Reply With Quote
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"
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.
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.
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.
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 convictedSometimes 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
The firing of the gun without a good reason is the reckless part.
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?
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.
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 cir stances.
Maybe. Although of course you know she will give her reasons on why it was reasonable to shoot under the cir stances. I already posted that. She might convince a jury of it too.
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.
Guyger received special treatment. Were she to get a break on the charges because she wears the blue would only compound that impression.
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.
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.
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
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 -" 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.
"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?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
