Cont: Man shot, killed by off-duty Dallas police officer who walked into wrong apartment p2

[theprestige]

Saying 'ask questions like' was my lazy way of expressing that's the angle I hope they pursue, by whatever lawyerly way appropriate.

Again, not a lawyer by any stretch myself, but to me the point of failure in this case was never going to the wrong apartment, it was the decision to shoot, period. Meaning if she in fact had been at her apartment as she claims to have thought, there were reasons why someone might be in there which didn't involve anything nefarious. In either the hypothetical 'correct apartment, guy fixing gas leak' situation or the one that played out in reality, it's my layman's opinion (want to emphasize that part since I can't claim any expertise here) that she should have done a far better job assessing the situation before deciding to shoot. Doing so would have allowed her to see (hypothetical) 'dude is fixing a gas leak, so don't shoot', or (reality) '****, I'm in the wrong apartment - don't shoot'.

I don't see how finding someone unexpected in (what she believes to be) her apartment changes the calculus much whether it's really her apartment or not.

Probably a better line for the prosecution would be to challenge her decision to go armed, if she really was as fatigued as she claims. If she was so tired that her judgement was impaired, why was she even wearing her gun at that point?

 

[Belz...]

"Your honor I was cleaning my compound bow and didn't realize it was loaded until it accidentally discharged and hit my wife in the back. Twice."

I see you're trying to appeal to my stated love of testimony-related analogies.

 

[Joe Random]

I don't see how finding someone unexpected in (what she believes to be) her apartment changes the calculus much whether it's really her apartment or not.

Probably a better line for the prosecution would be to challenge her decision to go armed, if she really was as fatigued as she claims. If she was so tired that her judgement was impaired, why was she even wearing her gun at that point?

I'm probably not explaining myself properly as I'm in full agreement with your first sentence. There's been much to-do in this thread about how she should have known it wasn't her apartment because of <list of reasons>. IMO those arguments aren't right or wrong, they're simply not relevant. Even if she had been in her apartment and found someone there, or if we allow that it was a totally understandable and forgivable mistake to have gone to the wrong apartment thinking it was hers, the decision to shoot was clearly in the wrong and she didn't do enough to assess the situation before deciding to shoot.

As to the 'too impaired to carry' line, I don't feel qualified to weigh in. I don't know what overall LE policy is regarding situations like that (maybe it's SOP that you do something with the weapon if you're impaired or whatever, I honestly don't know). I'm looking at it strictly from the standpoint of someone whose grown up with firearms and has taken safety courses (never carried or owned for defensive reasons though). I simply don't see how she could have done close to a reasonable assessment of the situation and come to the conclusion that it was safe (let alone justified) to shoot, regardless of what apartment she was in or thought she was in.

 

[plague311]

I'd be surprised if she has any money worth taking from her at this point. They might get it from the city and police department, however.

Yes, I apologize, that's what I was referring to is that the city will end up paying a handsome lawsuit.

 

[Drewbot]

Yes, I apologize, that's what I was referring to is that the city will end up paying a handsome lawsuit.

I agree that much of the criminal defense will be to put the blame on the city for ignoring policy for overtime. Thus, they created the situation where the good man, Botham Jean ended up dead.

The civil lawsuit will name City of Dallas and Amber Guyger.

Amber Guyger, if found not guilty, might even sue the City.

 

[Whip]

There's been much to-do in this thread about how she should have known it wasn't her apartment because of <list of reasons>. IMO those arguments aren't right or wrong, they're simply not relevant.

they are absolutely relevant to a reasonable person because one has to get by them before even considering your question. If the answer is going to be 'too tired' to all them, then your question would be irrelevant as she would have been too tired to determine.

 

[Joe Random]

they are absolutely relevant to a reasonable person because one has to get by them before even considering your question. If the answer is going to be 'too tired' to all them, then your question would be irrelevant as she would have been too tired to determine.

Again, in my non-lawyerly opinion, that isn't the central question in the matter. Both sides will doubtless hammer on that point from their respective directions, but the key thing to me is that there simply is no answer to the 'should she have known' question which would then make the decision to shoot okay. If she should have known then it might make things worse for her, but if determined that it was a perfectly reasonable mistake of fact to have made it doesn't then put a big 'OK' stamp on her subsequent actions. To use an exaggerated analogy, if a person is on trial for a drive by shooting we might also look at the question of 'was the car used stolen' to see if that exacerbates things. But the answer to 'stolen or not' can never be one which justifies the drive by, which is the central issue in the case.

