser charge based on the word of the suspect. that's absurd.

Not what I suggested at all. I said he would weigh all the pieces of the puzzle and present his case. He could also completely discard what she said - but would that be any better than just taking her word?

[Spurs Homer]

Spurs Homer (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=52221): have you considered that Guyger surrendered in Kaufman County very possibly because, as Councillman Kaufman suggested, Dallas judges wouldn't sign off on manslaughter charges?


Anything is possible - I have no clue why or where she surrendered and nothing would surprise me. Had it been you or I or any citizen - we might also go to a place that we felt might be advantageous - or someone advised us on it.

[spurraider21]

The firing of the gun without a good reason is the reckless part.
the firing of the gun was an intentional act, and is an act intended to cause serious bodily injury and is an act dangerous to human life. that's not reckless, according to the texas penal code.

here are some actual examples of manslaughter in texas.


Examples of Manslaughter Cases Upheld on Appeal

In Threet v. State, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 4136 (Tex.App. — Austin, 2003), Defendant was convicted of manslaughter where he and the victim, another college age student, got into an argument at a house-party and went outside to “trade licks.” The victim punched Defendant first in the chest, and the Defendant then punched victim in the face. When the victim fell to the ground, Defendant continued to punch him several times then kick him in the head with a hiking boot. The victim died later that evening. Defendant was indicted for murder, but was convicted of manslaughter, a lesser-included offense.


In Willis v. State, 761 S.W.2d 434 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist]), Defendant was similarly convicted of manslaughter where he struck a man with a pistol-butt on the head on the steps leadning into a pool hall. The victim fell backwards and struck his head on the board. The victim broke his neck and died the next day. Similar to Threet, Defendant was originally charged with murder but the jury found the lesser-included offense of manslaughter to be appropriate.

these are reckless. but not acts that would be typically be considered dangerous to human life

another classic example:


In a well-known Texas case, a defendant was convicted of criminally negligent homicide when he heard a commotion outside his house, shot at what he thought was a dog and killed a person.

there was no intent to hit the person. it was a reckless act to shoot a gun in those circumstances.

[Spurs Homer]

The firing of the gun without a good reason is the reckless part.

Maybe. Although of course you know she will give her reasons on why it was reasonable to shoot under the circumstances. I already posted that. She might convince a jury of it too.

[Winehole23]

Anything is possible - I have no clue why or where she surrendered and nothing would surprise me. Had it been you or I or any citizen - we might also go to a place that we felt might be advantageous - or someone advised us on it.you and I would not have been at liberty to choose. you and I would have been arrested on the spot and subsequently charged with murder.

[Winehole23]

Guyger received special treatment. Were she to get a break on the charges because she wears the blue would only compound that impression.

[Spurs Homer]

the firing of the gun was an intentional act, and is an act intended to cause serious bodily injury and is an act dangerous to human life. that's not reckless, according to the texas penal code.

here are some actual examples of manslaughter in texas.



these are reckless. but not acts that would be typically be considered dangerous to human life

another classic example:



there was no intent to hit the person. it was a reckless act to shoot a gun in those circumstances.


You are leaving out a huge factor: this involves a uniformed cop. I admitted before - that it sucks - but it is a relevant factor. Remember if this was you or me and we are not authorized to be armed or to stop a crime - we are looking at murder.

A cop is going to be prosecuted by the Penal Code Use of Deadly Force standards. I understand your reasoning in those cases - you are correct. But now factor the fact that this involves an officer shooting and the whole thing changes.

[Spurs Homer]

you and I would not have been at liberty to choose. you and I would have been arrested on the spot and subsequently charged with murder.


Yes, I agree.
You or I would not have been allowed to legally carry a firearm - or wear a Dallas PD uniform or badge -
we would not be held to the same standards as the Texas Penal Code Use of Deadly Force standards.

This is the law.

[spurraider21]

You are leaving out a huge factor: this involves a uniformed cop. I admitted before - that it sucks - but it is a relevant factor. Remember if this was you or me and we are not authorized to be armed or to stop a crime - we are looking at murder.

A cop is going to be prosecuted by the Penal Code Use of Deadly Force standards. I understand your reasoning in those cases - you are correct. But now factor the fact that this involves an officer shooting and the whole thing changes.
a) she wasn't acting in the course and scope of her employment as a police officer

b) regardless of all that, in no scenario does manslaughter apply unless she claims the gun was accidentally discharged or she meant to fire a warning shot. we already know she intended to cause serious bodily injury to him, and that firing a gun is an act dangerous to human life. her mistake of fact can be a defense to the crime, sure. if the jury buys her mistake was reasonable. but that in no way points to manslaughter as a charge. it's either murder or nothing.

otherwise the decision flies directly in the face of the texas penal code

[Spurs Homer]

a) she wasn't acting in the course and scope of her employment as a police officer

b) regardless of all that, in no scenario does manslaughter apply unless she claims the gun was accidentally discharged or she meant to fire a warning shot.

a) It has been stated before - any full time cop in any state in the country - in uniform - is considered on duty. There is no such thing as off duty.Period. This has been established in many cases where cops were charged with some kind of failure to act/failure to enforce the law/etc - You cannot be in uniform - stop by the 7-11 - see a crime take place in front of you - and say -"fuck it- I'm off duty - see ya!" Conversely - you cannot cherry-pick and say - "she was off duty - she pulled the trigger - guilty!"

b)I do not know why the prosecutor chose manslaughter - but I surmise he had a reason - which we will learn of soon - or - a grand jury will change it to murder.

[spurraider21]

a) It has been stated before - any full time cop in any state in the country - in uniform - is considered on duty. There is no such thing as off duty.Period. This has been established in many cases where cops were charged with some kind of failure to act/failure to enforce the law/etc - You cannot be in uniform - stop by the 7-11 - see a crime take place in front of you - and say -"fuck it- I'm off duty - see ya!" Conversely - you cannot cherry-pick and say - "she was off duty - she pulled the trigger - guilty!"

b)I do not know why the prosecutor chose manslaughter - but I surmise he had a reason - which we will learn of soon - or - a grand jury will change it to murder.

In the immediate aftermath, Jean's death was handled as an officer-involved shooting, however, within a day, police Chief U. Renee Hall said that it was no longer being investigated as such and that she requested a warrant for Guyger's arrest.

[spurraider21]

"The central legal question is: Was the off-duty police officer acting under color of state law in furtherance of discharging her police duties?" he said. "Or was she reacting as a startled homeowner with [whom] she perceived to be an intruder in her apartment?"

did she identify herself as police prior to shooting?

[Spurs Homer]

"The central legal question is: Was the off-duty police officer acting under color of state law in furtherance of discharging her police duties?" he said. "Or was she reacting as a startled homeowner with [whom] she perceived to be an intruder in her apartment?"

did she identify herself as police prior to shooting?

This will all be considered.

This is why earlier - in another post where I described her possible testimony - I mentioned something to the effect of:

"it was dark, it happened in a millisecond, i was wearing my Dallas PD uniform- with clearly displayed patches and a badge, i saw a figure and gave the command to freeze, he ran in the darkness blah - blah - fear for my life etc"

"under the color of state law" - look at that wording.
They would have to prove that she was basically impersonating a cop just to commit a crime. This applies to some stupid cop that goes after a person while in uniform and threatens them - with bodily injury - and this victim takes the uniform and gun as a bigger threat - and then this adds to any other crimes.

I don't know her or ever heard her talk - but it is not a stretch to think she might engender a jury to take her side.

[spurraider21]

This will all be considered.

This is why earlier - in another post where I described her possible testimony - I mentioned something to the effect of:

"it was dark, it happened in a millisecond, i was wearing my Dallas PD uniform- with clearly displayed patches and a badge, i saw a figure and gave the command to freeze, he ran in the darkness blah - blah - fear for my life etc"

"under the color of state law" - look at that wording.
They would have to prove that she was basically impersonating a cop just to commit a crime. This applies to some stupid cop that goes after a person while in uniform and threatens them - with bodily injury - and this victim takes the uniform and gun as a bigger threat - and then this adds to any other crimes.

I don't know her or ever heard her talk - but it is not a stretch to think she might engender a jury to take her side.
yes that will be a critical legal argument

but even acting under color of state law, she can be charged with murder.

again, none of these facts make manslaughter an appropriate charge. you're thinking about it emotionally... "its not quite murder, so lets give her something a little more lenient... hey manslaughter sounds right." but the texas penal code completely disagrees.

[Spurs Homer]

lol - these experts disagree with each other - interesting;

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/experts-disagree-dallas-officer-credible-57845912

[spurraider21]

lol - these experts disagree with each other - interesting;

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/experts-disagree-dallas-officer-credible-57845912
well we all know the ones who disagree with you simply know less about the law than you

[Spurs Homer]

yes that will be a critical legal argument

but even acting under color of state law, she can be charged with murder.

again, none of these facts make manslaughter an appropriate charge. you're thinking about it emotionally... "its not quite murder, so lets give her something a little more lenient... hey manslaughter sounds right." but the texas penal code completely disagrees.

Again, I am basically giving the prosecutor who decided to use manslaughter the benefit of the doubt. I am thinking he sees something that reasonably makes him feel that manslaughter is applicable.

My opinion - is that the "mistake" is what is throwing everything off kilter. I am starting to think that this premise of -she thought it was her own apt - will be a big deal and whether it will be dismissed as bullshit right away -
or if it will be allowed. I am also (GUESSING) - that this might be what might end up being the "reckless" or "negligent" part in this prosecution.

