Officer entering wrong apartment, killing occupant

[DaveTN]

52 minutes ago, KahrMan said:

Dallas police officer Amber Guyger was fired after an investigation determined she “engaged in adverse conduct when she was arrested for manslaughter” in the killing of her black neighbor, officials said. Guyger was arrested on a manslaughter charge after she shot and killed Botham Jean earlier this month. An arrest affidavit obtained by Fox News said Botham allegedly ignored Guyger’s “verbal commands” before she opened fire. 

Interesting wording.  She was not fired for killing Jean but for something she did when she was arrested.

 

That's not how I read it. 

But of course she is going to be fired. Unless she is claiming she was justified.

[KahrMan]

43 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

That's not how I read it. 

But of course she is going to be fired. Unless she is claiming she was justified.

It is kind of vague.  I took it to mean that she might have initially lied about what happened or didn't give a completely truthful statement.  I am sure more will eventually come out.  

[MacGyver]

If they're thinking about an upgraded charge - this will be primary evidence.

[Erik88]

20 minutes ago, KahrMan said:

It is kind of vague.  I took it to mean that she might have initially lied about what happened or didn't give a completely truthful statement.  I am sure more will eventually come out.  

That's how I took it as well but it was poorly written. 

[owejia]

On ‎9‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 11:07 AM, Erik88 said:

My word. Do you always jump to such drastic conclusions? You could have made a career in the news business. 

Still sounds like a loose cannon to me!

[Erik88]

On 9/11/2018 at 1:28 PM, gregintenn said:

You can make excuses forever, but it seems like murder to me.

And the jury agreed with you. She was found guilty of murder today. The defense actually tried to claim she could use the castle doctrine defense and the judge allowed it. That doesn't make any sense to me. I think the jury got it right this time.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/10/01/dallas-jury-deliberating-fate-cop-who-mistakenly-killed-neighbor/3828562002/

 

[DaveTN]

I don’t know anything about Texas law, but Judge Napolitano says the verdict is no good and will be changed or overturned. He says murder requires a motive and there is none. My guess would have been  criminally negligent homicide or something like that (Whatever they have in Texas)

I don’t know why she went to trial. She admitted what she did and to take it one step farther she said she intended to kill him when she shot him. What in the world was her attorney thinking?

Maybe they wanted so bad to make an example out of her they wouldn’t offer any plea.

I feel as sorry for her as I do the dead guy. She thought she was in her home. That is not disputed by anyone.

[Erik88]

7 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

Judge Napolitano says the verdict is no good and will be changed or overturned. He says murder requires a motive and there is none

I was surprised at the murder charge also. The jury had the chance to find her guilty of manslaughter and opted for Murder instead. Manslaughter made more sense to me. 

[E4 No More]

28 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

I don’t know anything about Texas law, but Judge Napolitano says the verdict is no good and will be changed or overturned. He says murder requires a motive and there is none. My guess would have been  criminally negligent homicide or something like that (Whatever they have in Texas)

I don’t know why she went to trial. She admitted what she did and to take it one step farther she said she intended to kill him when she shot him. What in the world was her attorney thinking?

Maybe they wanted so bad to make an example out of her they wouldn’t offer any plea.

I feel as sorry for her as I do the dead guy. She thought she was in her home. That is not disputed by anyone.

That is extremely likely.

[Chucktshoes]

29 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

I don’t know anything about Texas law, but Judge Napolitano says the verdict is no good and will be changed or overturned. He says murder requires a motive and there is none. My guess would have been  criminally negligent homicide or something like that (Whatever they have in Texas)

 

I really respect Judge Nap, but he’s wrong about the requirement of a motive. No level of murder requires proving a motive. It only requires a conscious decision to kill. 

Manslaughter would have been a easy choice for a guaranteed conviction, but it did meet the definition by statute. 

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.19.htm

[Erik88]

2 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

I really respect Judge Nap, but he’s wrong about the requirement of a motive. No level of murder requires proving a motive. It only requires a conscious decision to kill. 

I don't know anything about Judge Nap but I'm surprised he didn't know this. Clearly they wouldn't allow this trailer to go forward with murder charges if it didn't meet the necessary requirements. 

