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

[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/...dible-57845912

[spurraider21]

lol - these experts disagree with each other - interesting;

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/...dible-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 bull 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 ing 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 bull 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/sho...=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/sho...=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 cir stances.

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/sho...=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 cir stances 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 cir stances 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/art...-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 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.