[Spurs Homer]

well we all know the ones who disagree with you simply know less about the law than you

ha ha

not quite - I only said that to nono because he was fucking with me - I know way less than most!

[spurraider21]

Again, I am basically giving the prosecutor who decided to use manslaughter the benefit of the doubt. I am thinking he sees something that reasonably makes him feel that manslaughter is applicable.

My opinion - is that the "mistake" is what is throwing everything off kilter. I am starting to think that this premise of -she thought it was her own apt - will be a big deal and whether it will be dismissed as bullshit right away -
or if it will be allowed. I am also (GUESSING) - that this might be what might end up being the "reckless" or "negligent" part in this prosecution.
look at this post for good examples of manslaughter. that sort of reckless behavior is not analogous to the situation in this case.

https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=275600&p=9538728&viewfull=1#post9538728


i agree that the "mistake of fact" will be a crucial piece to the defense. and the jury should weigh its credibility, not the prosecutor.

[Spurs Homer]

look at this post for good examples of manslaughter. that sort of reckless behavior is not analogous to the situation in this case.

https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=275600&p=9538728&viewfull=1#post9538728


i agree that the "mistake of fact" will be a crucial piece to the defense. and the jury should weigh its credibility, not the prosecutor.


Yes, i read those and agree with your point. However - I am puzzled as to why the prosecutor seemed to make a "calculated" call and charge her with manslaughter. I am thinking it was with some good reason. I am not prone to believe it was some dark/corrupt decision - but a calculated move that he weighed heavily.

I am guessing again - that it has something with her "mistake" as somehow being linked with recklessness or negligence. This could be erased by the Grand Jury though.

[Blake]

Yes, i read those and agree with your point. However - I am puzzled as to why the prosecutor seemed to make a "calculated" call and charge her with manslaughter. I am thinking it was with some good reason. I am not prone to believe it was some dark/corrupt decision - but a calculated move that he weighed heavily.

I am guessing again - that it has something with her "mistake" as somehow being linked with recklessness or negligence. This could be erased by the Grand Jury though.

Because they can still up it to murder.

[Blake]

the firing of the gun was an intentional act, and is an act intended to cause serious bodily injury and is an act dangerous to human life. that's not reckless, according to the texas penal code.

here are some actual examples of manslaughter in texas.



these are reckless. but not acts that would be typically be considered dangerous to human life

another classic example:



there was no intent to hit the person. it was a reckless act to shoot a gun in those circumstances.

Yeah I'm with you. I was off on a sidebar sort of on him saying there's a possibility she gets off completely.

I don't see how they don't ultimately charge her with murder.

[DMC]

No, again, intent is whether the action was deliberate or not. IOW:

Intent: Did she intend to shoot the person? (this can be self-defense, not self-defense, warning shots, etc, motive does not matter one bit to answer this question). As spurraider said, it doesn't even need to involve shooting, just intention to do bodily harm is enough.

Motive: What was the rationale for the intent?

Premeditation: Was motive pre-planned?

But, then, again, all 3 go into charging and setting up a case. In home invasion, self-defense cases, intent could be relatively irrelevant, for example.

The main reason to establish intent is to determine if the death was voluntary or involuntary, and this doesn't always necessarily matches the accused's claim. They could claim they fired warning shots, and forensics might come back with irrefutable evidence that's not the case. So at trial, the prosecution will prove intent based on that evidence, etc. That then backs up the charges they filed.

How can motive be pre-planned?


In this instance, if the cop is telling the truth, then her motive was self preservation. Her intent when she fired the gun was to stop a perceived attack, even if it meant killing someone else. I think it would be difficult to prove intent to kill even though she did kill the guy, simply because she could have shot him more or not called it in until she knew he was dead. It's likely she had little concern about his condition, until she found out she was in his apartment (if her story is true). So shooting someone center mass (twice) has a high chance of killing them. As a cop she would have known this. So she pushed the "ok to kill him" button, and let the odds play out. Whether he lived or died, she was walking out of that room, if her story is true. If it's not true, all bets are off. It could be premeditated murder.

[DMC]

look at this post for good examples of manslaughter. that sort of reckless behavior is not analogous to the situation in this case.

https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=275600&p=9538728&viewfull=1#post9538728


i agree that the "mistake of fact" will be a crucial piece to the defense. and the jury should weigh its credibility, not the prosecutor.

Why would the jury weigh the prosecutor?

[DMC]

If what I understand to be her story is actually true, she's guilty of breaking and entering and then murder. Her act is the same as someone kicking your door in and shooting you in the head as you come down stairs. They could say they thought they were in their own house as well, regardless how different it might look.

[RandomGuy]

Guyger received special treatment. Were she to get a break on the charges because she wears the blue would only compound that impression.

Yup.

[Blake]

I think it would be difficult to prove intent to kill even though she did kill the guy, simply because she could have shot him more or not called it in until she knew he was dead.

She intended to pull the trigger of a lethal weapon.

Intent.

[Spurs Homer]

If what I understand to be her story is actually true, she's guilty of breaking and entering and then murder. Her act is the same as someone kicking your door in and shooting you in the head as you come down stairs. They could say they thought they were in their own house as well, regardless how different it might look.


Her attorney would make sure to disqualify you from the jury.

[ElNono]

How can motive be pre-planned?

Because motive answers 'why'. 'Why' can be a heat of the moment thing, or something that's been carefully planned.

ie:
1) A person that sees his gf with another guy on the street, face them, and kill him/them. That's heat of the moment, there's no planning.
2) A person that plans a scheme to have somebody sign off their will to them, then kills them. If the scheme can be proved, that's premeditated.


In this instance, if the cop is telling the truth, then her motive was self preservation. Her intent when she fired the gun was to stop a perceived attack, even if it meant killing someone else. I think it would be difficult to prove intent to kill even though she did kill the guy, simply because she could have shot him more or not called it in until she knew he was dead. It's likely she had little concern about his condition, until she found out she was in his apartment (if her story is true). So shooting someone center mass (twice) has a high chance of killing them. As a cop she would have known this. So she pushed the "ok to kill him" button, and let the odds play out. Whether he lived or died, she was walking out of that room, if her story is true. If it's not true, all bets are off. It could be premeditated murder.

This is what spurraider was talking about. What you're arguing is what the jury will have to hear and make a decision on. But prosecutors have to bring charges by the book. The book says if the officer had the intent to shoot at the person (or cause bodily harm) then murder charge applies. And, again, intent for that purpose has to do with whether she shot intentionally or not. Not the motive or circumstances or mental state. We know she did. The fact that she hasn't been charged with murder is what this discussion is about.

When the trial comes, she can explain to the jury how she felt and why she did what she did, and the jury can decide her fate on that charge based on that. But the jury can't do such a thing if murder charges are not brought, which is weird, because reading the code, they should've been.

Basically, her story is irrelevant when it comes to presenting charges against her. Her story matters when she brings it at trial as a defense, and/or if found guilty, when sentencing comes around, the judge might take her story into account when handing out the penalty.

[boutons_deux]

"murder charges are not brought, which is weird, because reading the code, they should've been."

didn't the DA shop for a 2nd judge, because first udge refused sign the manslaughter charge because the judge decided a murder charge was required?

[DMC]

Because motive answers 'why'. 'Why' can be a heat of the moment thing, or something that's been carefully planned.

ie:
1) A person that sees his gf with another guy on the street, face them, and kill him/them. That's heat of the moment, there's no planning.
2) A person that plans a scheme to have somebody sign off their will to them, then kills them. If the scheme can be proved, that's premeditated.


This is what spurraider was talking about. What you're arguing is what the jury will have to hear and make a decision on. But prosecutors have to bring charges by the book. The book says if the officer had the intent to shoot at the person (or cause bodily harm) then murder charge applies. And, again, intent for that purpose has to do with whether she shot intentionally or not. Not the motive or circumstances or mental state. We know she did. The fact that she hasn't been charged with murder is what this discussion is about.

When the trial comes, she can explain to the jury how she felt and why she did what she did, and the jury can decide her fate on that charge based on that. But the jury can't do such a thing if murder charges are not brought, which is weird, because reading the code, they should've been.

Basically, her story is irrelevant when it comes to presenting charges against her. Her story matters when she brings it at trial as a defense, and/or if found guilty, when sentencing comes around, the judge might take her story into account when handing out the penalty.


The motive isn't pre-planned. The act is. The motive exists prior to the act, but it's not part of a plan. For the motive to be pre-planned, someone would need to plan to have a motive at a later time. The motive was pre-existing, I think is what you mean.

[ElNono]

The motive isn't pre-planned. The act is. The motive exists prior to the act, but it's not part of a plan. For the motive to be pre-planned, someone would need to plan to have a motive at a later time. The motive was pre-existing, I think is what you mean.

I could certainly be wrong about this, but suppose somebody wants to cash in a 1M life insurance, and in order to do that, he/she kills their spouse. The motive is 'cash in a 1M life insurance', not the actual act of murder (which is eventually what he/she will be tried for). It becomes premeditated because this individual crafted a plan based on the ultimate motive.

I don't know how to describe it in better words, but I think it illustrates what I was trying to convey.

