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

[Bob001]

True, but it certainly fits with at least manslaughter.

As has been noted, "manslaughter" in Texas doesn't mean what it may mean in some other states. Deliberately pointing a gun at someone and shooting at them twice is not just "reckless," like say, drunk driving or cleaning a loaded gun in a crowded room. It is intent to kill, and murder is the right charge.

https://www.medlinfirm.com/blog/the-difference-between-manslaughter-and-murder-in-texas/
https://www.jedsilverman.com/blog/2017/march/murder-vs-manslaughter-charges-in-texas/

 

[Distracted1]

These Yosemite Sam fantasies are great till you kill the plumber in your apartment building. Then maybe you stop and think about how good an idea these OK Corral laws in Texas are. Hopefully the people of Texas will consider this, much like other countries who clamp down on guns when they hit their bad scenarios.

 

[Belz...]

These Yosemite Sam fantasies are great till you kill the plumber in your apartment building. Then maybe you stop and think about how good an idea these OK Corral laws in Texas are. Hopefully the people of Texas will consider this, much like other countries who clamp down on guns when they hit their bad scenarios.

The closest thing to an OK Corral law was actually one banning weapons in the town of Tombstone, actually. So not a great choice by you.

 

[theprestige]

You missed out manslaughter. If firing a gun randomly and recklessly killing someone is manslaughter, then what she did was worse.

What's worse? Firing recklessly, or firing mindfully based on faulty information?

 

[Thermal]

The closest thing to an OK Corral law was actually one banning weapons in the town of Tombstone, actually. So not a great choice by you.

Thought I was going to get read the riot act for doubling the 'r' in corral. Near miss, that

 

[Distracted1]

Thought I was going to get read the riot act for doubling the 'r' in corral. Near miss, that

I am often asked to provide estimates for contracting work that require me to inspect the outside of a home while the owner is at work.
I routinely ask if there is access to the area, if there are dogs, and half jokingly -if there are neighbors with itchy trigger fingers.

 

[Thermal]

What's worse? Firing recklessly, or firing mindfully based on faulty information?

The latter, by leaps and bounds. So much more so when there was no imminent threat visible to the trains and armed cop, and a multitude of options at her disposal. There should be no provision for absent- mindedly executing a guy minding his own business at home. In a sane world, anyway.

 

[jimbob]

What's worse? Firing recklessly, or firing mindfully based on faulty information?

The latter, by leaps and bounds. So much more so when there was no imminent threat visible to the trains and armed cop, and a multitude of options at her disposal. There should be no provision for absent- mindedly executing a guy minding his own business at home. In a sane world, anyway.

Yup.

And she didn't have faulty information. She mads a series of outrageous false assumptions culminating in the idea that someone in their own apartment was a threat to her. IF ONE IS BEING GENEROUS TO HER.

Even if it had been her apartment, he wasn't trying to get into it, and she gave him no chance to explain himself - or if she did, she wasn't listening.

I know theprestige doesn't like analogies, but in this case it's like someone forgetting where her home was, going to someone else's house and shooting the lawful inhabitant when she sees him there.

I suck at analogies.

 

[Thermal]

I am often asked to provide estimates for contracting work that require me to inspect the outside of a home while the owner is at work.
I routinely ask if there is access to the area, if there are dogs, and half jokingly -if there are neighbors with itchy trigger fingers.

Preach. I do service on rental properties where I will not set foot till a text confirmation of my arrival. Haven't had a gun pulled on me but have had tenants who seemed unhappily surprised to have company

 

[Darat]

Except that whether she was reasonable in her expectation to be at her home is central to that question. If she was (she wasn't) then she could be expected to defend her home.







If her expectation was reasonable, which it wasn't.

We have to be careful not to forget we are only able to use the limited information we have at this time and base our judgements on that, so of course the below may alter when we here the evidence at the trial.

Now according to what we know the following happened.


She came home from work in her uniform with her gun loaded and stored as she would have when on duty.
She went to her apartment, we know she didn't but some argue going to the wrong address is a mistake many people could make. This is the "mistake of fact".
She (this is a point we have very little clarity) apparently found her door already opened.
She entered the apartment (thinking it is her apartment again the "mistake of fact")
She saw someone - no mistake here there was someone in the apartment
She at that point decided to kill that person - there is no mistake of fact in this decision
She drew her weapon - she did not think she was pulling out an unloaded gun or a taser so no mistake of fact in that action
She aimed - again no mistake or accident at this point, she did what she intended to do
She fired her gun - again no mistake or accident here, her finger didn't slip, she didn't stumble and accidentally fire her gun.
She aimed the gun - the same as above
She fired her gun - again no mistake, no accidental firing

This is why I keep saying the "mistake of fact" only gets her to the wrong apartment, it played no part in her decision to try and then succeed at killing Jean.

