• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Distracted1 said:
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.
Click to expand...


The water heater in her apartment springs a leak and starts flooding out the apartments below.

The property managers send in a plumber to stop the flooding. It's an emergency and they can't get in touch with her to make arrangements for the plumber's visit.

The plumber gets the leak stopped and sits down for a moment to rest.

She comes home, opens the door, and sees a stranger sitting in her apartment.

Quickly pulling out her handgun she shoots him ... twice ... killing him.

Is that an "entirely legal killing"?

If it is it shouldn't be.

On the feasibility side of this scenario, a clinic I go to in a small two story office building office had the water heater in the office upstairs spring a leak which ran overnight and flooded their downstairs office to the point that it took a couple of months for all the damage to be repaired enough for them to re-occupy it. They're moving back in tomorrow morning.

Into the upstairs office.

(I am not making this up. :))
 
Last edited:
Distracted1 said:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/michigan-man-shoots-wife-mistaking-intruder-sheriff/story?id=64317617

Happens all the time.
Often with no charges brought.
Click to expand...

Jesus Goddamn Christ.

*Grabs you by the lapels and screams it right in your face*

IN... THEIR... HOMES... NOT... SOMEONE... ELSE'S.

You can't break into someone else's house, shoot them, and then claim you thought you were defending yourself from an intruder in your own home.

Stop trying to set precedence by citing cases where the core issue of this case isn't there. The fact that it wasn't here apartment isn't some minor side detail you can ignore to make a point.

And no it doesn't matter that she "thought" differently.
 
Last edited:
quadraginta said:
The water heater in her apartment springs a leak and starts flooding out the apartments below.

The property managers send in a plumber to stop the flooding. It's an emergency and they can't get in touch with her to make arrangements for the plumber's visit.

The plumber gets the leak stopped and sits down for a moment to rest.

She comes home, opens the door, and sees a stranger sitting in her apartment.

Quickly pulling out her handgun she shoots him ... twice ... killing him.

Is that an "entirely legal killing"?

If it is it shouldn't be.

On the feasibility side of this scenario, a clinic I go to in a small two story office building office had the water heater in the office upstairs spring a leak which ran overnight and flooded their downstairs office to the point that it took a couple of months for all the damage to be repaired enough for them to re-occupy it. They're moving back in tomorrow morning.

Into the upstairs office.

(I am not making this up. :))
Click to expand...
I agree that it should not be.

But it might be anyway, in some places.

I don't agree with the Designated Hitter. That does not mean an American League team is cheating when they put the extra batter in the lineup.
 
Distracted1 said:
I agree that it should not be.

But it might be anyway, in some places.

I don't agree with the Designated Hitter. That does not mean an American League team is cheating when they put the extra batter in the lineup.
Click to expand...

If the extra batter walks into the wrong game at the wrong stadium, it's cheating.

Oh wait I'm sorry it's not because "Mistake of fact."
 
Distracted1 said:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/michigan-man-shoots-wife-mistaking-intruder-sheriff/story?id=64317617

Happens all the time.
Often with no charges brought.
Click to expand...

The fact that some local DA or sheriff decided to not bring charges is not at all instructive to the nature of the law. The person cited in your story could have easily been charged with some crime for this homicide, as others have been in the past. This says nothing about the letter of the law and a lot about the power of prosecutor discretion. Prosecutor discretion is not at issue because Guyger has been charged. Citing this other case is pointless.

One might wonder why the negligent killing of another is being treated as a "no harm, no foul" offence by the local police in that situation, but that's a matter for local politics.

Another example is hot car deaths of children. Sometimes parents are charged, sometimes not. The difference is prosecutor discretion, not the law.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
I can personally guarantee you that it IS illegal to break into someone else's home and shoot them twice in Texas.
Click to expand...

That is not in question.

However, It IS Legal to shoot someone in your own home, if you thought it was an intruder. As long as you stipulate that, then the jury will have some D-Liberatin' to do.
 
Drewbot said:
That is not in question.

However, It IS Legal to shoot someone in your own home, if you thought it was an intruder. As long as you stipulate that, then the jury will have some D-Liberatin' to do.
Click to expand...

*Sighs* Why do I even bother?
 
plague311 said:
But she didn't fire the gun randomly. She fired it with a specific intent, and that intent was to kill someone.
Click to expand...

Your mind-reading skills are amazing.