[DMC]

I could certainly be wrong about this, but suppose somebody wants to cash in a 1M life insurance, and in order to do that, he/she kills their spouse. The motive is 'cash in a 1M life insurance', not the actual act of murder (which is eventually what he/she will be tried for). It becomes premeditated because this individual crafted a plan based on the ultimate motive.

I don't know how to describe it in better words, but I think it illustrates what I was trying to convey.
What you're saying is correct. The act could be premeditated.

[ElNono]

What you're saying is correct. The act could be premeditated.

Thank you. I'm more interested in conveying the idea, and I think we're in agreement on that.

[Fabbs]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6161483/Video-contradicts-story-white-Dallas-cop-killed-black-neighbor.html

Doors in that building can’t be left ajar unless you prop it open. Why would someone breaking into your home go out of his way to use a doorstop? This bitch is lying her ass off.
Yep.

DailyMail.com can also reveal that Guyger had made noise complaints about Jean, 26, to the building management in the days before his death.
She snapped. Came home tired and had enough of his music playing.

[boutons_deux]

Yep.

DailyMail.com can also reveal that Guyger had made noise complaints about Jean, 26, to the building management in the days before his death.
She snapped. Came home tired and had enough of his music playing.

... compatible with others hearing her knocking (on closed door) and demanding entry.

[Spurminator]

Fired. Finally.

1044255145884889094

[koriwhat]

Fired. Finally.

1044255145884889094

should get the needle tbh

[Trainwreck2100]

should get the needle tbh

You're a trumptard sho am i correct in assuming you're being facetious

[spurraider21]

You're a trumptard sho am i correct in assuming you're being facetious
no he just wishes death on every other person he encounters or hears about tbh

[koriwhat]

You're a trumptard sho am i correct in assuming you're being facetious

i didn't vote so wtf are you even talking about you fucking basement dwelling retard? and no, i'm serious about that cunt... hang her, stick a needle in her arm, gas her, electrocute her, or shoot her in the face like she did that poor unsuspecting man.

[koriwhat]

no he just wishes death on every other person he encounters or hears about tbh

jump off a cliff faggot... lol

but seriously, do us a favor please.

[Spurminator]

should get the needle tbh

I disagree.

[Winehole23]

I wonder what DPD means by "adverse conduct"

Guyger did something either at the time of her arrest or post arrest that got her fired. It wasn't the murder.

[baseline bum]

I like this meme allegedly from Amber Guyger's Pinterest account

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/09/17/13/504C8CC300000578-6176223-image-m-9_1537188666245.jpg

[pgardn]

i didn't vote so wtf are you even talking about you fucking basement dwelling retard? and no, i'm serious about that cunt... hang her, stick a needle in her arm, gas her, electrocute her, or shoot her in the face like she did that poor unsuspecting man.

Instability.

How can you have empathy for the poor unsuspecting man with an illogical rage like this?
cmon man...

[koriwhat]

Instability.

How can you have empathy for the poor unsuspecting man with an illogical rage like this?
cmon man...

not as illogical as an off duty police officer mistaken her apartment for another's when she has no red door mat, doesn't live a floor up, and knew exactly what she was doing. there's def more to this story though. i'd say constant neighbor problems or heated emotional/physical relationship between the two. either way, she should be in jail with no bail waiting on her court case. it's ridiculous that she's out and about while that poor man is lying 6ft under as his family mourns his needless death.

[boutons_deux]

This cunt got charged with murder :tu

https://www.wfaa.com/mobile/article/news/special-reports/botham-jean/sources-fired-cop-amber-guyger-indicted-on-a-murder-charge-in-botham-jean-killing/619078538

verdict will not be unanimous

[spurraider21]

This cunt got charged with murder :tu

https://www.wfaa.com/mobile/article/news/special-reports/botham-jean/sources-fired-cop-amber-guyger-indicted-on-a-murder-charge-in-botham-jean-killing/619078538
it was the only outcome that made sense

a manslaughter charge was simply incompatible with the texas penal code.

she'll still have the right to stand trial and offer a defense and all that, though. there are still a lot of questions that need to be answered, but being charged with murder should have been a slam dunk long ago

[LaMarcus Bryant]

it was the only outcome that made sense

a manslaughter charge was simply incompatible with the texas penal code.

she'll still have the right to stand trial and offer a defense and all that, though. there are still a lot of questions that need to be answered, but being charged with murder should have been a slam dunk long ago

I agree personally that this was murder.... But charging with murder, isn't the prosecution now win or bust?
Meaning if she's not convicted of this murder she's off free from any penalty she woulda easily gotten via a manslaughter etc lower conviction right?

This will be interesting

[spurraider21]

I agree personally that this was murder.... But charging with murder, isn't the prosecution now win or bust?
Meaning if she's not convicted of this murder she's off free from any penalty she woulda easily gotten via a manslaughter etc lower conviction right?

This will be interesting
you can be charged with manslaughter and murder. jury might find the defendant not guilty for murder but guilty for manslaughter, etc.

but i dont see how manslaughter is even a legal possibility in this case, per the texas penal code

[spurraider21]

just looked back to find some of my older posts on this issue and found this one, back when prosecutors were only recommending manslaughter


Right, but they don't have to knock it down to manslaughter, it's already at manslaughter.


which makes no sense.

texas penal code defines manslaughter as the reckless killing of another. same penal code defines murder as intending to cause serious bodily injury to another and commits an act dangerous to human life that leads to the person's death.

only the latter could potentially apply to the facts of the case. whether the mistake of fact is enough to get her off is a different question. there is no scenario at all where manslaughter makes sense whatsoever. unless the cop changes her story to say she meant to fire a warning shot around him but accidentally hit him. or the weapon discharge was accidental. but that's not her story.

[spurraider21]

as a refresher


here are the grades in texas per their penal code (https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.19.htm)

Capital Murder - this is the worst of the worst, and only applies in certain scenarios (killing more than one person, killing somebody under age of 10, killing someone during the commission of another felony, notably burglary, arson, kidnapping, aggravated sexual asasult, etc). this is a capital felony meaning you could get a death sentence

Murder (felony in first degree) - basically what you would think of as murder, for those that don't qualify in the category above. either:
a) intentionally causing the death of another
b) intent to commit serious bodily injury and committing an act clearly dangerous to human life (ding ding ding)
c) killing somebody in the commission or attempted commission of a felony aside from those listed in the "capital murder" guidelines

Murder (felony in the second degree) - when you have a murder from the previous section, but with an excuse such as adequate provocation or heat of passion. second degree mainly matters for sentencing purposes. but as you see, still murder. this is basically what Spurs Homer keeps suggesting, without realizing that it is still a murder in texas. in other jurisdictions, this would be pretty close to voluntary manslaughter.

mistake of fact would probably be a defense raised... and that could theoretically convince the jury to return a NG verdict. but it still wouldn't turn this into a manslaughter case
Manslaughter - reckless killing of another (texas does not differentiate between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, but has a separate code section for vehicular manslaughter). there are different definitions of reckless... but consider it a conscious disregard of obvious risk of an unjustifiable risk. in other jurisdictions, this would be pretty close to involuntary manslaughter. like throwing a single punch at somebody's face and you didnt realize he has standing in front of a staircase and he falls and dies.

Criminally Negligent homicide - basically manslaughter... but not rising quite to the level of being "reckless." could be something like not calling an ambulance for a person who clearly needs it.
the appropriate charges should be murder (felony in first degree) and murder (felony in second degree). i really dont see how manslaughter is even an option given the facts we know about the case.

[spurraider21]

from mono's article:


Johnson said the Dallas County District Attorney's Office believed the shooting was a murder case "all along," but said it was the Texas Rangers who made the initial decision to file it as a manslaughter charge.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

Yeah.. Something shady with the whole way the Rangers handled things

[Spurs Homer]

Well good. It all seemed to have worked out.

Some evidence presented itself and now they can charge her with murder. I wonder what it was? Did she lie? Was the "I thought I was in my own apt" a lie?

Something convinced the prosecutor that her reasons did not pass the smell test.

[Chris]

Saddest part about all of this is if the shooter was anything but white, this would be a non-story.

Hopefully she gets life.

[Pavlov]

Saddest part about all of this is if the shooter was anything but white, this would be a non-story.

Hopefully she gets life.It would still be a story. Wouldn't have the potential racial angle this one has.

[Spurtacular]

It would still be a story. Wouldn't have the potential racial angle this one has.

Racial angles are clearly important; even if they have nothing to do with anything. :lol

[Pavlov]

Racial angles are clearly important; even if they have nothing to do with anything. :lolThey probably will here tbh. Probably already has with this useless ranger business.

[Spurtacular]

They probably will here tbh. Probably already has with this useless ranger business.

:cry Probably
:cry Probably if we really really believe

https://media1.tenor.com/images/d801bc25daa0b5871e1a672bcedf4f8f/tenor.gif?itemid=4925611

[Chris]

:cry Probably
:cry Probably if we really really believe

https://media1.tenor.com/images/d801bc25daa0b5871e1a672bcedf4f8f/tenor.gif?itemid=4925611

:lol

[ElNono]

it was the only outcome that made sense

a manslaughter charge was simply incompatible with the texas penal code.

she'll still have the right to stand trial and offer a defense and all that, though. there are still a lot of questions that need to be answered, but being charged with murder should have been a slam dunk long ago

Yup, it only took this long because she's a cop, which is what's shameful about it. Citizens don't get that benefit of the doubt.

