• 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.
Whip said:
I read this and roar as there was no one in her apartment.
Click to expand...

I love how airtight of a case the Guyver apologist have made for why it would have been perfectly okay for Jean to shoot Guyver which again makes the fact that we wouldn't be having this discussion if that is what had happened all the more distasteful.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
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.
Click to expand...
Guygers' case was sent to a Grand Jury.
It took three days to decide to indict.
 
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...

If the mistake of fact defense is allowed, then the defense will be presenting expert testimony that walking into the wrong apartment, after a long shift, was reasonable, the jury will be instructed that it is the defendant's state of mind that is at issue. If the jury decides that the mistake of fact was legitimate, and there was no intent to walk into a stranger's apartment and shoot the resident, then all murder charges are out.

If the jury accepts the Mistake of fact argument, then even negligence will be ruled out. If Mistake of fact accepted by jury, then, there is no mens rea, they will have to look at it as someone walking into their home, and encountering someone in the dark. That is not murder.
 
It may not be murder, but it's insane.

As Joe pointed out EVERY crime could be defended this way, so long as some tortuous fan-fic of reasonable state of mind can be weaved.
 
Drewbot said:
If the mistake of fact defense is allowed, then the defense will be presenting expert testimony that walking into the wrong apartment, after a long shift, was reasonable, the jury will be instructed that it is the defendant's state of mind that is at issue. If the jury decides that the mistake of fact was legitimate, and there was no intent to walk into a stranger's apartment and shoot the resident, then all murder charges are out.

If the jury accepts the Mistake of fact argument, then even negligence will be ruled out. If Mistake of fact accepted by jury, then, there is no mens rea, they will have to look at it as someone walking into their home, and encountering someone in the dark. That is not murder.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask what the hypothetical jury you're role playing as a defense attorney in front in of in your self insert fan fiction thinks, I asked what you think.
 
Drewbot said:
If the mistake of fact defense is allowed, then the defense will be presenting expert testimony that walking into the wrong apartment, after a long shift, was reasonable, the jury will be instructed that it is the defendant's state of mind that is at issue. If the jury decides that the mistake of fact was legitimate, and there was no intent to walk into a stranger's apartment and shoot the resident, then all murder charges are out.

If the jury accepts the Mistake of fact argument, then even negligence will be ruled out. If Mistake of fact accepted by jury, then, there is no mens rea, they will have to look at it as someone walking into their home, and encountering someone in the dark. That is not murder.
Click to expand...

You keep stating these things as fact after it's been explained to you multiple times that what you're saying isn't the way it works. At all.
 
"If a jury decides water isn't wet, then water isn't wet" isn't how the justice system A) works or B) should work no matter how much that it gets repeated.

And the "I'm not saying that I personally think water isn't wet, nosiree, but I'm going argue long and hard, past the point of sanity, of making sure everyone knows that I think if a jury says it that's just how it is" is also done, I'm done arguing against it. It's stupid and wrong and racist apologetics.
 
Distracted1 said:
Guygers' case was sent to a Grand Jury.
It took three days to decide to indict.
Click to expand...

The only mention of three days I see is that local authorities dragged their heels for three days after the killing before charging Guyger with manslaughter. The reluctance of police to hold their own accountable says very little about the strength of the case against Guyger.

A later Grand Jury returned an indictment for murder, though they had the option for returning a lesser charge or no charge at all. I see nothing to indicate that this was a legally difficult decision.
 
plague311 said:
Source? By this do you mean it took 3 days to decide to indict or it took 3 days to present to the grand jury? I haven't seen a link to this.
Click to expand...
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/cou...-indict-amber-guyger-today-botham-jeans-death

From the link:

"The attorneys were unsure why the grand jury proceedings had stretched over multiple days, but they took it as a sign that the district attorney's office was handling the case with "professionalism and seriousness," Merritt said.
"This has taken much longer than even the Jordan Edwards case, where there were more live witnesses," said Daryl Washington, another attorney for the family. "We don't know why it's taken this long, but the one thing that we hope that happens is the right decision comes out of this grand jury room.' "
 
Distracted1 said:
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/cou...-indict-amber-guyger-today-botham-jeans-death

From the link:

"The attorneys were unsure why the grand jury proceedings had stretched over multiple days, but they took it as a sign that the district attorney's office was handling the case with "professionalism and seriousness," Merritt said.
"This has taken much longer than even the Jordan Edwards case, where there were more live witnesses," said Daryl Washington, another attorney for the family. "We don't know why it's taken this long, but the one thing that we hope that happens is the right decision comes out of this grand jury room.' "
Click to expand...

Ok, so they presented evidence for 3 days. It didn't take them 3 days to indict her.
 
Distracted1 said:
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/cou...-indict-amber-guyger-today-botham-jeans-death

From the link:

"The attorneys were unsure why the grand jury proceedings had stretched over multiple days, but they took it as a sign that the district attorney's office was handling the case with "professionalism and seriousness," Merritt said.
"This has taken much longer than even the Jordan Edwards case, where there were more live witnesses," said Daryl Washington, another attorney for the family. "We don't know why it's taken this long, but the one thing that we hope that happens is the right decision comes out of this grand jury room.' "
Click to expand...

It sounds unclear from the article you cited, but seems that the prosecutor was responsible for dragging out the Grand Jury proceedings for multiple days.

The Grand Jury only meets Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Evidence was presented on both Monday and Wednesday, and the Grand Jury returned an indictment for the most severe charge, murder, on Friday before midday. Guyger was in custody for murder by 1pm.

I don't see anything there to indicate uncertainty or fence-sitting to me.
 