Not being a lawyer I could find myself totally wrong in this, of course. When/if that happens I won't be utterly shocked, just disappointed. So I guess I'm approaching this more from a moralistic 'how it ought to be', and not an 'according to statute <x> what she did qualifies as ...'.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I agree that much of the criminal defense will be to put the blame on the city for ignoring policy for overtime. Thus, they created the situation where the good man, Botham Jean ended up dead.

The civil lawsuit will name City of Dallas and Amber Guyger.

Amber Guyger, if found not guilty, might even sue the City.

Only if she's not up for more the... *dramatic pause* 16 WHOLE HOURS OMG THE TORTURE then she'll just mistake the city for a deer and shoot it.

Racist apologetic across the board nonsense.

 

[Darat]

Again, in my non-lawyerly opinion, that isn't the central question in the matter. Both sides will doubtless hammer on that point from their respective directions, but the key thing to me is that there simply is no answer to the 'should she have known' question which would then make the decision to shoot okay. ...snip....

Nope still not buying that. There were plenty things she could have done apart from unholstering her gun, deciding to shoot her gun, taking aim, firing, taking aim again and firing.

 

[plague311]

Nope still not buying that. There were plenty things she could have done apart from unholstering her gun, deciding to shoot her gun, taking aim, firing, taking aim again and firing.

So does this come down to basically the question of: Is this murder or negligent homicide?

I don't think there are any circumstances where it's ok for her to have been at the wrong apartment. At the fundamental level you should know where the hell your living quarters are and how to get there.

I don't want to dig through the thread, but at any point did it say how long she had lived there? I'm sure that it's been said before, but her being a cop makes this a bit worse. I've been tired at the end of a work day as well, but I can't recall a time that I've walked into a completely different apartment...and I have self inflicted short term memory issues .

 

[Joe Random]

Nope still not buying that. There were plenty things she could have done apart from unholstering her gun, deciding to shoot her gun, taking aim, firing, taking aim again and firing.

Erm, that was precisely my point. Deciding to shoot was unacceptable. And the question of 'was it reasonable for her to mistake which apartment she was in' can not be answered in any way such that it renders the subsequent decision to shoot acceptable.

 

[Distracted1]

Erm, that was precisely my point. Deciding to shoot was unacceptable. And the question of 'was it reasonable for her to mistake which apartment she was in' can not be answered in any way such that it renders the subsequent decision to shoot acceptable.

"Acceptable", "unacceptable", those terms are less important here than "legal" and "criminal".
I think we all grok (at least a little bit) that Texas (among other States) seems to grant a person a great deal of latitude when deciding to shoot someone, especially if that someone is in their home uninvited.

Ask yourself the question: "is it likely in Texas that Guyger walks if the exact same events had played out in her apartment" ?
If you think it likely that she does, you must acknowledge that primary determining factor in the likely outcome is the reasonableness of her error.

It seems to me like an error that a reasonable person could certainly make. Another splendid example of why people shouldn't be walking around armed.

 

[Blue Mountain]

I don't think there are any circumstances where it's ok for her to have been at the wrong apartment. At the fundamental level you should know where the hell your living quarters are and how to get there.

I'm going to disagree, from personal experience.

I live in a multi-floor apartment block. The floors are not like a suburban neighbourhood where houses generally have distinct shapes and paint jobs, different lawns and ornaments, different fences, etc. Every floor is decorated exactly the same: the carpet and colour scheme are identical to other floors. Every door is in the same location and has the same general look to it.

I have on more than one occasion left the elevator at the wrong floor, walked all the way to where my apartment is on my floor—ignoring obvious clues like a door having or not having a wreath or hanger of some sort on it ("Oh, it looks like the owner changed it")—only to stop at what I thought was my door and pause because something "seemed wrong" about it. Perhaps it had a different lock, or scratches and small gouges on the door frame looked wrong. Only then did I actually look at the apartment number, prominently visible on all the doors, and determine I was on the wrong floor. (Why didn't I look before? Because I thought I was on the correct floor!)

The real kicker? The elevator announces the floor number as the doors open. I missed even that obvious clue. And I wasn't stupid out of my mind tired; I was either thinking about something or listening to a podcast on my phone.

 

[JoeMorgue]

People get too hung up on the "I can see myself doing it..." thing.

Just because you can see yourself doing it doesn't mean it's not a crime (or a lesser crime or a crime with an apologetic modifier or whatever.)

 

[Joe Random]

"Acceptable", "unacceptable", those terms are less important here than "legal" and "criminal".
I think we all grok (at least a little bit) that Texas (among other States) seems to grant a person a great deal of latitude when deciding to shoot someone, especially if that someone is in their home uninvited.

Ask yourself the question: "is it likely in Texas that Guyger walks if the exact same events had played out in her apartment" ?If you think it likely that she does, you must acknowledge that primary determining factor in the likely outcome is the reasonableness of her error.

It seems to me like an error that a reasonable person could certainly make. Another splendid example of why people shouldn't be walking around armed.

I can't claim to understand what the law says and so can't guess how it will rule. I've been arguing this more along what I feel would be the moral/just way to handle things. Hopefully the law would align with that but I won't pretend it does. I actually don't know. From that angle I feel very strongly that if the events played out in her apartment exactly as they did here then she shouldn't walk. I've already brought up the maintenance worker example for cases where the person in your apartment might have a valid reason for being there. I'd take that further - if the person inside was in fact a burglar and they took no offensive/threatening actions once she walked through the door, shooting would not be proper.

Of course if that were the case she could easily play the 'he lunged toward me' card. Taking that sort of action would be a clear threat and put shooting on the table as an option for me. I think it'd be easy to claim that he lunged at her when he did no such thing. At that point it'd be up to all those Quincy types to reconstruct the scene to try and establish if that was possible based on body position, etc.

So at the end of the day she might walk for a number of reasons. I hope not, but won't be bowled over with surprise if so. But in my opinion that would be a flawed result from a moral standpoint, because even if she had been in her apartment as she claims to have thought that doesn't automatically justify bypassing all basic target/environment assessments and dropping into Quickdraw McGraw mode.

 

[Distracted1]

People get too hung up on the "I can see myself doing it..." thing.

Just because you can see yourself doing it doesn't mean it's not a crime (or a lesser crime or a crime with an apologetic modifier or whatever.)

Yet if you consider yourself a reasonable person (as most of us do), and can remember making similar errors, it pretty much is a lock for a "reasonable error" or "mistake of fact" if you prefer.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yet if you consider yourself a reasonable person (as most of us do), and can remember making similar errors, it pretty much is a lock for a "reasonable error" or "mistake of fact" if you prefer.

1. Well I can't actually imagine myself walking into the wrong apartment, not noticing I was in the wrong apartment and staying in a perfect balance of "light enough to tell there is a person in my apartment but dark enough so I can't notice IT'S NOT MY GODDAMN BLOODY APARTMENT AND THE PERSON IN IT ISN'T ARMED" to draw my gun and shoot them and I've been awake a LOT longer then "All day OMG the inhumanity of it all" and handled a weapon.

2. I don't really believe anyone else does either.

3. Even IF I accept 1 and/or 2 are true you can't just legally assign the title of "reasonable" person to yourself. Everyone thinks they are reasonable. Meaningless. I think it's "reasonable" to sit in your home and not get shot by some dumb broad wandering in and opening fire because a full duty day apparently turns her into a rage zombie, crazy that.

4. Yet again I wonder where this conversation of excuses and "yeah buts" and fan fiction are in other cases.

 

[Trebuchet]

Yes, I apologize, that's what I was referring to is that the city will end up paying a handsome lawsuit.

No apologies necessary!

 

[cullennz]

Interesting read

https://newsone.com/3882962/dallas-media-amber-guyger-fair-trial-botham-jean-killing/

 

[Distracted1]

1. Well I can't actually imagine myself walking into the wrong apartment, not noticing I was in the wrong apartment and staying in a perfect balance of "light enough to tell there is a person in my apartment but dark enough so I can't notice IT'S NOT MY GODDAMN BLOODY APARTMENT AND THE PERSON IN IT ISN'T ARMED" to draw my gun and shoot them and I've been awake a LOT longer then "All day OMG the inhumanity of it all" and handled a weapon.

2. I don't really believe anyone else does either.

3. Even IF I accept 1 and/or 2 are true you can't just legally assign the title of "reasonable" person to yourself. Everyone thinks they are reasonable. Meaningless. I think it's "reasonable" to sit in your home and not get shot by some dumb broad wandering in and opening fire because a full duty day apparently turns her into a rage zombie, crazy that.

4. Yet again I wonder where this conversation of excuses and "yeah buts" and fan fiction are in other cases.

You can point to another case that is as unusual as this?