 

[Distracted1]

We have to be careful not to forget we are only able to use the limited information we have at this time and base our judgements on that, so of course the below may alter when we here the evidence at the trial.

Now according to what we know the following happened.


She came home from work in her uniform with her gun loaded and stored as she would have when on duty.
She went to her apartment, we know she didn't but some argue going to the wrong address is a mistake many people could make. This is the "mistake of fact".
She (this is a point we have very little clarity) apparently found her door already opened.
She entered the apartment (thinking it is her apartment again the "mistake of fact")
She saw someone - no mistake here there was someone in the apartment
She at that point decided to kill that person - there is no mistake of fact in this decision
She drew her weapon - she did not think she was pulling out an unloaded gun or a taser so no mistake of fact in that action
She aimed - again no mistake or accident at this point, she did what she intended to do
She fired her gun - again no mistake or accident here, her finger didn't slip, she didn't stumble and accidentally fire her gun.
She aimed the gun - the same as above
She fired her gun - again no mistake, no accidental firing

This is why I keep saying the "mistake of fact" only gets her to the wrong apartment, it played no part in her decision to try and then succeed at killing Jean.

With reservation at item 6, (you do not know what she "decided to do" WRT killing Mr. Jean- or more specifically when she decided this) conceded every item.

Question for you.
If you remove the second item from your list, have you described a legal killing?

Edit, in case my question is not clear.
Had it actually been the apartment she thought it was, have you described a legal killing?

 

[Darat]

With reservation at item 6, (you do not know what she "decided to do" WRT killing Mr. Jean- or more specifically when she decided this) conceded every item.

Question for you.
If you remove the second item from your list, have you described a legal killing?

Edit, in case my question is not clear.
Had it actually been the apartment she thought it was, have you described a legal killing?

She aimed and fired her weapon at someone, firing a gun at someone is intentionally trying to kill them, that is why they are known as "lethal weapons" .

Why do you want to discuss different circumstances, she is being tried on what she actually did not on some other event. That said I don't know why anyone would think much changes if it is her apartment.

 

[Distracted1]

She aimed and fired her weapon at someone, firing a gun at someone is intentionally trying to kill them, that is why they are known as "lethal weapons" .

Why do you want to discuss different circumstances, she is being tried on what she actually did not on some other event. That said I don't know why anyone would think much changes if it is her apartment.

WRT your first paragraph:
Indeed. Firing a gun at someone is clearly an attempt to kill them, however, your timeline has her deciding to fire it before confronting Mr.Jean. That seems like an important distinction.
She may have done that, but there is little evidence to suggest that is the case.

WRT your second paragraph:

Primarily because it would seem to be an entirely legal killing if it were her apartment.

That she believed that it was, brings legal concepts into play meant to prevent someone who does something that is possibly illegal by mistake from always being considered criminals.
If the act would have been legal had she not been mistaken then one of the barriers to the application of that principle is eliminated.

Earlier,a poster pointed out that in the Oscar Pastorious incident whether or not he truly believed there was an intruder in his bathroom was essentially a moot point because even if there was he would still have been breaking the law by shooting through the door.

It seems that is not the case here, and if her assesment had been correct she would not have been breaking the law.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

I'd say there's a relative difference between shooting to kill someone you assumed was out to harm you without do anything to verify, and shooting to kill someone whom you knew wasn't a threat just because you wanted them dead.

That's called "imperfect self-defense". That basically means the person honestly believed they were acting in self-defense even though that belief was not reasonable. That would only be a mitigating factor, not absolution of a crime.

Texas law does not have such a distinction. However, such circumstances would likely be considered in sentencing (I wouldn't be surprised if it is in sentencing guidelines). And such circumstances might be considered by a jury in determining which level of offense a person is guilty of, simply because a jury can kind of do what they want.

 

[Thermal]

WRT your first paragraph:
Indeed. Firing a gun at someone is clearly an attempt to kill them, however, your timeline has her deciding to fire it before confronting Mr.Jean. That seems like an important distinction.
She may have done that, but there is little evidence to suggest that is the case.