[DaveTN]

4 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

I really respect Judge Nap, but he’s wrong about the requirement of a motive. No level of murder requires proving a motive. It only requires a conscious decision to kill. 

Manslaughter would have been a easy choice for a guaranteed conviction, but it did meet the definition by statute. 

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.19.htm

So, no intent or state of mind required in Texas? 

Edited October 1, 2019 by DaveTN

[Capbyrd]

40 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

I feel as sorry for her as I do the dead guy. She thought she was in her home. That is not disputed by anyone.

 

That is absolutely absurd.   By your standard, burglars only need to say that they thought they were in their house and they at the very least earn your sympathy. 

I don't care that she is a cop.  Its irrelevant to this story in my opinion.   What I care about is that through her actions of ignorance and negligence, an innocent man no longer breathes.  She earns no sympathy from me for illegally entering someone else's home and taking their life.   Of course, the story at the time was that she was inebriated but the toxicology reports at trial dispute that.   Whether we can trust that or not is up for debate, blue backs blue.   But the prosecution also presented that she was pre-occupied sexting her partner as this all unfolded.   So her sending naughty texts was more important than Botham Jean's life.   That's simply unacceptable. 

[Chucktshoes]

12 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

So, no intent or state of mind required in Texas? 

Intent, yes the intent to kill or engage in an action that would obviously likely result in the death of another. It doesn’t matter why you want to kill the person, only that you wanted to kill them. Proving motive makes that easier, sure, but isn’t required in the least. I can be proven wrong, but I’m pretty sure that’s the standard everywhere. 

[E4 No More]

8 minutes ago, Capbyrd said:

 

That is absolutely absurd.   By your standard, burglars only need to say that they thought they were in their house and they at the very least earn your sympathy. 

I don't care that she is a cop.  Its irrelevant to this story in my opinion.   What I care about is that through her actions of ignorance and negligence, an innocent man no longer breathes.  She earns no sympathy from me for illegally entering someone else's home and taking their life.   Of course, the story at the time was that she was inebriated but the toxicology reports at trial dispute that.   Whether we can trust that or not is up for debate, blue backs blue.   But the prosecution also presented that she was pre-occupied sexting her partner as this all unfolded.   So her sending naughty texts was more important than Botham Jean's life.   That's simply unacceptable. 

Talk about absurd. You watch too many movies. Law enforcement took the case to the prosecutor, the prosecutor charged her with homicide, and she was convicted. Where was the blue backing blue in this case?

[DaveTN]

10 minutes ago, Capbyrd said:

 

That is absolutely absurd.   By your standard, burglars only need to say that they thought they were in their house and they at the very least earn your sympathy. 

I don't care that she is a cop.  Its irrelevant to this story in my opinion.   What I care about is that through her actions of ignorance and negligence, an innocent man no longer breathes.  She earns no sympathy from me for illegally entering someone else's home and taking their life.   Of course, the story at the time was that she was inebriated but the toxicology reports at trial dispute that.   Whether we can trust that or not is up for debate, blue backs blue.   But the prosecution also presented that she was pre-occupied sexting her partner as this all unfolded.   So her sending naughty texts was more important than Botham Jean's life.   That's simply unacceptable. 

Its just my feelings; absurd as they are. You are correct; being a cop is irrelevant. If anyone man or woman entered an apartment and thought it was theirs and killed someone; I would feel the same way.

Burglary requires intent; there was no intent here. They commonly try to give reasons for being in the house or business and the prosecution is required to overcome those defenses.

I am not so naive as to think her being a cop is irrelevant to many people. As I said, I’m sure that played a part in going to trial.

[DaveTN]

17 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

 I can be proven wrong, but I’m pretty sure that’s the standard everywhere. 

I have never heard of a state that doesn’t require very specific intent and state of mind requirements or murder. But I will admit that’s only one state I’m sure of and another I’m pretty sure of; that leaves 48 I don't have a clue about. 

[E4 No More]

2 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

I have never heard of a state that doesn’t require very specific intent and state of mind requirements or murder. But I will admit that’s only one state I’m sure of and another I’m pretty sure of; that leaves 48 I don't have a clue about. 