[DMC]

Saddest part about all of this is if the shooter was anything but white, this would be a non-story.

Hopefully she gets life.

The saddest part is that an innocent man is dead. The narrative is a side note.

[Spurtacular]

The saddest part is that an innocent man is dead. The narrative is a side note.

[Pavlov]

:cry Probably
:cry Probably if we really really believe

https://media1.tenor.com/images/d801bc25daa0b5871e1a672bcedf4f8f/tenor.gif?itemid=4925611lol derp angry because the races aren't what he wants them to be.

[Spurtacular]

lol derp angry because the races aren't what he wants them to be.

Sociopath making vague claims. Common.

[Pavlov]

Sociopath making vague claims. Common.No, it's quite specific.

[Spurtacular]

No, it's quite specific.

:lol "quite specific"
:lol No.

[Pavlov]

:lol "quite specific"
:lol No.:lol yes

[Spurtacular]

:lol yes

:lol Compulsive sociopath doing nothing to make his case but has to post.

[Pavlov]

:lol Compulsive sociopath doing nothing to make his case but has to post.The case is already made derp.

:lol derp mad

[Spurtacular]

The case is already made derp.

:lol derp mad

:lmao The stomp your foot at pout case.
:lmao Par
:lmao Today's sociopath
:lmao Post another nothing point to feed your compulsion now.

[Pavlov]

:lmao The stomp your foot at pout case.
:lmao Par
:lmao Today's sociopath
:lmao Post another nothing point to feed your compulsion now.lol overreacting

[MultiTroll]

https://www.nreionline.com/sites/nreionline.com/files/styles/article_featured_standard/public/motel-6.jpg?itok=HlpdJnL8

[Spurtacular]

https://www.thecollegefix.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/special-trophy.Meme_Generator-370x278.jpg

[DMC]

Yup, it only took this long because she's a cop, which is what's shameful about it. Citizens don't get that benefit of the doubt.

There's no scenario where a civilian would be in a stranger's appt with a gun on a regular basis. Cops do it all the time as part of their job. Surely the LEO aspect of the scenario had to be sorted out before the case could move forward.

[MultiTroll]

Head pig investigtor finds Amber Guyger committed no crime. :lmao

The lead investigator in the wrong-apartment killing of an innocent man by a former Dallas police officer on trial for murder claimed on Wednesday that the officer did not commit a crime based on the totality of the evidence.

The stunning pronouncement by Texas Ranger David Armstrong, the lead homicide investigator on the high-profile case, came while he was under cross-examination by an attorney for fired police officer Amber Guyger but not while the jury was present in the courtroom.

"After finishing your investigation and looking at the totality of the circumstances, and considering everything, do you believe today that you have probable cause to believe that Amber Guyger committed a crime?" defense attorney Robert Rogers asked Armstrong, who replied, "Based on the totality of the circumstances, based on the complete investigation, no sir."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/wrong-apartment-killing-investigator-says-former-officer-didnt-commit-a-crime/ar-AAHQ2zl?ocid=spartanntp

[resistanze]

She is claiming self-defense, and defense attorneys said Jean was lunging toward Guyger when she shot him. They said he likely crouched down moments before the shooting, causing the bullet to take a downward angle through his body.

Prosecutors say Jean was sitting on his couch when Guyger shot him.

The bullet had a downwards trajectory, and the defense is claiming the victim see charged the gunwoman then suddenly crouched before being shot :lol

Seems like she shot him as he sprung up from his sofa after being startled tbh.

[boutons_deux]

the cop who shot an unarmed, mentally ill attacker in Costo, 4 seconds after the cop was slugged, skates free.

more mental health care from Law Enforcement, always ready to escalate immediately to killing.

[MultiTroll]

Head pig investigtor finds Amber Guyger committed no crime. :lmao

The stunning pronouncement by Texas Ranger David Armstrong, the lead homicide investigator on the high-profile case, came while he was under cross-examination by an attorney for fired police officer Amber Guyger but not while the jury was present in the courtroom.
Texas Ranger David Armstrong is black. :wow

[spurraider21]

The bullet had a downwards trajectory, and the defense is claiming the victim see charged the gunwoman then suddenly crouched before being shot :lol

Seems like she shot him as he sprung up from his sofa after being startled tbh.
you dont even need to say he crouched tbh... if he is lunging/leaning forward that could create what appears to be a downward trajectory through his body. i mean, if you're lunging to the point where your torso is parallel to the floor, then even a horizontal bullet would look like it traveled completely vertically. suggesting he crouched is just odd tbh :lol

[DMC]

https://www.texasranger.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/RANGER-Armstrong-David.jpg

Seems like a rational individual.

[DMC]

Texas Ranger David Armstrong is black. :wow

Grow up already Fabbs. It doesn't matter what color he is.

[MultiTroll]

Grow up already Fabbs. It doesn't matter what color he is.
:lol I see you're real in tune with modern day US policing and prosecuting.

[DMC]

:lol I see you're real in tune with modern day US policing and prosecuting.

Isn't there a booger eating or cat litter thread in the club you should be attending to?

[Spurs Homer]

A bunch of the residents living in that complex had stuck their keys in the wrong door

at one time or another

according to the texas ranger investigator

hmmm

[Spurminator]

A bunch of the residents living in that complex had stuck their keys in the wrong door

at one time or another

according to the texas ranger investigator

hmmm

Doesn't sound like anyone doubts her claim that she went to the wrong apartment by mistake. It's the shooting itself that is being debated, and I doubt the jury is going to find that it amounts to murder but I don't see how it's not at the very least criminally negligent homicide.

[spurraider21]

https://www.texasranger.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/RANGER-Armstrong-David.jpg

Seems like a rational individual.
looks like they have their own sheriff clarke

[spurraider21]

Doesn't sound like anyone doubts her claim that she went to the wrong apartment by mistake. It's the shooting itself that is being debated, and I doubt the jury is going to find that it amounts to murder but I don't see how it's not at the very least criminally negligent homicide.
i cant see how its negligent homicide though. that usually fits a narrow set of circumstances, like leaving a child in a car on a hot day leading to the death of the child. here's an article discussing the fringe applicability https://www.zenlawfirm.com/law-blog/2018/august/criminally-negligent-homicide-texas/

imo her actions fit the penal code definition of murder, just not capital murder. so imo she's either going to be convicted for murder, as she intentionally killed the guy, or at the very least, intended to cause serious bodily injury (by virtue of shooting him) and leading to his death. those are the definitions of murder in texas.

she's going to raise the defense of self-defense to get her off the hook, and the jury will either agree or disagree with that defense. "sudden passion' or "adequate cause" would only have an impact during sentencing.

[Spurminator]

i cant see how its negligent homicide though. that usually fits a narrow set of circumstances, like leaving a child in a car on a hot day leading to the death of the child. here's an article discussing the fringe applicability https://www.zenlawfirm.com/law-blog/2018/august/criminally-negligent-homicide-texas/

imo her actions fit the penal code definition of murder, just not capital murder. so imo she's either going to be convicted for murder, as she intentionally killed the guy, or at the very least, intended to cause serious bodily injury (by virtue of shooting him) and leading to his death. those are the definitions of murder in texas.

she's going to raise the defense of self-defense to get her off the hook, and the jury will either agree or disagree with that defense. "sudden passion' or "adequate cause" would only have an impact during sentencing.

Makes sense. Murder just seems harsh on a case of mistaken identity.

Killing an intruder is justifiable homicide (right?), so it seems like killing someone you MISTAKE for an intruder shouldn't swing the charge all the way the other direction. I could see manslaughter... If you kill someone by driving recklessly, that's manslaughter, so couldn't they argue she killed Botham-Jean in a reckless act of self defense?

[spurraider21]

Makes sense. Murder just seems harsh on a case of mistaken identity.

Killing an intruder is justifiable homicide (right?), so it seems like killing someone you MISTAKE for an intruder shouldn't swing the charge all the way the other direction. I could see manslaughter... If you kill someone by driving recklessly, that's manslaughter, so couldn't they argue she killed Botham-Jean in a reckless act of self defense?
i'm not intimately familiar with the the case law in texas, so i'm just going by the text of the penal code... but the federal common law is that mistaken justification can bump down the crime to a lower degree, but again, that's basically just a sentencing issue. but the jury is bound by the text of the penal code. even if murder "feels" harsh, that's sorta what they have to go with, and they can make findings that there was mistaken justification or adequate provocation or some shit like that, and that can be a mitigating factor in sentencing. or they can buy her story that it was completely self defense and just acquit her altogether.

but if she is found guilty, murder is the only crime that fits per the code, from my understanding of the facts of the case. thats why i was very confused when before charges were pressed, people here like Spurs Homer were saying she should just be charged with manslaughter. didnt make any sense. even if this doesnt "feel" like murder, this wasn't a case where the killing itself was a "reckless" action. she fired a gun at somebody. that's beyond being reckless, she shot with intent to injure/kill. her justification or reason goes toward defenses or mitigating sentencing, but doesnt come into play when deciding what the underlying crime was

[resistanze]

Yeah as spurraider21 said, the facts of the case fit with the Texas state charge of murder (which is 2nd degree). The 'harshness' can be taken care of in the sentencing, as I believe the sentence goes as low as 5 years.

She did too many actions that imo cannot be defended as reasonable:
- Parked on wrong floor (it could happen)
- Went through wrong floor without noticing (sure)
- Went to wrong unit and didn't see red rug on floor (ok sure)
- door was partially open and she chose to barge into unit vs cover/call for backup as protocol (officers testified this)
- may or may have not shouted anything to the victim (neighbors only heard gunshots)
- bullet entered downwards, would support him being on sofa or trying to get up (along with his body being 15 feet from front door)
- she claimed she administrated CPR but no blood or residue on her uniform or latex gloves she had
- was texting her co-worker/lover before and after shooting victim (probably distracted), and she deleted all texts between them (and so did lover)

I believe she's lying about key parts of the story in order to protect herself (e.g. he ignored commands and was coming towards her while simultaneously crouching while having gun trained on him)

[Spurs Homer]

i'm not intimately familiar with the the case law in texas, so i'm just going by the text of the penal code... but the federal common law is that mistaken justification can bump down the crime to a lower degree, but again, that's basically just a sentencing issue. but the jury is bound by the text of the penal code. even if murder "feels" harsh, that's sorta what they have to go with, and they can make findings that there was mistaken justification or adequate provocation or some shit like that, and that can be a mitigating factor in sentencing. or they can buy her story that it was completely self defense and just acquit her altogether.

but if she is found guilty, murder is the only crime that fits per the code, from my understanding of the facts of the case. thats why i was very confused when before charges were pressed, people here like Spurs Homer were saying she should just be charged with manslaughter. didnt make any sense. even if this doesnt "feel" like murder, this wasn't a case where the killing itself was a "reckless" action. she fired a gun at somebody. that's beyond being reckless, she shot with intent to injure/kill. her justification or reason goes toward defenses or mitigating sentencing, but doesnt come into play when deciding what the underlying crime was

i really dont see how they can convict her of murder

murder would apply if the jury just thinks she is 100% lying and she was out to kill this guy for whatever motives they think she has/had

manslaughter fits better because she is basically saying “i fucked up- i thought i was shooting an intruder in my home”

if that is true and/or if the jury buys that then they would naturally conclude that her actions were reckless and she is guilty of causing a death by reckless actions

which is pretty much a form of manslaughter imo

[spurraider21]

i really dont see how they can convict her of murder

murder would apply if the jury just thinks she is 100% lying and she was out to kill this guy for whatever motives they think she has/had

manslaughter fits better because she is basically saying “i fucked up- i thought i was shooting an intruder in my home”
these are your opinions of what murder and manslaughter mean, though. the jury is bound by the text of the penal code. i'm sorry that those two aren't aligned, but that's the reality of the situation


if that is true and/or if the jury buys that then they would naturally conclude that her actions were reckless and she is guilty of causing a death by reckless actions

which is pretty much a form of manslaughter imo
were her actions preceding the homicide reckless? maybe. but that's not the question of "recklessness" that is relevant with respect to murder/manslaughter. that refers to the instant act of the killing. if you shoot somebody with a gun, that is intent to kill. reckless homicide would be something like parents not taking a sick child to the hospital or giving it medication, allowing it to die. or firing a gun into the air, without any intent to hit anybody, as a celebration, and then it happens to strike somebody in a building across the street. or playing russian roulette. supplying somebody with drugs like heroin, knowing they have no idea how to safely (relatively speaking) use it.

shooting a gun directly at somebody is not mere recklessness

[SnakeBoy]

were her actions preceding the homicide reckless? maybe. but that's not the question of "recklessness" that is relevant with respect to murder/manslaughter. that refers to the instant act of the killing. if you shoot somebody with a gun, that is intent to kill. reckless homicide would be something like parents not taking a sick child to the hospital or giving it medication, allowing it to die. or firing a gun into the air, without any intent to hit anybody, as a celebration, and then it happens to strike somebody in a building across the street. or playing russian roulette. supplying somebody with drugs like heroin, knowing they have no idea how to safely (relatively speaking) use it.

shooting a gun directly at somebody is not mere recklessness

When I first saw it was a murder charge I thought the same thing, that it should be manslaughter or something. Until I looked up the law. Seems like we need a different category for cases like this (assuming she's not lying). What's a good legal term for I unintentionally intentionally killed the guy? Murslaughter, Mander?

[spurraider21]

When I first saw it was a murder charge I thought the same thing, that it should be manslaughter or something. Until I looked up the law. Seems like we need a different category for cases like this (assuming she's not lying). What's a good legal term for I unintentionally intentionally killed the guy? Murslaughter, Mander?
if she's not lying and the guy was attacking her despite an order and lunged at her with a gun visible to her, then she probably just walks because they say she acted in legitimate self defense.

if they otherwise say that while she wasn't justified to shoot him in self defense, but she reasonably believed she had to based on her mistakes, then it would probably be considered "adequate cause" which would knock it down to a 2nd degree felony, and that would be a big deal when it comes to sentencing. still murder though

people need to distinguish with her intent in the big picture (did she intent to find this guy in his home and murder him) and intent with respect to the homicide (at the moment she acted, was she or was she not trying to kill him). here, with respect to homicide, she fired a gun at him. that's an intentional act to kill. the justification is separated and addressed above

the only way you get to manslaughter (reckless homicide) or negligent homicide is if the actual act of killing was reckless/negligent. see the examples in my previous post for those. there is no situation where this case would be reckless/negligent, unless she made some claim like she thought her gun was empty or the safety was on, and she wasn't actually trying to discharge a shot... or if she tried to fire a warning shot in the ceiling and he got killed via ricochet

[Spurs Homer]

these are your opinions of what murder and manslaughter mean, though. the jury is bound by the text of the penal code. i'm sorry that those two aren't aligned, but that's the reality of the situation


were her actions preceding the homicide reckless? maybe. but that's not the question of "recklessness" that is relevant with respect to murder/manslaughter. that refers to the instant act of the killing. if you shoot somebody with a gun, that is intent to kill. reckless homicide would be something like parents not taking a sick child to the hospital or giving it medication, allowing it to die. or firing a gun into the air, without any intent to hit anybody, as a celebration, and then it happens to strike somebody in a building across the street. or playing russian roulette. supplying somebody with drugs like heroin, knowing they have no idea how to safely (relatively speaking) use it.

shooting a gun directly at somebody is not mere recklessness

That last line

cannot always apply

for example: “i pulled the trigger because i was in fear for my life”

sure - she was confused/scared/whatever but her state of mind was “there is an intruder in MY house and i must shoot or be shot”

i havent been following the case - so i have no idea what her lawyers are saying but there are circumstances where a person can pull a trigger and not be guilty of murder

[spurraider21]

That last line

cannot always apply

for example: “i pulled the trigger because i was in fear for my life”

sure - she was confused/scared/whatever but her state of mind was “there is an intruder in MY house and i must shoot or be shot”

i havent been following the case - so i have no idea what her lawyers are saying but there are circumstances where a person can pull a trigger and not be guilty of murder
thats still intentional homicide. you continue to confuse the intent of the actual act of killing (firing of the gun) with something like premeditation. those aren't the same thing

and intentional homicide can still be completely justified as self defense and the defendant can walk free. look at george zimmerman. the jury believed that he was acting in self defense, despite the fact that he intentionally shot trayvon with an intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury. but zimmerman still committed intentionally homicide. it was just deemed justified. murder is an intentional homicide without legal justification

[Spurs Homer]

thats still intentional homicide. you continue to confuse the intent of the actual act of killing (firing of the gun) with something like premeditation. those aren't the same thing

and intentional homicide can still be completely justified as self defense and the defendant can walk free. look at george zimmerman. the jury believed that he was acting in self defense, despite the fact that he intentionally shot trayvon with an intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury. but zimmerman still committed intentionally homicide. it was just deemed justified. murder is an intentional homicide without legal justification

ok

that seems to make sense

and

still cannot see her being convicted of murder

[Winehole23]

Guyger testified today that she entered knowing someone was in the apartment, so she went in, gun drawn, instead of retreating to safety and calling for back up.

Didn't catch the whole bit on NPR, but she agreed with the prosecutor she had two chances not to do what she decided to do.

[SnakeBoy]

if she's not lying and the guy was attacking her despite an order and lunged at her with a gun visible to her, then she probably just walks because they say she acted in legitimate self defense.

if they otherwise say that while she wasn't justified to shoot him in self defense, but she reasonably believed she had to based on her mistakes, then it would probably be considered "adequate cause" which would knock it down to a 2nd degree felony, and that would be a big deal when it comes to sentencing. still murder though

people need to distinguish with her intent in the big picture (did she intent to find this guy in his home and murder him) and intent with respect to the homicide (at the moment she acted, was she or was she not trying to kill him). here, with respect to homicide, she fired a gun at him. that's an intentional act to kill. the justification is separated and addressed above

the only way you get to manslaughter (reckless homicide) or negligent homicide is if the actual act of killing was reckless/negligent. see the examples in my previous post for those. there is no situation where this case would be reckless/negligent, unless she made some claim like she thought her gun was empty or the safety was on, and she wasn't actually trying to discharge a shot... or if she tried to fire a warning shot in the ceiling and he got killed via ricochet

:tu

Still would prefer a murslaughter charge though.

[Spurminator]

I accidentally started to get into a car the other day that I mistook for my Uber. I'm glad I didn't get shot.