Do you think that a person facing an immediate threat is trying to neutralize the threat, or thinking they are killing a person?

The intent was to stop the threat in 'her' apartment.

The intent was not i'm going to kill this man in 'my' apartment.
 
Drewbot said:
Your mind-reading skills are amazing.

Do you think that a person facing an immediate threat is trying to neutralize the threat, or thinking they are killing a person?

The intent was to stop the threat in 'her' apartment.

The intent was not i'm going to kill this man in 'my' apartment.
Click to expand...

Oh hogwash doublespeak nonsense. She didn't think her gun shot magical healing bullets. She's a cop she knows how bullets work.

Oh wait maybe it did since this broad's thoughts just recreated the reality around her so that she was in her apartment shooting at the scawwwy black man.

YOUR INTENT DOESN'T GIVE YOU A BLANK CHECK IF YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT EVERY SINGLE ASPECT OF THE SITUATION YOU'RE IN.
 
So okay let me now sum up everything this chick was wrong about.

- That shooting bullets at someone will kill them
- What apartment she was in
- Whether or not the person in the apartment was armed/threatening

But the magical "Get out of murdering the black guy" card is that we have to just trust her judgement.

Here's a radical idea... no.
 
**** why stop at "in her home."

"But it would be legal to shoot if she was in her home, protecting the Pope, and Jean was coming at her riding an armored Golden Tiger dual wielding mini-guns while high on angel dust."
 
Last edited:
Okay let's try this from another angle.

Let's take the base facts.

Guyger enters the wrong apartment and shoots Jean twice. Jean was not armed or threatening Guyver.

So the question I pose to the Guyver apologist is... what would make YOU think that is a crime? But, and this is the important part, you can't refer to any internal state of mind of Guyver or change any of facts not in dispute. (i.e. no fan fiction, I know it's gonna be hard for some of you.)

Because if you can't answer that question you ARE defending Guyver and saying she is innocent regardless of your cries to the contrary.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Okay let's try this from another angle.

Let's take the base facts.

Guyger enters the wrong apartment and shoots Jean twice. Jean was not armed or threatening Guyver.

So the question I pose to the Guyver apologist is... what would make YOU think that is a crime? But, and this is the important part, you can't refer to any internal state of mind of Guyver or change any of facts not in dispute. (i.e. no fan fiction, I know it's gonna be hard for some of you.)

Because if you can't answer that question you ARE defending Guyver and saying she is innocent regardless of your cries to the contrary.
Click to expand...
I think its probably good that Jean didnt shoot her dead, as then he could have been charged with murdering someone in their own apartment!
 
Drewbot said:
Your mind-reading skills are amazing.

Do you think that a person facing an immediate threat is trying to neutralize the threat, or thinking they are killing a person?
Click to expand...

A distinction without a difference. At the very least anyone that has a gun, let alone a police officer, should understand that the result of firing a gun at someone is commonly death. At the very least, as Darat said, they should understand they are using a lethal weapon. I don't have to read her mind. If she had no intent to kill him she could have used a non lethal weapon, tried asking questions instead of shooting, turned on the lights, retreated, evaluated the situation. There are a myriad of things she could have done, but didn't.

Drewbot said:
The intent was to stop the threat in 'her' apartment.
Click to expand...

There was no threat, and that wasn't her apartment.

Drewbot said:
The intent was not i'm going to kill this man in 'my' apartment.
Click to expand...

Now who's reading minds? At least don't be a hypocrite if you're going to call me out, eh?
 
Drewbot said:
Your mind-reading skills are amazing.



Do you think that a person facing an immediate threat is trying to neutralize the threat, or thinking they are killing a person?



The intent was to stop the threat in 'her' apartment.



The intent was not i'm going to kill this man in 'my' apartment.
Click to expand...
Unless she knew nothing about firearms then her decision to shoot at someone is the same as intentionally trying to kill someone. Guns are often known as lethal weapons for a reason.
 
Darat said:
I think its probably good that Jean didnt shoot her dead, as then he could have been charged with murdering someone in their own apartment!
Click to expand...

Why Darat surely you aren't suggesting that if the big scawwwy black man had shot the tiny widdle frail white lady cop when she burst through his door for no reason the apologist wouldn't be just as concerned with how tired he was and what he honestly believed at the moment and writing 80 pages of fan fiction across two threads where they role play as members of his legal defense team?

Surely you aren't suggesting such a thing....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom