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

[Dr. Keith]

I was never sure where Bugs ended up after he missed his turn at Albuquerque.

Area 51?

 

[Thermal]

Nothing proves you're not racist like making fun of a dead black guy.

I could just hand you some straws rather than watch you grasping so hard at them. Maybe you could make a new straw man out of them. Your current ones are wearing thin.

I'm sure you've never made a joke involving someone who died. Do tell, O Great White Savior.

Eta: wanna hear me joke about dead white guys too? Or would that confuse your faux Great White Savior shtick?

 

[Belz...]

Nothing proves you're not racist like making fun of a dead black guy.

Is it ok to make fun of dead white guys?

Come on, Joe. That's not a fair accusation.

 

[Elagabalus]

Perhaps this thread needs to be moved to the Trials and Errors section? That way we can discuss what we think the Defense/Prosecution will do (even if we do not agree with it or think that it is a legit move) without some posters yelling "but they can't do that!" every 5 minutes?

 

[Darat]

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.

No. The mistake of fact gets her to the wrong apartment, it does not cover her intentional shooting of Jean. Two separate and very distinct events.

 

[Darat]

Her whole publicly released statements have focused on how she thought she was in her own apartment. That's mistake of fact, which might decriminalize her actions under Texas law. The defense would be incompetent not to try it.

And that's what I find interesting, too. I agree that each and every thing she did was wrong, and 100% her own fault. But just like Texas law allows you to use deadly force against someone you believe is about to commit a robbery (shudder), she may get off easy under mistake of fact. Remember, this is the state that allows you to shoot a hooker in the back if she steals your cash.

Sorry but no. The mistake of fact is her going to the wrong apartment under the erroneous belief she'd gone to her apartment. It does not cover her actions after that.

 

[Darat]

Sorry but no. The mistake of fact is her going to the wrong apartment under the erroneous belief she'd gone to her apartment. It does not cover her actions after that.

Let me expand on that a bit to make it clearer.

If there was crime that said entering someone else's apartment without their knowledge and permission her mistake of fact would be a defence against being convicted for that crime when she erroneously entered someone else's apartment . But she is not being prosecuted for breaking and entering, or trespass.

She did not mistakenly or by accident kill Jean. She intentionally tried to kill him.

For a mistake of fact defence against that deliberate killing she would have to have thought (for example) that her gun was filled with blanks even though unknown to her a colleague had reloaded it with live ammunition back at the station. That would be when she could use a defence of mistake of fact, as she had not intentionally tried to kill Jean.

 

[Drewbot]

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.

Your scenario (And Guyger) is very similar to a Law question regarding Mistake of Fact.
Both this example, and the case at hand are likely to result in an acquittal, or a hung jury. It's not that i'm racist, or rooting for the cops, i'm trying to point out that your rage over the color of the victim, and the shooter, will have no bearing on the legal case, and how it will be presented to the jury.

Here is the question from Lawshelf Education, tell me why Amber Guyger is different than the person in the example.

Bob lives by himself in a town where, because of zoning requirements, all of the houses are built identical to one another and are painted the same color. Bob has been on a business trip for the past week and he arrives home in the middle of the night. Exhausted and not paying attention, Bob accidentally pulls into the driveway of the house next door to his. Bob then tries to unlock the door of the house, which belongs to Bob's neighbor Frank, with his keys. Still not realizing that he is in front of the wrong house, Bob cannot understand why his keys do not work. Too tired to figure it out, he goes around to the back, breaks a window and enters the house through the window. Frank, who is asleep upstairs, hears the window shatter and calls the police. Bob is arrested and charged with burglary. If he tries to mount a mistake of fact defense, he will probably be:

D. Acquitted, if Bob's mistake was reasonable.
Correct- Mistake of fact can protect a defendant from a guilty verdict if it shows that the defendant lacked the required intent to commit the crime. However, the mistake that the defendant made must be a reasonable one. In other words, in order to be able to use mistake of fact as a defense, the mistake that the defendant made must have been one that an ordinary person would have made as well. That being the case, if Bob's mistake was a reasonable one, his mistake of fact defense will be successful and he will be acquitted. Therefore, D is the correct answer.

 

[Thermal]

Let me expand on that a bit to make it clearer.

If there was crime that said entering someone else's apartment without their knowledge and permission her mistake of fact would be a defence against being convicted for that crime when she erroneously entered someone else's apartment . But she is not being prosecuted for breaking and entering, or trespass.

She did not mistakenly or by accident kill Jean. She intentionally tried to kill him.

For a mistake of fact defence against that deliberate killing she would have to have thought (for example) that her gun was filled with blanks even though unknown to her a colleague had reloaded it with live ammunition back at the station. That would be when she could use a defence of mistake of fact, as she had not intentionally tried to kill Jean.

Yeah, I think everyone gets that and it's how we are all hoping it goes. What some of us are thinking is that this interpretation may not be supported in statute or precedent in Texas Law. This is the ok-to-shoot-the-fleeing- hooker state, remember. Also you can use deadly force against someone e you believe is about to commit a robbery. Some cold blooded brothers running around the Lone Star State.

Can you cite statute or precedent for your claim, under Texas law? Most of what I've been reading from Texas lawyers commenting in the news say it's a realistic defense.

Eta: and see Drewbot's citation above regarding how mistake of fact may affect subsequent crime

 

[Drewbot]

Thermal-

I think the point is, that once mistake of fact (Her entering the wrong apartment) has been entered as the defense, and the jury will be instructed to mistake of fact, that anything after the mistake of fact (entering the wrong apartment), is going to follow that mistake.

Mistakenly enters what she thought was her apartment. Shoots what she thought was an intruder based on that mistake. In other words, there was never any intent to shoot a stranger in his apartment.

The sleep experts, are going to testify to the reasonableness of being tired, leading to entering the wrong apartment. Not whether or not shooting was justified based on being tired.

 

[Thermal]

Thermal-

I think the point is, that once mistake of fact (Her entering the wrong apartment) has been entered as the defense, and the jury will be instructed to mistake of fact, that anything after the mistake of fact (entering the wrong apartment), is going to follow that mistake.

Mistakenly enters what she thought was her apartment. Shoots what she thought was an intruder based on that mistake. In other words, there was never any intent to shoot a stranger in his apartment.

The sleep experts, are going to testify to the reasonableness of being tired, leading to entering the wrong apartment. Not whether or not shooting was justified based on being tired.

Yeah, that's how I'm afraid it might play out.

My personal take is that when you decide to be the Reaper and shoot someone, there is no 'whoopsie' defense of any kind accepted. I'd like to see all the Guygers and Drejkas in the country locked up for life.

Although WRT sleep experts: put one mother on the jury and she'll be pissing herself laughing at what Guyger tries to pass off as sleep deprivation.

Eta: poster Devils Advocate, who I believe is a US attorney(?), states that if mistake of fact is accepted, Guyger can claim self defense in the shooting.

 

[Bob001]

....
Mistakenly enters what she thought was her apartment. Shoots what she thought was an intruder based on that mistake.
....

Back to the beginning: Suppose for the sake of argument, she had entered her own apartment and she had encountered someone else. Would she have been justified in killing an unarmed man who posed no threat, instead of doing almost anything else, particularly just retreating out the door? As others have noted, the guy could have been an engineer making emergency repairs, or maybe a relative with a key making a surprise visit, or even an actual burglar who would have surrendered if he had been given a chance. The question on the table is whether it was reasonable for Guyger to believe that her life was in danger. All of the evidence suggests that it was not.

And let's not forget that this is an apartment building: A stray bullet will likely go through walls and windows and maybe kill a bystander. That's all the more reason to exercise extreme restraint.

 

[Butter!]

Your scenario (And Guyger) is very similar to a Law question regarding Mistake of Fact.
Both this example, and the case at hand are likely to result in an acquittal, or a hung jury. It's not that i'm racist, or rooting for the cops, i'm trying to point out that your rage over the color of the victim, and the shooter, will have no bearing on the legal case, and how it will be presented to the jury.