[spurraider21]

:tu

Still would prefer a murslaughter charge though.
so you want the penal code re-written

[spurraider21]

I accidentally started to get into a car the other day that I mistook for my Uber. I'm glad I didn't get shot.
better comparison is somebody else got into your car thinking it was their uber ride, then saw you and shot you

[Spurminator]

better comparison is somebody else got into your car thinking it was their uber ride, then saw you and shot you

Oh no doubt but it's a true story, not really an attempt at a direct comparison.

[Winehole23]

so you want the penal code re-writtenAnything to protect a cop from legal responsibility for her own actions.

[Spurminator]

Anything to protect a cop from legal responsibility for her own actions.

I actually agree with him and it's nothing to do with her being a cop. If Guyger can't be charged with anything less than murder (and if the nature of that charge makes it likely she could get off with no time at all) then the current penal standards and definitions may be too rigid for a case like this.

[Winehole23]

I actually agree with him and it's nothing to do with her being a cop. If Guyger can't be charged with anything less than murder (and if the nature of that charge makes it likely she could get off with no time at all) then the current penal standards and definitions may be too rigid for a case like this.I disagree, but that’s a fair point.

If it were anyone but a cop we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation.

[somerset]

She is going to jail for 4 years.

[baseline bum]

I actually agree with him and it's nothing to do with her being a cop. If Guyger can't be charged with anything less than murder (and if the nature of that charge makes it likely she could get off with no time at all) then the current penal standards and definitions may be too rigid for a case like this.

Meh if it was Botham Jean breaking into Guyger's apartment and murdering her in "self-defense" he'd be looking at the needle in a capital murder charge.

[resistanze]

I actually agree with him and it's nothing to do with her being a cop. If Guyger can't be charged with anything less than murder (and if the nature of that charge makes it likely she could get off with no time at all) then the current penal standards and definitions may be too rigid for a case like this.

If the sentence for murder is between 5-99 years like I've read, I don't know what makes the charge of murder too rigid.

[Winehole23]

I disagree, but that’s a fair point.

If it were anyone but a cop we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation.That said, US sentencing guidelines and penalties are comparatively excessive across the board. I’d be down with scaling it all down. Give discretion back to judges.

[Winehole23]

Mise en scene:

Amber Guyger dyed her hair blonde. Not sure that'll make a difference, but she does appear somewhat "whiter" for that.

[Winehole23]

She did display suitable remorse in court. That probably will count in her favor too.

[boutons_deux]

An unarmed black immigrant man killed immediately by a white cop in Dallas?

I think the cop has very little to fear.

Judge/jury/prosecutor will probably decide that losing her job and all the time and worry the "poor little thing" spent on this fiasco is more than enough enough punishment.

Whose paying for her defense? Dallas taxpayers?

Will his St Lucia parents sue her civil court?

And as always, if he had been white, would he be alive?

==========

Who is Botham Jean? Dallas man shot by police officer was more than his death

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/special-reports/botham-jean/who-is-botham-jean-dallas-man-shot-by-police-officer/287-85bb2e3e-8bf8-4932-931a-6ef63a483f4f

[Spurminator]

If the sentence for murder is between 5-99 years like I've read, I don't know what makes the charge of murder too rigid.

I think 5 years is too tough for a reflexive self defense killing based on mistaken identity.

But that's just my opinion.

[RD2191]

I think 5 years is too tough for a reflexive self defense killing based on mistaken identity.

But that's just my opinion.

You mean too little. She deserves at the very least 20.

[baseline bum]

You mean too little. She deserves at the very least 20.

I'd go with five to ten. You can get out in twenty easy for first degree murder in Texas.

[resistanze]

I think 5 years is too tough for a reflexive self defense killing based on mistaken identity.

But that's just my opinion.
The question is if you believe her self-defense claim was reasonable. If so, she should be acquitted anyways. If not, then 5 years imo is a very reasonable sentence.

I'm in the camp that thinks she was unreasonable. The context of her multiple erroneous actions up to the shooting and her admittance she was 'scared to death' but still willing to barge into the apartment gun drawn vs calling for backup as per protocol proves this. Why would I believe the victim was charging towards her vs her simply shooting him with a hair trigger based on the forensic evidence?

In fact I think she's lying about key details for self-preservation.

[boutons_deux]

In fact I think she's lying about key details for self-preservation.

well duh.

All cops lie to protect themselves and to protect other cops. The Blue Wall

[Spurminator]

The question is if you believe her self-defense claim was reasonable. If so, she should be acquitted anyways.

And ultimately that's where the laws may be too rigid. Because I think she should still have jail time even if the self defense was "reasonable" reaction. Ultimately her mistake cost the life of someone else. What are the criminal ramifications of turning the wrong way on a one-way street and killing another driver in a head-on collision? I assume you get more than a traffic ticket?

[resistanze]

And ultimately that's where the laws may be too rigid. Because I think she should still have jail time even if the self defense was "reasonable" reaction. Ultimately her mistake cost the life of someone else. What are the criminal ramifications of turning the wrong way on a one-way street and killing another driver in a head-on collision? I assume you get more than a traffic ticket?

I'm pretty sure the jury will be instructed they have latitude to consider the lesser charge of 'criminally negligent homicide' which carries a sentence from 0.5-2 years (or a fine) tbh. I still think it's murder, but realistically, this is probably the prosecution's best bet.

[spurraider21]

I think 5 years is too tough for a reflexive self defense killing based on mistaken identity.

But that's just my opinion.
people capable of reflexive killing need to be held to a certain standard

[Spurminator]

people capable of reflexive killing need to be held to a certain standard

Seems like in a world where we (1) allow people to carry around weapons that kill and (2) allow people to shoot to kill when their property is at risk, that standard potentially involves everyone.

[spurraider21]

Seems like in a world where we (1) allow people to carry around weapons that kill and (2) allow people to shoot to kill when their property is at risk, that standard potentially involves everyone.
lethal force is never permitted merely for the defense of porperty

particularly when one enters an apartment under suspicious circumstances when the door was open

and you know what, if you're going to carry lethal force, then yeah you have some duty to the public to act responsibly

[MultiTroll]

Seems like in a world where we (1) allow people to carry around weapons that kill and (2) allow people to shoot to kill when their property is at risk, that standard potentially involves everyone.

[MultiTroll]

people capable of reflexive killing need to be held to a certain standard
Can you imagine the precedence set if she is allowed to skate?
Sitting in our own farking houses and gunned down by a Whoopsie I thought this was My Place.

[MultiTroll]

Jury:

5 Black
4 Hispanic
2 White
1 Asian

8 of 12 are women.

[Spurminator]

lethal force is never permitted merely for the defense of porperty

Property is probably not the right word to have used.

I assume that in most cases if you walked into your (actual) apartment and an intruder was there, the law (and most juries) would permit you to react as if your safety was threatened?

[boutons_deux]

"lethal force is never permitted merely for the defense of porperty"

Remember the Houston? story of a guy acquitted for shooting two robbers running away at night. IIRC I think it wasn't even his house being robbed.

IIRC, shooting at night at anybody on your property is AOK in gun crazy shithole TX

[Trill Clinton]

closing arguments are live

s_VQQTolHo0

[MultiTroll]

Prosecuter: "What burglar is going to break into your apt, get a bowl of ice cream, plop down on the couch, smoke some weed and watch t.v.?

:lol

"I guess based on that all of you jury members here are a deadly threat."

Nicely done.

[Trill Clinton]

Prosecuter: "What burglar is going to break into your apt, get a bowl of ice cream, plop down on the couch, smoke some weed and watch t.v.?

:lol

"I guess based on that all of you jury members here are a deadly threat."

Nicely done.


he did a good job

[resistanze]

Yikes. The defense is really leaning hard into 'reasonable doubt'

[MultiTroll]

Is this a public defender?
He's boring AF.

[MultiTroll]

Yikes. The defense is really leaning hard into 'reasonable doubt'
Ya that was why the prosecutor said insert "reasonable person" every time the defense liar might attempt to say Amber thought Amber said Amber blah blah.

The ambulance people got their within 60 seconds? FOH.

'Oh well that she didn't do CPR -he would have died anyway.'

[baseline bum]

Yikes. The defense is really leaning hard into 'reasonable doubt'

Overrated album tbh.

[spurraider21]

Property is probably not the right word to have used.

I assume that in most cases if you walked into your (actual) apartment and an intruder was there, the law (and most juries) would permit you to react as if your safety was threatened?
i think typically in the context if somebody being in your home at night, you can argue that your personal safety (or family in the house) is at risk. i was being a bit nitpicky, but if you have no reason of knowing you're in physical danger, you cant use lethal force. ie you invite somebody into your house, and halfway through a conversation he just yanks your TV off the wall and starts running out, and you shot and killed him, you'd be doing time

[resistanze]

Overrated album tbh.

D'Evils is top 5 songs all time, come at me brah.

[resistanze]

I'm pretty sure the jury will be instructed they have latitude to consider the lesser charge of 'criminally negligent homicide' which carries a sentence from 0.5-2 years (or a fine) tbh. I still think it's murder, but realistically, this is probably the prosecution's best bet.

Shocker they did not include this charge, as news panel is discussing. Manslaughter did not seem like the appropriate alternate charge. Won't be totally shocked if she's acquitted tbh

[MultiTroll]

i think typically in the context if somebody being in your home at night, you can argue that your personal safety (or family in the house) is at risk. i was being a bit nitpicky, but if you have no reason of knowing you're in physical danger, you cant use lethal force. ie you invite somebody into your house, and halfway through a conversation he just yanks your TV off the wall and starts running out, and you shot and killed him, you'd be doing time
Is her bullshit story the first time (that you know of or can access thru sources) a charge and defense like this has hit the US courts?