WRT your second paragraph:

Primarily because it would seem to be an entirely legal killing if it were her apartment.

That she believed that it was, brings legal concepts into play meant to prevent someone who does something that is possibly illegal by mistake from always being considered criminals.
If the act would have been legal had she not been mistaken then one of the barriers to the application of that principle is eliminated.

Earlier,a poster pointed out that in the Oscar Pastorious incident whether or not he truly believed there was an intruder in his bathroom was essentially a moot point because even if there was he would still have been breaking the law by shooting through the door.

It seems that is not the case here, and if her assesment had been correct she would not have been breaking the law.

I don't think so. I'm no lawyer, but my lay reading of Texas law regarding use of deadly force in self defense (linked below) makes me think it was still not justified.

For example,Texas has the condition that the actor must reasonably believe deadly force was necessary. I think the prosecution will argue that she does not meet this standard, as she claims she could not even see him. The statute goes on to list other requirements, including specifically what must be met to be reasonable. She fails on each count to meet the standard. Even for the lamest of justifications, that of imminent intent to commit a robbery, I would expect the prosecution to argue that she had no actual reason to believe this. Suspicion, sure, but no more. And you can't pop a couple rounds based on suspicion.

https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-32.html

 

[ShadowSot]

I believe there's more than a few cases where an assumption is made that someone was attempting to break into a house.
Only for it to be a friend of family member who was shot dead dead due to the mistake.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

This is why I keep saying the "mistake of fact" only gets her to the wrong apartment, it played no part in her decision to try and then succeed at killing Jean.

That is correct. A mistake of fact in entering the wrong apartment is not a justification for the intentional killing. I think it was undisputedly an intentional killing.

The importance of the mistake of fact is that if there was no mistake of fact (she actually knew she was going into the wrong apartment) then she was committing a crime and therefore cannot claim self-defense.

If entering the apartment was a mistake of fact, then she can claim self-defense. It doesn't mean it automatically is self-defense. It simply means that claim can be made.

Then, the big question is whether or not it was self-defense. Specifically whether it was self-defense that justified using deadly force.

For that question, we simply do not have enough information. We don't know what happened in that apartment. Maybe something happened where Guyger had a legitimate reason to believe that deadly force was immediately necessary. Or maybe she didn't.

We simply do not have enough information at this time to determine whether or not a self-defense claim is legitimate. Guyger will have the burden of proof. We know that Jean did not have a gun or other weapon. On the 911 call Guyger only said he did not follow commands; she did not say she thought he had a weapon. So, Guyger will have some explaining to do. But she has been tight-lipped about what happened. And so have the police. Until we hear the evidence, we can't make a firm judgment on this claim.

Even if self-defense is accepted, there still becomes the question of criminal negligence. That would mean Guyger legitimately thought she was going to her own apartment and reasonably believed she was facing a threat warranting deadly force. But was she criminally negligent in creating the circumstance that resulted in Jean's death?

She was certainly erroneous. She was wrong. But the question of whether she was criminally negligent is a different matter. It is not an easy matter because of the complications of the circumstances and the significance of the consequences. If it was just a matter of someone walking into someone else's apartment, realizing they were in the wrong place, and then leaving; then it would be easier.

But this case isn't easy. We can't put blinders on and look at one thing in isolation and declare guilt or innocence. We must consider the totality, which has back-and-forth issues of offenses and defenses. Just focusing on one offense or defense gets us nothing but around and around.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

I believe there's more than a few cases where an assumption is made that someone was attempting to break into a house.
Only for it to be a friend of family member who was shot dead dead due to the mistake.

For that, castle doctrine would usually apply. But castle doctrine in most states (and in Texas) only applies when someone breaks into their home while they are in their home. It doesn't apply when someone goes into their home finds someone.

 

[jimbob]

I believe there's more than a few cases where an assumption is made that someone was attempting to break into a house.
Only for it to be a friend of family member who was shot dead dead due to the mistake.

Yes, but in those cases the shooter was already in the house and someone was trying to get in.

That's a lot easier to understand.

 

[ShadowSot]

Yes, but in those cases the shooter was already in the house and someone was trying to get in.

That's a lot easier to understand.

My point is it seems there should be a requirement to make at least an attempt to identify the supposed intruder. Makes it less likely to shoot a child, or spouse, or friend who's supposed to be there.

I don't specifically see it that much different, personally, but I can understand legally it is.