Reply With Quote
what if Officer Guyger knew Botham Jean personally because she had already made numerous noise complaints against him, and went up to confront him in her uniform, with her gun?
The whole panic/blunder argument centers on mental state, but there are murders on altered mental states all the time. Unless they're planning to plead insanity, which doesn't appear to be the case, there's no excuse there.
what if Officer Guyger knew Botham Jean personally because she had already made numerous noise complaints against him, and went up to confront him in her uniform, with her gun?
Ok - here is an example.
If this was actually her apartment = no crime - she just reacted and shot an intruder.
NOT her apt = Manslaughter (due to her colossal mistake) Remember a mistake takes it from murder down to manslaughter (I think - attorneys in the house can correct me)
This is why I think she will be advised to stick to the "mistake" defense. This might be the only way to avoid a murder charge.
Now - another example -
Let us say -she knew the victim, and suspected he was cheating and broke into his apt to catch him in the act intending to kill them both. Then we can say murder.
The problem is that manslaughter is split into voluntary or involuntary. If the allegation is that she was confused, it couldn't be voluntary. The problem with involuntary is that it's "a killing that stems from a lack of intention to cause death but involving an intentional, or negligent, act leading to death.". However, as already indicated, her intent was shooting to kill. That fails the first prong.
IMO, in most jurisdictions the charge would be second-degree murder. It wasn't premeditated, but there was obvious intent to kill (regardless of her mental state at the time).
Attorneys would know better than me - but I am totally guessing that would put her in the position of having to answer/prove -what were her intentions? To scare him? Bully him? Threaten him? kill him?
So who knows what story will emerge.
btw, you never answered. are you an LEO?
or just biased in favor of police?
I should note that different States have different categories also (ie: PA has third degree murder, a catch all for non-premeditated, non-accomplice murders). Not sure what's the statute in Texas.
Could be - but then the argument would be "she thought in her mind that she was shooting a burglar in HER OWN apt - so she was legally allowed to shoot" (except it was not her apt lol)
The shoot to kill I don't think is valid - because every single time a cop shoots - is to kill. There is no such thing as shoot to maim, injure, etc
Involuntary/Voluntary - that one - I am fuzzy about - I think DMC correctly described it better the other day.
Involuntary is I think running over someone in your car - which wasn't your fault - you didn't mean to kill- kid ran in front at the last second.
Manslaughter - is the same - except you were drinking/drunk.
Murder - would be if you chased the kid - kid evaded you at first but you ran him down and mowed him down.
I think lol.
Should also be noticed that LE are not tried with the same standards as regular citizens, and they have more leeway as far as what they allege.
lol no - I just play one on the internet!
the lack of witness statements other than the perp's in the Texas Rangers' arrest warrant attests to that.
"it took the authorities two whole days before the Texas Rangers finally issued an arrest warrant for manslaughter and took Guyger into custody —
not in the city of Dallas, where the murder was committed,
but in the neighboring Kaufman County, where she is much, much less likely to face a black jury
(last year’s census shows Kaufman County is 83% white,
as opposed to Dallas, which is only 53% white)."
https://washingtonpress.com/2018/09/15/a-dallas-councilman-just-reignited-the-botham-jean-murder-controversy-with-an-eye-opening-facebook-post-2/
more boutons sloppy seconds.
Under that premise, no cop can ever be charged with murder, regardless of the cir stances, and we know that's not a legally sound argument (see Oliver)
Already described what involuntary manslaughter means: no intent to kill (ie: stray bullet, accidental discharge, etc). That's also your typical drunk driving charge if you kill somebody. Voluntary manslaughter is typically the crime of passion type (heat of the moment, no premeditation, kill intent, malice afterthought).
Of course they can. There was a border patrol - serial killer -just saw it yesterday. He murdered 4 women and was going for #5 - except she escaped. Killing them in cold blood - not sure if he was in uniform or off duty or whatever but they will absolutely prosecute him for murder (or capital murder?)
Do you generally beat women, or just your wife?
could be his honest take without some pre-existing pro police mentality.
What you described isn't what El was talking about. He was talking about killing a "suspect". The vic in the OP seems to be getting treated as a possible suspect. If at one point she was on the up and up, and thought she was facing a home invader, he was a suspect for intents and purposes. The women homey killed likely weren't suspects. He will be tried as a civilian and likely get the death penalty. The female cop has "muh duty" to fall back on and cops naturally get the benefit of doubt when the other side is deceased and there are no material witnesses.
Just to fling my hat into the guessing game ring - Deceased was noisy, female cop wanted to pay him a visit to tell him who she was and to let him know she can't have that noise while she's trying to sleep. She approaches appt, beats on door. Dude comes to door, opens it, they get into an argument and he goes to his bedroom and re-emerges. She thinks he's armed, she shoots him.
Just a WAG
yeah, it could be an honest take.
In common law, yes. Texas doesn’t parce between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. Their manslaughter statute just says to recklessly cause the death of another.
“Capital murder” is their version of first degree murder and “murder” is their second degree (though still a first degree felony, carries lighter sentences). This can include intent to cause serious bodily injury that results in the persons death. If they argue adequate provocation or sudden passion it is still murder but drops to a second degree felony.
Cant see how this qualifies as reckless tbh
lol - for real!
Ok. You completely discount all her statement and invent your own. Not disagreeing - you might be correct.
I know there should be high skepticism on a cops actions -and I know I am conflating different topics, but I have to ask:
Where was this skepticism on the Trump/Russia issue?
You completely give a yuuuge benefit of the doubt to Trump and his team, you discount the crimes as either minor crimes and/or HRC or Obama did the same thing and even in the face of public evidence you completely refuse to believe Trump is guilty of anything. You completely think that the left is making up crimes.
Here, you completely discount the cops story and pretty much think she went out of her way to murder someone?
You think she is lying and making up . You believe Trump team denials?
I take it you are studying law - IIRC -
what do you think happened?
Manslaughter?
Something worse?
'Noles got whipped again yesterday
Best hip hop dancing team in the nation i tell ya what
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