Guys he's not going to drop it or get it. His entire world view has been rewritten around the core idea that this case is super complicated and full of legal grey area and nuance that legal experts are going to have to pour over in order to support his fantasy that some super-hero defense attorney is going to get the white woman who murdered to black guy off via some insane legal wrangling that only gets applied in this case.
 
I really don't think there would be all this discussion and legal controversy if Guyger hadn't been a cop. I don't know why exactly I think that, but I do. I'm just trying to imagine the scenario with a non-cop.

Amber is a bartender. She just worked a double shift, and it was a stressful one. She's very tired. Amber also has a concealed carry permit, and tends to carry her weapon with her when going home alone late at night. Because she is so tired, Amber accidentally walks into the wrong apartment upon arriving at her building. Believing the resident inside to be an intruder, she panics, draws her weapon, and shoots him.

Would anyone be defending Amber the bartender? I could be wrong, but I honestly don't think so. Amber the bartender would have gone straight to jail that night, and people would be calling her an idiot and chanting string her up.


ETA - My point being, Amber the bartender actually has more of an excuse to panic and be an idiot, if you think about it. She's a civilian, not trained to deal with these kinds of high-pressure situations at all. She carries the gun because she's afraid, on some level. So when panic-time arrives, untrained and unprepared Amber just starts shooting. But a ******* cop should know better. Yet Amber the bartender wouldn't have inspired so much lively discussion. Maybe a 3-4 page thread joking about her idiocy, speculating that she was drunk/high, and decrying the problems with citizens going around armed. That'd be about it.

Sorry if this was "fan fiction," but it's just what I think.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
Guys he's not going to drop it or get it. His entire world view has been rewritten around the core idea that this case is super complicated and full of legal grey area and nuance that legal experts are going to have to pour over in order to support his fantasy that some super-hero defense attorney is going to get the white woman who murdered to black guy off via some insane legal wrangling that only gets applied in this case.
Click to expand...

Look at you trying to marginize Distracted1 and make his position sound silly and make it easier to attack. I think there's a term for that.

He has been pretty clear that Guyger was the bad actor, and it is screwed up that this could even happen, and that the assumed defense of mistake of fact is a travesty, as well as the whole idea that Yosemite Sams can justify gunning down other civiluans in their own cowardice.

But the legal argument is separate from that. Law is not about right and wrong. How this could play out under Texas law is an interesting discussion, even for those of us who think she should unquestionably be rotting in a cell as we speak. Stamp your feet all you want, but his take is likely how it will play out, or some variation of it, and honest discussion should not be twisted into catch phrase character assassination.
 
isissxn said:
Would anyone be defending Amber the bartender?
Click to expand...

If I'm being honest, I might actually be more prone to defend her if she were a bartender.

I would still, or at least I hope I would still, want her to be locked up. My reasoning is that Guyger has experience in these situations. Someone posted up thread that she had already shot and killed someone earlier that required her to be on leave. If you have experience in a situation then you should be able to handle a similar situation better than someone who has never had to be in that situation. If that makes sense.

Amber should have kept a better head about her throughout this entire thing. There isn't one individual aspect of this that she didn't screw up. Everything from driving home, to going to her apartment, to pulling her gun, etc., etc. Every step she did was wrong.

ETA: Didn't see the edit, I think you ninja'd me.
 
Thermal said:
But the legal argument is separate from that. Law is not about right and wrong. How this could play out under Texas law is an interesting discussion, even for those of us who think she should unquestionably be rotting in a cell as we speak. Stamp your feet all you want, but his take is likely how it will play out, or some variation of it, and honest discussion should not be twisted into catch phrase character assassination.
Click to expand...

I've seen absolutely zero evidence of that.
 
isissxn said:
I really don't think there would be all this discussion and legal controversy if Guyger hadn't been a cop. I don't know why exactly I think that, but I do. I'm just trying to imagine the scenario with a non-cop.

Amber is a bartender. She just worked a double shift, and it was a stressful one. She's very tired. Amber also has a concealed carry permit, and tends to carry her weapon with her when going home alone late at night. Because she is so tired, Amber accidentally walks into the wrong apartment upon arriving at her building. Believing the resident inside to be an intruder, she panics, draws her weapon, and shoots him.

Would anyone be defending Amber the bartender? I could be wrong, but I honestly don't think so. Amber the bartender would have gone straight to jail that night, and people would be calling her an idiot and chanting string her up.


ETA - My point being, Amber the bartender actually has more of an excuse to panic and be an idiot, if you think about it. She's a civilian, not trained to deal with these kinds of high-pressure situations at all. She carries the gun because she's afraid, on some level. So when panic-time arrives, untrained and unprepared Amber just starts shooting. But a ******* cop should know better. Yet Amber the bartender wouldn't have inspired so much lively discussion. Maybe a 3-4 page thread joking about her idiocy, speculating that she was drunk/high, and decrying the problems with citizens going around armed. That'd be about it.

Sorry if this was "fan fiction," but it's just what I think.
Click to expand...


WAG? I'd say for some people the fact that she was a cop means an assumption of professionalism and deference to her judgement in the case. Amber the bartender was just a trigger-happy redneck with no training looking to blow someone away. But if a cop went to the wrong apartment and shot the occupant, well there must have been something done to her to cause that mistaken entry and surely a cop wouldn't have shot someone without cause, so he must have done something to deserve, or at least cause, it.

I say this as someone with generally a strong pro-law enforcement bias. I think the fact that she was a cop has some people wondering what he did wrong to make her shoot, since she must have had a good (even if flawed) reason for her actions, her being a professional and all.

Personally I don't buy an inch of that reasoning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom