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

[plague311]

Levely? Really?

Really, really.

If you say that he was sitting at the counter eating cereal and did not run at her, you are stating as fact sever things at once that are not on the record.

Ah, there we have it. I don't think he was sitting at the counter, nor do I think there's evidence he was. I think he was sitting on his couch, and put his cereal down when he heard the noise. The bowl, in the video, wasn't on the counter. The best I could tell it was on a fabric covered...something. I want to say an ottoman maybe? The video I watched had a rather close up view of the bowl so I couldn't see the surroundings.

Was he not said to have been watching football earlier?

Well...I mean. You can eat cereal and watch football at the same time.

If he was sitting at the counter, he would seemed to have moved quite a bit to where his body lay.

I think it is just as likely he was watching the game and jumped up at the ruckus at his door. I sure would have. But it sounds more Dewey-eyed to claim he was just eating his bweakfast and was a sitting duck.

He was a sitting duck, and I would argue he was the very definition of a sitting duck. Relaxed in his house when someone bursts in and shoots at him. You can't get much more sitting duck than that.

Not calling you to the carpet, man. Just noticing when details are cherry picked for effect.

I'm not cherry picking anything. I'm looking at the evidence available and coming to a conclusion I feel is logical.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Your eta: you got it. I think she should be up on murder 2., plain and simple. But every torqued detail, every fleshed out narrative, every spun representation, is a step towards pitchforks and nooses instead of reason.

Because we don't agree that "all the details" change things. In fact many of us find them frankly insane.

We also don't agree with putting this much effort into finding and discussing those details in this one case.

 

[Distracted1]

The point is, why are you asking how Jean's activities are being considered when it's of no relevance?

Dave

ETA: Think I see what you mean; are people betraying their anti-Guyger bias by showing pro-Jean bias. Still, hard to see how bias can make Guyger's actions much worse than they were. Any verdict short of negligent homicide would be a travesty.

Of course Jeans' actions are relevant. In as much as it can be deduced what they actually were.
Also relavent are what the laws are in the Municipality wherein the acts took place.
As well as the state of mind of the people involved.

 

[Distracted1]

Jean is not on trial, and his right to be present in his own home is not in question. If he had, on Guyger forcing his door open, taken a gun and emptied the magazine into her chest, he would not be guilty of a crime under Texas law (though a biased jury might find him guilty of one). It matters not one jot how innocent his activities were; Guyger had no reasonable cause to break into his apartment and shoot him dead.

Dave

You are using the term "forced" when describing how the door opened.
What do you mean by that?

BTW, I agree that, had Jean shot Guyger, it would probably have been legal. Why do you think it would be?

 

[Thermal]

Really, really.

Looking at something levely means being level headed. Even and impartial and all.

Ah, there we have it. I don't think he was sitting at the counter, nor do I think there's evidence he was. I think he was sitting on his couch...

Here's the part that threw me, then:

He was sitting at his counter eating a ******* bowl of cereal. He wasn't "coming for" her at all....

I think everything she did was criminally inexcusable. Murder freaking 2. But I also think Distracted1 made a fair point in questioning how much was being plugged into the narrative. Its not apologetics to acknowledge a small factual assumption or error. As a human, I'd like to see her in jail as a murderer. As a skeptic, I'd like to see rational discussion, even in irrelevant details. On everything consequential, we are in agreement I think

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Jean is not on trial, and his right to be present in his own home is not in question. If he had, on Guyger forcing his door open, taken a gun and emptied the magazine into her chest, he would not be guilty of a crime under Texas law (though a biased jury might find him guilty of one). It matters not one jot how innocent his activities were; Guyger had no reasonable cause to break into his apartment and shoot him dead.

Dave

Indeed. He could have been doing rails of cocaine off the back of a underage sex slave while taking a break from building a dirty bomb to sell to ISIS and it wouldn't matter. He was in his home and Guyger was unlawfully entering and then unlawfully killed him. He would have had every right to confront her and use violence to disarm, incapacitate, apprehend, and/or remove her from the home (within reason).

This is a bit of thorny legal question, almost like something from a law school exam, because it may be the case that Guyger honestly thought she was in the right. Maybe that will change what exact criminal charge she is guilty of, depending on how those laws are defined and how they deal with the intent of the criminal, but the killing was a crime. Suggesting that this is a civil matter and not criminal is absurd. She is guilty of something, and her defense lawyers job is to try to convince a jury that what she is guilty of is the least severe crime possible given the facts.

 

[Thermal]

Because we don't agree that "all the details" change things. In fact many of us find them frankly insane.

We also don't agree with putting this much effort into finding and discussing those details in this one case.

I made a short comment agreeing with Distracted1's observation that details were getting shifty. He was right. I really don't think it warrants all this discussion.

She murdered an innocent man, entirely through her own actions. Embelleshment and add-ons are really not needed on this puppy. The facts stand alone.

 

[Distracted1]

Indeed. He could have been doing rails of cocaine off the back of a underage sex slave while taking a break from building a dirty bomb to sell to ISIS and it wouldn't matter. He was in his home and Guyger was unlawfully entering and then unlawfully killed him. He would have had every right to confront her and use violence to disarm, incapacitate, apprehend, and/or remove her from the home (within reason).

This is a bit of thorny legal question, almost like something from a law school exam, because it may be the case that Guyger honestly thought she was in the right. Maybe that will change what exact criminal charge she is guilty of, depending on how those laws are defined and how they deal with the intent of the criminal, but the killing was a crime. Suggesting that this is a civil matter and not criminal is absurd. She is guilty of something, and her defense lawyers job is to try to convince a jury that what she is guilty of is the least severe crime possible given the facts.

As this progresses, you may find yourself backtracking that opinion.

If it is demonstrated that "mistake of fact" can be exculpatory. And you start noticing that even the limited sample size this forum permits generates a number of people (as it already has) who find her mistake a reasonable one. You may notice that the discussion swings back to how Guyger decided to shoot (an action that may be entirely legal in Texas- without a duty to retreat)
When this occurs you might notice a number of posters asserting that Jean was "just sitting there eating cereal" or some such. At this point, Jeans' actions will all of a sudden become relavent again to some of the posters currently asserting that his actions have no relavence.

Like "whack a mole"

 

[Thermal]

As this progresses, you may find yourself backtracking that opinion.

If it is demonstrated that "mistake of fact" can be exculpatory. And you start noticing that even the limited sample size this forum permits generates a number of people (as it already has) who find her mistake a reasonable one. You may notice that the discussion swings back to how Guyger decided to shoot (an action that may be entirely legal in Texas- without a duty to retreat)
When this occurs you might notice a number of posters asserting that Jean was "just sitting there eating cereal" or some such. At this point, Jeans' actions will all of a sudden become relavent again to some of the posters currently asserting that his actions have no relavence.

Like "whack a mole"

What I am hoping is that while mistake of fact may excuse her entering the wrong apartment, it will not be found to excuse reckless disregard of life. As mentioned upthread, a maintenance or other emergency worker could have been there, as well as an intruder. She showed utter disregard for other human lives no matter where she thought she was. Actually, not just disregard. She didn't give a fat rats ass who they were. They just didn't deserve to live. **** her.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

As this progresses, you may find yourself backtracking that opinion.

If it is demonstrated that "mistake of fact" can be exculpatory. And you start noticing that even the limited sample size this forum permits generates a number of people (as it already has) who find her mistake a reasonable one. You may notice that the discussion swings back to how Guyger decided to shoot (an action that may be entirely legal in Texas- without a duty to retreat)
When this occurs you might notice a number of posters asserting that Jean was "just sitting there eating cereal" or some such. At this point, Jeans' actions will all of a sudden become relavent again to some of the posters currently asserting that his actions have no relavence.

Like "whack a mole"

Exculpatory is a bold claim. Her incorrect perception of the situation may be a mitigating factor in her guilt, but I don't think it will be exculpatory. She may catch a lower level charge, something akin to manslaughter, rather than murder, but outright exoneration seems like long odds to me.

The only person in this scenario who had an unambiguous right to use force in self defense without a duty to retreat is the victim who was killed.

 

[JoeMorgue]

As this progresses, you may find yourself backtracking that opinion.

If it is demonstrated that "mistake of fact" can be exculpatory. And you start noticing that even the limited sample size this forum permits generates a number of people (as it already has) who find her mistake a reasonable one. You may notice that the discussion swings back to how Guyger decided to shoot (an action that may be entirely legal in Texas- without a duty to retreat)
When this occurs you might notice a number of posters asserting that Jean was "just sitting there eating cereal" or some such. At this point, Jeans' actions will all of a sudden become relavent again to some of the posters currently asserting that his actions have no relavence.

Like "whack a mole"

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT HE WAS DOING IN HIS OWN HOME.

He wasn't a threat to her. She had no reason to think he was.

This goddamn utterly insane "Well she thought the situation was totally different" nonsense is racist apologetic crap.

This chick is gonna walk because some lawyer is going to sell the jury on the exact same apologetics people here are using.

 

[plague311]

Looking at something levely means being level headed. Even and impartial and all.

Right, but levely isn't a word that I have ever seen before. I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist in the English language, but either way I get it.

Here's the part that threw me, then:

I think everything she did was criminally inexcusable. Murder freaking 2. But I also think Distracted1 made a fair point in questioning how much was being plugged into the narrative. Its not apologetics to acknowledge a small factual assumption or error. As a human, I'd like to see her in jail as a murderer. As a skeptic, I'd like to see rational discussion, even in irrelevant details. On everything consequential, we are in agreement I think

Noted, I phrased that before I had looked at the CNN video and was working off of memory.

The discussion I have been having isn't emotionally based. My point is that you guys seem to dismiss everything up to the point of shooting as if it didn't exist. Then you say, "Well, she saw a man in her apartment, thought it was a robber, and shot him." If anything that fits more into the definition of cherry picking than anything else.

She is responsible for all of her actions. She's responsible for where she parked, for going in an apartment that wasn't hers, for approaching that apartment at all, for opening a closed door, for not seeing the numerous clues that should have pointed her to the fact it wasn't her apartment.

Then, to go even further, according to reports she turned the lights on, and without even bothering to take a mental inventory, repeatedly shot at a man that was in his own home.

I get it's easy to dismiss all of that as if it's a side note but it isn't.

ETA: In fact, she even claimed that the door was ajar before she walked into it. Which means she had the keen awareness to notice the door was ajar but didn't even pause to call out before going into her apartment when she was under the impression that someone was already in it. Negligent homicide.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Still waiting on an answer on what crimes wouldn't be invalidated by just going "LOL I thought the situation was different."

 

[Belz...]

Right, but levely isn't a word that I have ever seen before. I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist in the English language, but either way I get it.

It's not even a word, actually, which makes Thermal's incredulous response to your request even more silly.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It's not even a word, actually, which makes Thermal's incredulous response to your request even more silly.

But it's a perfect little hijack to keep the threat going so more seeds can be planted about why this chick should walk.

 

[Belz...]

But it's a perfect little hijack to keep the threat going so more seeds can be planted about why this chick should walk.

Thermal's been pretty clear that he thinks she shouldn't, so I don't think you're being fair here. I just think he should've consulted a dictionary first to make sure the word existed when it was obvious no one understood what the hell he was talking about.

 

[Thermal]

It's not even a word, actually, which makes Thermal's incredulous response to your request even more silly.

Proper word or (evidently) not, could you glean its pretty clear meaning in context?

 

[Thermal]

But it's a perfect little hijack to keep the threat going so more seeds can be planted about why this chick should walk.

Dude, not only should she not walk, she should be strung up. You seriously have me confused with another poster for like a ******* year now

 

[Dr. Keith]

Dude, not only should she not walk, she should be strung up. You seriously have me confused with another poster for like a ******* year now

If you don't agree with me on every single detail then you pretty much think Guyger is Princess Dianna. We've been over this before.

 

[plague311]

It's not even a word, actually, which makes Thermal's incredulous response to your request even more silly.

Thank God, I thought I was losing my mind. Which is something that regularly happens in my world.

Thermal's been pretty clear that he thinks she shouldn't, so I don't think you're being fair here. I just think he should've consulted a dictionary first to make sure the word existed when it was obvious no one understood what the hell he was talking about.

I agree that Thermal thinks she deserves some form of punishment. I think that the conversation right now boils down to what level of punishment it requires.

I also believe that there are no excuses for what she did, and the "stand your ground" law is completely and entirely irrelevant. She had no need to stand her ground because it wasn't her ground to stand on.