[MultiTroll]

Did Numb Nutts public defender who gave media interview in spite of clear gag order the night before the trial began now set up easily winnable appeal by Shooter McGuyger?

[baseline bum]

D'Evils is top 5 songs all time, come at me brah.

Indeed a great song, but the rest of the album drops off hard.

[baseline bum]

They really should have tried Guyger as a black male in this case tbh.

[Winehole23]

They really should have tried Guyger as a black male in this case tbh.The judge turned the castle doctrine on its head in the jury instructions:

1178730294498619392

[Winehole23]

To paraphrase a tweet I saw earlier:

I HAVE NO DUTY TO RETREAT FROM YOUR HOME

[spurraider21]

The judge turned the castle doctrine on its head in the jury instructions:

1178730294498619392
i never would have thought the castle doctrine would be used to justify the killing of somebody in that person's own castle

[koriwhat]

this is so insane considering some who accidentally kill others in car crashes go straight to prison for a long time but this drunk cop comes strolling into a different apt downstairs with a mat at the door, unlike her doorstep, and after sexting just to blow this dudes chest into pieces.

our justice system is ridiculous.

[MultiTroll]

To paraphrase a tweet I saw earlier:

I HAVE NO DUTY TO RETREAT FROM YOUR HOME
Robert Rogers, another of Guyger's defense attorneys, said the prosecution failed to "do their duty" and show that Guyger wasn't reasonable in her actions.
"We actually, even though we have no duty, we showed you how this was a reasonable mistake," he said.

[MultiTroll]

Guyger thru her defense liarwyers:
But but but he was standing up coming at me so i had to shoot him in the chest.
Vs real trajectory of bullet:
https://dmn-dallas-news-prod.cdn.arcpublishing.com/resizer//sQVJx9PkegODfPvUUSLLT559L40=/fit-in/1660x934/smart/filters:no_upscale()/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-dmn.s3.amazonaws.com/public/O5SQWEZNJONGJNVRSUSJ4HXIEI.jpg
We'll see if the jury consists of dumb fucks or racists. BTW, what's it gonna take 12-0, 10-2? Can the Sleaze Team have paid off only one juror to get the W?

[baseline bum]

The judge turned the castle doctrine on its head in the jury instructions:

1178730294498619392

I figured it would be considered applicable here, it's Texas after all.

[baseline bum]

If Guyger skates I wonder if we're going to see riots in Dallas just like LA 1992.

[Pavlov]

If Guyger skates I wonder if we're going to see riots in Dallas just like LA 1992.I'd bet on more Micah Johnsons only now they will mistakenly enter cops' homes before murdering them.

[Winehole23]

Robert Rogers, another of Guyger's defense attorneys, said the prosecution failed to "do their duty" and show that Guyger wasn't reasonable in her actions.
"We actually, even though we have no duty, we showed you how this was a reasonable mistake," he said.
You would take the side of state power against the innocent victim.

[SnakeBoy]

The judge turned the castle doctrine on its head in the jury instructions:

1178730294498619392

Racist decision?

[Winehole23]

To paraphrase a tweet I saw earlier:

I HAVE NO DUTY TO RETREAT FROM YOUR HOMEthis is a recipe for official mayhem

[Winehole23]

Sorry, King, I mistook the castle!

(King dies.)

[DMC]

Winehole, in your avalanche of thought droppings did it ever occur to you that the judge is considering intent? Of course not.

[Winehole23]

Racist decision?Couldn't say. The judge probably considers it a careful balancing of equities. Saying the castle doctrine protects the confused cop but not the legit resident confuses me

How do you gloss it?

[DMC]

If Guyger skates I wonder if we're going to see riots in Dallas just like LA 1992.

No. It's not a big story with impeachment talks happening. Rodney King beating was front and center.

[Winehole23]

To me, look like there could be a precedent where, if the cop is confused, he/she can blow you away at home without penalty.

[Winehole23]

I was afraid.

I was confused.

I feared for my life.

I blew you away.

[DMC]

Couldn't say. The judge probably considers it a careful balancing of equities. Saying the castle doctrine protects the confused cop but not the legit resident confuses me

How do you gloss it?

I wouldn't think it protects anyone as much as it's a defense to prosecution for intent. Yeah sounds the same but it's not. You're still not justified in killing someone, but you might be acquitted of murder one. The DA must think they have a strong case else they go for a lighter charge, maybe they are afraid of the ramifications and will let the judge and jury take the blame.

[DMC]

I was afraid.

I was confused.

I feared for my life.

I blew you away.

Doesn't even rhyme.

[Spurminator]

No. It's not a big story with impeachment talks happening. Rodney King beating was front and center.

I don't expect LA-size riots, but the Guyger story is absolutely dwarfing the impeachment scandal here in Dallas.

[DMC]

I don't expect LA-size riots, but the Guyger story is absolutely dwarfing the impeachment scandal here in Dallas.

Nah, no riots. People holding signs outside the police station, some cars lit on fire, maybe a few cartons of Newports and some beer stolen from the black owned convenience store in their own neighborhood.

[Winehole23]

Winehole, in your avalanche of thought droppings did it ever occur to you that the judge is considering intent? Of course not.Referred to above, I'm flabbergasted the constable's mistaken intent trumps the resident's right to live.

You seem to be cool with it though.

[Spurminator]

I hope you're right.

I think we'll probably see a couple of random acts of opportunistic vandalism that will be overblown, but most forecasts of potential riots have been unfounded since Ferguson.

[Winehole23]

Doesn't even rhyme.This isn't a poetry board.

[Blake]

I was afraid.

I was confused.

I feared for my life.

I blew you away.

While you were eating ice cream

[Blake]

This isn't a poetry board.

https://media.giphy.com/media/MnGPRXdbe31Xet0ewH/giphy.gif

[Spurminator]

Referred to above, I'm flabbergasted the constable's mistaken intent trumps the resident's right to live.

You seem to be cool with it though.

Whatever happens, the family will get a chance to ruin her in a civil trial.

[Winehole23]

Whatever happens, the family will get a chance to ruin her in a civil trial.I'd be surprised if the lemon is worth the squeeze. How well does DPD pay?

[Spurminator]

I'd be surprised if the lemon is worth the squeeze. How well does DPD pay?

They'll probably include DPD and the City of Dallas in the suit and settle out of court.

[Winehole23]

They'll probably include DPD and the City of Dallas in the suit and settle out of court.Of course.

[DMC]

Referred to above, I'm flabbergasted the constable's mistaken intent trumps the resident's right to live.

You seem to be cool with it though.

The resident isn't on trial. The question is intent, do the facts justify the charge? No one is arguing the victim's right to live. You either believe her or you don't. He's not alive to testify. If she's lying, she's a murderer. If she's telling the truth, do you still think she's a murderer?

The court cannot revive the deceased.

[ElNono]

Winehole, in your avalanche of thought droppings did it ever occur to you that the judge is considering intent? Of course not.

There's no reason whatsoever to bring in the Castle Doctrine as applied here. The Castle Doctrine protects the person in their own property/abode from intruders.

What the judge is ordering here is to consider an allegation over a fact. It's a fact she was in the wrong place. This is completely misapplied, and probably fairly solid grounds for an appeal if the case doesn't go the prosecution's way.

The judge can certainly consider her allegations and displays of remorse at sentencing, but this is a complete aberration.

[DMC]

This isn't a poetry board.
Try being rational.

[DMC]

There's no reason whatsoever to bring in the Castle Doctrine as applied here. The Castle Doctrine protects the person in their own property/abode from intruders.

What the judge is ordering here is to consider an allegation over a fact. It's a fact she was in the wrong place. This is completely misapplied, and probably fairly solid grounds for an appeal if the case doesn't go the prosecution's way.

The judge can certainly consider her allegations and displays of remorse at sentencing, but this is a complete aberration.

If she thought she was in her home and thus thought she had the right to use deadly force there, then the castle doctrine would be relevant because without it, you have no right to use deadly force. It's not about whether she was right about where she was, but about her mindset. Could the DA have taken a bigger bite than they can chew?

[Blake]

They'll probably include DPD and the City of Dallas in the suit and settle out of court.

They will but I'm not sure they succeed unless the city just doesn't want any part at all of a lawsuit.

[ElNono]

The resident isn't on trial. The question is intent, do the facts justify the charge? No one is arguing the victim's right to live. You either believe her or you don't. He's not alive to testify. If she's lying, she's a murderer. If she's telling the truth, do you still think she's a murderer?

The court cannot revive the deceased.

By law, she is. No doubt about it. "Mistakes were made" is not a defense.

[Spurminator]

They will but I'm not sure they succeed unless the city just doesn't want any part at all of a lawsuit.

It's doubtful that the Mayor nor most of Dallas City Council would have any desire to fight the Botham-Jean family in court.

[ElNono]

If she thought she was in her home and thus thought she had the right to use deadly force there, then the castle doctrine would be relevant because without it, you have no right to use deadly force. It's not about whether she was right about where she was, but about her mindset. Could the DA have taken a bigger bite than they can chew?

She factually was not in her home. What she thought doesn't really matter at all. What matters are the facts: she was not at home and she shot to kill a person. That's it. There's no really gray area here. The only exceptions to this are mental illness of some sort.

The judge does have wiggle room in the sentencing phase, whether he believes what she's peddling or not.

[ElNono]

There are reasons for this. People will make claims such that "god told me to do it", etc. Even if they were completely brainwashed and truthful, it's still murder.

[ElNono]

Heck, the Castle Doctrine itself is an exception to the fact that if you kill somebody, you're going to be doing time. And the Castle Doctrine is not as simple as it looks either. The investigator has to conclude that you were being invaded and your life was in danger.

[Winehole23]

Try being rational.I think I've been pretty clear where I stand. If you don't follow me there that doesn't mean it isnn't rational.

[Winehole23]

Heck, the Castle Doctrine itself is an exception to the fact that if you kill somebody, you're going to be doing time. And the Castle Doctrine is not as simple as it looks either. The investigator has to conclude that you were being invaded and your life was in danger.As we can all see, Botham Jean's certainly was.

[MultiTroll]

You would take the side of state power against the innocent victim.
have no idea what you are fabricating / trolling.

[Winehole23]

have no idea what you are fabricating / trolling.The cop killed an innocent dude.

She admitted that.

That isn't contested.

What do you think I'm "fabricating?"

[DMC]

I think I've been pretty clear where I stand. If you don't follow me there that doesn't mean it isnn't rational.

You're clear, just not rational. You keep pining on and on. The defense is arguing mistake of fact and self defense, the two are tied. You're being irrational because you're relying on emotive jargon and hand waving.

[baseline bum]

Heck, the Castle Doctrine itself is an exception to the fact that if you kill somebody, you're going to be doing time. And the Castle Doctrine is not as simple as it looks either. The investigator has to conclude that you were being invaded and your life was in danger.

In Texas burglary of an occupied house/apartment is considered a violent crime so you're weapons free if you're the homeowner in your house/apartment.

[DMC]

Heck, the Castle Doctrine itself is an exception to the fact that if you kill somebody, you're going to be doing time. And the Castle Doctrine is not as simple as it looks either. The investigator has to conclude that you were being invaded and your life was in danger.

In her case they don't have to prove anything. The state has the burden of proof. The investigator (Texas Rangers) stated that it was not unreasonable that she went to the wrong apartment, since 44% of the occupants they interviewed said they'd done the same thing. It wasn't unreasonable that she entered her apartment even considering she thought an intruder was inside because she's a cop, and she's taught to address a situation like that, not like a call of intruder. In fact, the entire argument comes down to whether or not she knowingly entered that man's apartment and killed him in cold blood. That's the state's claim, and I don't think they proved that or that the evidence supports it, but jurors can be swayed by the political environment and so we'll see.

She's not innocent of killing that man wrongfully, she's innocent of murdering him with intent. I still think she could get manslaughter even though that requires that she didn't intend to kill and she's testified she did. If the jurors overlook the Castle Doctrine and mistake of fact/self defense, she could get murder. It seems binary, either murder or innocent, which is unfortunate for the city of Dallas.

[DMC]

She factually was not in her home. What she thought doesn't really matter at all. What matters are the facts: she was not at home and she shot to kill a person. That's it. There's no really gray area here. The only exceptions to this are mental illness of some sort.

The judge does have wiggle room in the sentencing phase, whether he believes what she's peddling or not.

Intent matters. Charges and burden of proof to support those charges beyond a reasonable doubt matter. Trials like this aren't to establish the facts of the case, but to establish intent. Everyone knows the facts, the guy was in his home, she wasn't, she shot and killed him. What she thought vs her actions, her training, how her peers and the TR testify, that means a lot.

[Pavlov]

Hope she rots.

[DMC]

Hope she rots.

You're so progressive and edgy :lmao

[Pavlov]

You're so progressive and edgy :lmao:lmao says the eternally wannabe edgelord.

Pardon me for not jumping to her defense. If you think she should be rewarded for her actions, that's all you. She gives cops a worse reputation than they need.

[DMC]

There's ample room between jumping to her defense and wanting her to rot.

More narrative from the narrative crew, you and Winehole clutching your pearls.

[Pavlov]

There's ample room between jumping to her defense and wanting her to rot.

More narrative from the narrative crew, you and Winehole clutching your pearls.:lmao let's make it about me like you always want to.

:lol wannbe edgelord
:lol actually another derp

[Blake]

There's ample room between jumping to her defense and wanting her to rot.

More narrative from the narrative crew, you and Winehole clutching your pearls.

Legally probably yes, morally no. She had ample time to back out and away and call 911. I'm also fine with her trigger happy ass rotting.

[Spurtacular]

DMC

You're on Chump's approved talk-to list for the next few weeks. He's been banned from others. :lol

[SnakeBoy]

Couldn't say. The judge probably considers it a careful balancing of equities. Saying the castle doctrine protects the confused cop but not the legit resident confuses me

How do you gloss it?

Seems like the correct decision since she is claiming self defense

Already said I think murder is the correct charge but why do you think the jury shouldn't be able to consider her defense? She's entitled to one right?

[DMC]

DMC

You're on Chump's approved talk-to list for the next few weeks. He's been banned from others. :lol

Nah I won't waste much time feeding quarters to the monkey.

[DMC]

Seems like the correct decision since she is claiming self defense

Already said I think murder is the correct charge but why do you think the jury shouldn't be able to consider her defense? She's entitled to one right?

No she should rot in hell with Donald Trump. If there was a hell.

[DMC]

Legally probably yes, morally no. She had ample time to back out and away and call 911. I'm also fine with her trigger happy ass rotting.

Since they aren't in a trial about morality, legal will be all that matters. Benefit of the doubt. Good to know your uninformed mob mentality is intact. Keep up the fight. Fuck the justice system.

[Pavlov]

Oh, it could go either way. I'm just more fine with her rotting.

Sorry, edgelord.

[SnakeBoy]

Judge also ruled that the jury could consider manslaughter

[DMC]

Hope she rots.


Oh, it could go either way. I'm just more fine with her rotting.

Sorry, edgelord.

Don't feed the creeper...

[DMC]

Judge also ruled that the jury could consider manslaughter

But that includes lack of intent to kill. She testified she intended to kill. I think it's either murder or she walks. She'll never wear a badge again, but she should serve some time just for the fact of wrongful death. We know she won't be able to pay off a lawsuit, and the city won't need to settle until the wrongful death civil case.

[ElNono]

In her case they don't have to prove anything. The state has the burden of proof. The investigator (Texas Rangers) stated that it was not unreasonable that she went to the wrong apartment, since 44% of the occupants they interviewed said they'd done the same thing. It wasn't unreasonable that she entered her apartment even considering she thought an intruder was inside because she's a cop, and she's taught to address a situation like that, not like a call of intruder. In fact, the entire argument comes down to whether or not she knowingly entered that man's apartment and killed him in cold blood. That's the state's claim, and I don't think they proved that or that the evidence supports it, but jurors can be swayed by the political environment and so we'll see.

She's not innocent of killing that man wrongfully, she's innocent of murdering him with intent. I still think she could get manslaughter even though that requires that she didn't intend to kill and she's testified she did. If the jurors overlook the Castle Doctrine and mistake of fact/self defense, she could get murder. It seems binary, either murder or innocent, which is unfortunate for the city of Dallas.


Intent matters. Charges and burden of proof to support those charges beyond a reasonable doubt matter. Trials like this aren't to establish the facts of the case, but to establish intent. Everyone knows the facts, the guy was in his home, she wasn't, she shot and killed him. What she thought vs her actions, her training, how her peers and the TR testify, that means a lot.

I didn't say 'prove' anything. I said that the investigators that handle the case have to conclude that you were being invaded and your life was in danger. Otherwise, charges are filed on you, even if you're in your own home.

But it doesn't apply to this case at all, since it wasn't her home (regardless whether she thought it was or not).

Intent in criminal proceeding isn't what you think it is (at least when it comes to murder charges). Intent in a murder case is arguing whether she shot with the intent to kill or not, that's about the extent of it. Again, there are facts (she shot and killed someone), that preclude allegations (I didn't mean to!)

What you're suggesting as wrongful death, is a civil claim, not a criminal one. Because criminal law has a higher bar, which is 'without a reasonable doubt', what's judged in criminal proceedings are provable facts.

This is why when this case happened, there was simply no way she wasn't going to get charged with murder, especially after she admitted to entering and shooting on purpose. And her story about getting confused, or showing remorse doesn't really enters the picture in a criminal proceeding until sentencing.

We discussed manslaughter extensively in this thread a while ago, and there were reasons why it didn't apply to this case, but they escape me at the moment.

[Winehole23]

You're clear, just not rational. You keep pining on and on. The defense is arguing mistake of fact and self defense, the two are tied. You're being irrational because you're relying on emotive jargon and hand waving.I wish you were coherent.

You're not.

Pity, no help though

[ElNono]

Everyone knows the facts, the guy was in his home, she wasn't, she shot and killed him. What she thought vs her actions, her training, how her peers and the TR testify, that means a lot.

Actually, this trial is to judge the former, not the latter. The latter can be taken into consideration for sentencing, but not for finding her guilty of murder.

Even though this case should be a slam dunk for the prosecution, our Constitution guarantees everybody their day in court, and so she's indeed innocent (as in, she didn't shot and kill anybody) until this jury says otherwise.

It's part of the steps in imparting justice.