Unless things have changed in 26 years, Missouri requires intent. Manslaughter covered the rest: However, I seem to recall her stating that she intended to kill the person because she was in fear for her life. I didn't think about it in this context before, but during my HCP class the instructor pointed out a circumstance where you come home and find a burglar in your house you were entitled to the same measures as you would if you were already home when he/she entered your house. If you live in an apartment complex where everything looks the same, this case clearly establishes the need for you to make darn sure you're entering the correct apartment.

[DaveTN]

4 minutes ago, E4 No More said:

If you live in an apartment complex where everything looks the same, this case clearly establishes the need for you to make darn sure you're entering the correct apartment.

Absolutely. We are fixin’ to find out how much that mistake can cost you.

[gregintenn]

23 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

I have never heard of a state that doesn’t require very specific intent and state of mind requirements or murder. But I will admit that’s only one state I’m sure of and another I’m pretty sure of; that leaves 48 I don't have a clue about. 

Wouldn’t pulling one’s weapon, aiming, and firing at another show intent? It clearly does to me. She certainly intended to kill the man.

I can’t help but wonder how it would have turned out if he’d shot and killed her first. I’d call it self defense, but that would have been a hard hill to climb since she wore the badge.

[DaveTN]

7 minutes ago, gregintenn said:

Wouldn’t pulling one’s weapon, aiming, and firing at another show intent? It clearly does to me. She certainly intended to kill the man.

I can’t help but wonder how it would have turned out if he’d shot and killed her first. I’d call it self defense, but that would have been a hard hill to climb since she wore the badge.

She testified she intended to kill him, (which was a mistake) but believed she was justified in that intent.

Had he killed her it wouldn’t have been a hard hill to climb at all. He didn’t know her. (That would have been a hard hill to climb if he had) the fact she was a cop wouldn’t/shouldn’t have made a difference to the DA.

Edited October 1, 2019 by DaveTN

[Chucktshoes]

16 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

I have never heard of a state that doesn’t require very specific intent and state of mind requirements or murder. But I will admit that’s only one state I’m sure of and another I’m pretty sure of; that leaves 48 I don't have a clue about. 

Motive =/= intent  they aren’t the same thing. Intent makes a homicide a murder, but motive isn’t required to prove intent. It just makes proving intent easier. 

Hypothetical time. I’m walking down the street, calmly pull out my gun and shoot a total stranger in the head and kill them in front of witnesses. Then I say nothing about why or my state of mind. In nowhere is that not still murder. My motive is unprovable, but the intent to kill was easily provable by the deliberate nature of my actions.

Her words doomed her for sure, but there’s plenty of case law that shows that the deliberation required in most murder statutes doesn’t require advance planning, but only a deliberate decision to kill that can be made on the spot.

[Capbyrd]

48 minutes ago, E4 No More said:

Talk about absurd. You watch too many movies. Law enforcement took the case to the prosecutor, the prosecutor charged her with homicide, and she was convicted. Where was the blue backing blue in this case?

It's not from movies.   It's from the news.   And being friends with cops on facebook.    You don't have to look any farther than former FL Trooper Donna Watts who was stalked and harassed because she pulled over a speeding off duty Miami officer.   Seeing the way that cops talk about her and what she did, yeah, I didn't have to look to movies for how cops are. 

[Erik88]

22 minutes ago, E4 No More said:

Talk about absurd. You watch too many movies

You don't think law enforcement gives their fellow cops a pass on a lot of things? Of course blue backs blue. This has been documented over and over and over. 

In this case, she was allowed to meet with the head of the police union after the shooting who subsequently had the camera in the police cruiser turned off so she wouldn't be recorded. You think us peons would ever receive such treatment? Not a chance. That video is evidence that would have been used against us.  

"In a hearing that took place outside the jury's presence Tuesday, lead prosecutor Jason Hermus said Guyger was told not to say anything while the camera was on. He said turning it off and allowing her to interact with other officers gave her preferential treatment that wouldn't have been given to an ordinary person in police custody."

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2019/09/24/police-treated-amber-guyger-special-on-night-of-shooting-prosecutor-argues/

 

 

[MacGyver]

In any case, we have a saying that, “the evidence has to tell the story.”

There’s a big difference between that and, “the evidence needs to support the story.”

At the end of the day, this case’s evidence (and also the defense’s lack thereof) told a different story than the defense team would have had the jury believe.