Here is the question from Lawshelf Education, tell me why Amber Guyger is different than the person in the example.

Sorry, but do you know who you're responding to? I never said a word about race. As to your Lawshelf example, I would say the difference is Guyger killed a guy.

Regardless though, you appear to be mistaking my position. I'm just wondering if the fact that she's a cop is what makes this case a million-pager of discussion as opposed to a 2-page "world's dumbest criminals" type thread. I don't see it as a "cop vs. black guy" politicized situation. I see it as a crazy outlier of a case, worst case scenario for everyone involved type deal.

 

[Thermal]

Back to the beginning: Suppose for the sake of argument, she had entered her own apartment and she had encountered someone else. Would she have been justified in killing an unarmed man who posed no threat, instead of doing almost anything else, particularly just retreating out the door? As others have noted, the guy could have been an engineer making emergency repairs, or maybe a relative with a key making a surprise visit, or even an actual burglar who would have surrendered if he had been given a chance. The question on the table is whether it was reasonable for Guyger to believe that her life was in danger. All of the evidence suggests that it was not.

And let's not forget that this is an apartment building: A stray bullet will likely go through walls and windows and maybe kill a bystander. That's all the more reason to exercise extreme restraint.

This is why I'm hoping the mistake of fact and subsequent self defense claim will fail. Cracking off rounds in those conditions should be seen as criminal, not defensive

 

[pgwenthold]

I have heard things like, "he didn't comply with her commands to do ..." whatever she commanded him to do. Then again, so? She was not an on-duty police officer, so she's not giving lawful orders. If I got out a gun, pointed it at someone and started ordering them around, could I shoot them if they don't do what I say?

 

[pgwenthold]

Mistake of fact:
Police officer: I pulled you over for going 55 in a 35 mph speed zone
Me: Sorry officer, I though the speed limit was 55.
PO: Well, ok, it's just a mistake of fact. I won't give you a ticket.

 

[Thermal]

I have heard things like, "he didn't comply with her commands to do ..." whatever she commanded him to do. Then again, so? She was not an on-duty police officer, so she's not giving lawful orders. If I got out a gun, pointed it at someone and started ordering them around, could I shoot them if they don't do what I say?

American cops retain cop powers even when off duty

Mistake of fact:
Police officer: I pulled you over for going 55 in a 35 mph speed zone
Me: Sorry officer, I though the speed limit was 55.
PO: Well, ok, it's just a mistake of fact. I won't give you a ticket.

Mistake of fact requires the reasonable person standard. That a reasonable person could reasonably make that error. It doesn't mean just any old claim of mistake. Its not that complicated.

 

[pgwenthold]

American cops retain cop powers even when off duty

Did she identify herself as police?

Mistake of fact requires the reasonable person standard. That a reasonable person could reasonably make that error. It doesn't mean just any old claim of mistake. Its not that complicated.

Hey, a reasonable person can not know the speed limit.

 

[Thermal]

Did she identify herself as police?

We don't know. Being in full uniform may have been a tip, though.

Hey, a reasonable person can not know the speed limit.

You could try it in traffic court, I suppose. Good luck with that.

 

[Distracted1]

Sorry, but do you know who you're responding to? I never said a word about race. As to your Lawshelf example, I would say the difference is Guyger killed a guy.

Regardless though, you appear to be mistaking my position. I'm just wondering if the fact that she's a cop is what makes this case a million-pager of discussion as opposed to a 2-page "world's dumbest criminals" type thread. I don't see it as a "cop vs. black guy" politicized situation. I see it as a crazy outlier of a case, worst case scenario for everyone involved type deal.

Your last sentence answers your wonder about why this is a "million pager" of a thread.

It is an insane one-off of an occurrence that required multiple uncommon circumstances to happen at once, and lands at an intersection of "stand your ground", "castle doctrine", reasonableness, gun control, racism, sexism and a million other hot-button issues.

How could it not generate tons of discussion?