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

[Arcade22]

American cops retain cop powers even when off duty

Which means they can kill almost anyone and get away with it... almost...

 

[Butter!]

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?

I guess I'm just having trouble picturing there being much controversy if she'd been (say) a bartender, let alone a national controversy. I'm just having difficulty conveying my point because everyone is looking between the lines for sociopolitical commentary that isn't there.

Earlier in the thread, someone (I think it was JoeMorgue, but not sure) said that some people are willing to accept the "tired" defense because they could see themselves making a similar mistake when tired or distracted enough. If I'm being perfectly honest, that was the first thought I had when I read this story - 'Wow, I do dumb things all the time when I'm tired, and I'm also really paranoid and jumpy." I sort of imagined the whole thing happening to me. I imagined the horror Guyger must have felt when it dawned on her what she had actually done. I imagined it very vividly. The thing is, though, if that DID happen to me, I would expect to go to jail. Some mistakes are just too dumb to be excused, and people that jumpy shouldn't be walking around with guns.

It doesn't matter, though. My point was never important. I just wondered what people thought. Would this case seem as controversial if the shooter had just been a regular old bartender like me? I was just speculating a bit. Because to me, when I imagine a tired bartender like me doing this act, it seems like an open-and-shut crime. It seems to me like the only subsequent discussions would be "what an idiot," "was she drunk/high/shady in some other way," and of course, "people shouldn't be running around with guns." I wondered if other posters thought any of that that too, or if it was just me. Speculation.

I'm really not sure the race thing is much of a factor here. Wasn't it dark? I was under the impression that Guyger just sort of shot at a person-figure she believed to be an intruder in a darkened apartment. I assumed she couldn't really identify his race or anything like that until afterward. I obviously don't know, though.

 

[Distracted1]

Did she identify herself as police?



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

Absolutely.
And if for some reason(say the new limit had not been posted) someone violated it with a reasonable belief that it was other than what it was. Do you think they deserve the punishment that goes with that violation?

 

[Distracted1]

I guess I'm just having trouble picturing there being much controversy if she'd been (say) a bartender, let alone a national controversy. I'm just having difficulty conveying my point because everyone is looking between the lines for sociopolitical commentary that isn't there.

Earlier in the thread, someone (I think it was JoeMorgue, but not sure) said that some people are willing to accept the "tired" defense because they could see themselves making a similar mistake when tired or distracted enough. If I'm being perfectly honest, that was the first thought I had when I read this story - 'Wow, I do dumb things all the time when I'm tired, and I'm also really paranoid and jumpy." I sort of imagined the whole thing happening to me. I imagined the horror Guyger must have felt when it dawned on her what she had actually done. I imagined it very vividly. The thing is, though, if that DID happen to me, I would expect to go to jail. Some mistakes are just too dumb to be excused, and people that jumpy shouldn't be walking around with guns.

It doesn't matter, though. My point was never important. I just wondered what people thought. Would this case seem as controversial if the shooter had just been a regular old bartender like me? I was just speculating a bit. Because to me, when I imagine a tired bartender like me doing this act, it seems like an open-and-shut crime. It seems to me like the only subsequent discussions would be "what an idiot," "was she drunk/high/shady in some other way," and of course, "people shouldn't be running around with guns." I wondered if other posters thought any of that that too, or if it was just me. Speculation.

I'm really not sure the race thing is much of a factor here. Wasn't it dark? I was under the impression that Guyger just sort of shot at a person-figure she believed to be an intruder in a darkened apartment. I assumed she couldn't really identify his race or anything like that until afterward. I obviously don't know, though.

There may very well be differences in how an LEO walks through a process like this one and how a " civilian" would. Can't dispute that- I expect a doctor moves through the healthcare system with more ease than someone not in the field, part of the nature of being an "insider" in any profession I guess.

That angle did not attract me to the thread, and it does not keep me here. For my part I would be just as intrigued if Guyger were a bartender, and her being a bartender would have no bearing on how I view the incident.

 

[The Norseman]

I may go back and pick up on your last response to me but first...

Absolutely.
And if for some reason(say the new limit had not been posted) someone violated it with a reasonable belief that it was other than what it was. Do you think they deserve the punishment that goes with that violation?

Except that didn't happen here. There was a posted sign and the driver simply blew past it. It's possible but highly unlikely that the cop would not ticket the driver for speeding. I doubt very much if the driver claimed, "yeah I was too tired to see the sign back there, sorry. I don't deserve the ticket," would carry any weight or influence. Can anyone guess why? Because the natural response is then, "if you're too tired to see roadsigns, you shouldn't be driving!"

As to your line, "do [we] think they deserve the punishment..." I wonder at you asking this question. As Thermal rather amusingly pointed out, right and wrong has nothing to do with the law; so as William Muny pointed out in the movie Unforgiven, "what's 'deserve' got to do with anything?"

Our current criminal justice system is a horrid mess which is unfixable (because it's doing exactly as intended); but according to it, sure, the person who sped through the sign should be ticketed.

Just as Guyver should be jailed for manslaughter.

And for all you people who wish to ignore the racial aspect as inconsequential, it very much is consequential and has a great bearing on how this individual case will play out no matter if it is deliberately brought up in court or not.

 

[Butter!]

There may very well be differences in how an LEO walks through a process like this one and how a " civilian" would. Can't dispute that- I expect a doctor moves through the healthcare system with more ease than someone not in the field, part of the nature of being an "insider" in any profession I guess.

That angle did not attract me to the thread, and it does not keep me here. For my part I would be just as intrigued if Guyger were a bartender, and her being a bartender would have no bearing on how I view the incident.

I wasn't taking a dig at the motives of people in the thread. Why would I? I'm in the thread too. I'm not just talking about us here at the forum. I just don't think people at large would care as much if it were a bartender. Or rather, I think it would be a clearer "guilty" in the eyes of the majority of people. I wondered if other people thought that too, or knew what I meant.

Forget it, I'm doing a terrible job at explaining myself, and it wasn't important anyway. I really wasn't trying to say anything, whether you believe it or not. I just wondered if other people had had that thought.

 

[Distracted1]

I may go back and pick up on your last response to me but first...


Except that didn't happen here. There was a posted sign and the driver simply blew past it. It's possible but highly unlikely that the cop would not ticket the driver for speeding. I doubt very much if the driver claimed, "yeah I was too tired to see the sign back there, sorry. I don't deserve the ticket," would carry any weight or influence. Can anyone guess why? Because the natural response is then, "if you're too tired to see roadsigns, you shouldn't be driving!"

As to your line, "do [we] think they deserve the punishment..." I wonder at you asking this question. As Thermal rather amusingly pointed out, right and wrong has nothing to do with the law; so as William Muny pointed out in the movie Unforgiven, "what's 'deserve' got to do with anything?"

Our current criminal justice system is a horrid mess which is unfixable (because it's doing exactly as intended); but according to it, sure, the person who sped through the sign should be ticketed.

Just as Guyver should be jailed for manslaughter.

And for all you people who wish to ignore the racial aspect as inconsequential, it very much is consequential and has a great bearing on how this individual case will play out no matter if it is deliberately brought up in court or not.

What bearing do you expect it has?

 

[Distracted1]

I wasn't taking a dig at the motives of people in the thread. Why would I? I'm in the thread too. I'm not just talking about us here at the forum. I just don't think people at large would care as much if it were a bartender. Or rather, I think it would be a clearer "guilty" in the eyes of the majority of people. I wondered if other people thought that too, or knew what I meant.

Forget it, I'm doing a terrible job at explaining myself, and it wasn't important anyway. I really wasn't trying to say anything, whether you believe it or not. I just wondered if other people had had that thought.

Wasn't suggesting you were taking "a dig" at anyone.

I have heard very little about the way the world at large views this. The couple of times I have broached the topic IRL the most interested respondent expressed a vague familiarity with the topic at best.

My impression, from respondents in this forum on this topic is undoubtedly skewed by the small sample size, but seems to carry overtones of "fry her because she is cop". Quite the opposite of what the assertion the g-pop supposedly has.

 

[Thermal]

I guess I'm just having trouble picturing there being much controversy if she'd been (say) a bartender, let alone a national controversy. I'm just having difficulty conveying my point because everyone is looking between the lines for sociopolitical commentary that isn't there.

I think we try to give police more benefit of the doubt, though, for having good intentions, what with them swearing to uphold the law and dedicating their lives to it and all. At least in theory. We want badly to trust them, in light of the faith we have in them running around with guns and powers of arrest. So it's an extra nipple tickle when one is involved in something like this.

Earlier in the thread, someone (I think it was JoeMorgue, but not sure) said that some people are willing to accept the "tired" defense because they could see themselves making a similar mistake when tired or distracted enough. If I'm being perfectly honest, that was the first thought I had when I read this story - 'Wow, I do dumb things all the time when I'm tired, and I'm also really paranoid and jumpy." I sort of imagined the whole thing happening to me. I imagined the horror Guyger must have felt when it dawned on her what she had actually done. I imagined it very vividly. The thing is, though, if that DID happen to me, I would expect to go to jail. Some mistakes are just too dumb to be excused, and people that jumpy shouldn't be walking around with guns.

Exactly. We all do stupid things. Most of us don't try to kill someone at the climax of it. You can say 'tee-hee, silly me' for walking to the wrong door. You lose those petty excuses when you unholster a killing tool.

It doesn't matter, though. My point was never important. I just wondered what people thought. Would this case seem as controversial if the shooter had just been a regular old bartender like me? I was just speculating a bit. Because to me, when I imagine a tired bartender like me doing this act, it seems like an open-and-shut crime. It seems to me like the only subsequent discussions would be "what an idiot," "was she drunk/high/shady in some other way," and of course, "people shouldn't be running around with guns." I wondered if other posters thought any of that that too, or if it was just me. Speculation.

I want very badly to trust police, and hope they walk it like they talk it. Following the law and all. So when one seems to step way, way outside of it, it feels like a shot in the gut of betrayal. I don't expect a bartender to lay their life out for me as part of their job. So yeah, higher standard of expected behavior and more profoundly scandalous when we perceive that trust as violated.

I'm really not sure the race thing is much of a factor here. Wasn't it dark?...

Helloooo? The correct term is African American.
I'm going to hell, I just know it.

 

[Thermal]

A lot of posters seem pretty adamant that this Mistake of Fact thing is inapplicable to the shooting. 'IT WASN'T HER HOUSE' in big letters and stuff. You are all wrong. The Dallas Observer interviewed Dallas defense attorney Peter Schulte, former DeSoto cop and Dallas County Prosecutor who states (with what I hope we can agree is authority on the subject) that Mistake of Fact absolutely carries to the shooting and that the verdict will likely be murder or acquittal:

"She clearly, based on what we do know, has the defense of what we call mistake-of-fact," Schulte said. "If she can show to a jury that her mistake-of-fact led to this and the jury finds that it was reasonable, then she's entitled to an acquittal, because our criminal laws don't want to criminalize accidents. That's for the civil courts." If a jury believes that Guyger reasonably thought she was in her own apartment when she shot Jean, she's covered by Texas' castle law, which allows Texas residents to shoot intruders in their homes on sight, without criminal repercussions.

Done and done, unless someone has a more credible surrogate source. Mistake of Fact is extended to the shooting, and doesn't stop at the door. It does matter that she thought it was her house when she chose to shoot him.

Now let's just hope the jury doesn't buy it, and believes that popping off in the dark in an apartment building is a separate reckless crime unto itself, not covered by a self defense claim.

https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/botham-jean-shooting-everything-we-know-so-far-11125724

 

[Drewbot]

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.

No, this would be mistake of law. Which is handled differently.

https://lawshelf.com/courseware/entry/mistake-of-law

Generally, if a defendant had the requisite intent to commit an act but, because of a mistake of law, he did not know that his act was illegal, he will not have a valid defense. This is the basis for the popular maxim "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." For example:

Brian is walking down the street one day when he passes Jacob’s house and happens to see his lost cat, Fudgy, sitting in the living room window. Brian goes over to the window, forces it open, reaches inside, and takes Fudgy out. The common law definition of burglary is the breaking and entering into the dwelling of another with the intent to commit a felony. Further, in the state where Brian lives, it is considered a crime to remove any item from another person’s house without the person’s consent, whether that item belongs to them or not. In this case, Brian has broken and entered Jacob’s house and he did so with the intent of removing an item without Jacob’s consent. Therefore, Brian has committed a burglary. If Brian tries to argue that he did not know that he was not allowed to take his own property from someone else’s house without the house owner's consent, Brian will still be convicted. In this case, Brian’s defense does not demonstrate that he lacked the intent to commit the crime. Brian had every intention of removing Fudgy from Jacob’s house. Rather, all this defense demonstrates is that Brian was ignorant of the law and ignorance of the law will not serve as a valid defense.

 

[plague311]

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

LoL what the ****? So now the person getting shot has to be able to identify that the someone breaking into their ******* apartment is wearing a cop uniform, and start listening to them? But the ******* cop doesn't have to know which God damned apartment she's in? That's some next level victim blaming there, and yes. This certainly comes across as apologetics for the cop. I mean, that's ******* insane.

As to your previous post, you're still linking to people's opinions. No one has said that she can't use it as a defense, or that she won't. We're all saying that we don't think it will be successful. Notice what it says in your link as well, your source blatantly says, "If she can show to a jury that her mistake-of-fact led to this" which is no way absolute. You and drewbot are insisting it's already "done and done", like you know some **** no one else does.

I don't think you guys are right at all, and I don't think your source quite agrees with you as much as you're implying they do.

 

[Drewbot]

Notice what it says in your link as well, your source blatantly says, "If she can show to a jury that her mistake-of-fact led to this" which is no way absolute. You and drewbot are insisting it's already "done and done", like you know some **** no one else does.

I don't think you guys are right at all, and I don't think your source quite agrees with you as much as you're implying they do.

That's fine, you can think we are not right, and not call us racists.

 

[plague311]

A lot of posters seem pretty adamant that this Mistake of Fact thing is inapplicable to the shooting. 'IT WASN'T HER HOUSE' in big letters and stuff. You are all wrong. The Dallas Observer interviewed Dallas defense attorney Peter Schulte, former DeSoto cop and Dallas County Prosecutor who states (with what I hope we can agree is authority on the subject) that Mistake of Fact absolutely carries to the shooting and that the verdict will likely be murder or acquittal

From your same exact source:

According to that affidavit, Jean confronted the officer at his apartment's door as she tried to get in. A neighbor then "heard an exchange of words, immediately followed by at least two gunshots."

Which fits along with some of the evidence so far. Again, Mistake of Fact only gets you to the door. If she knocked at all, that defense is gone. That means she recognized she was at the wrong apartment, why else would you knock on your own damn door if you're not in your apartment? It also means the door wasn't ajar, or propped open, and her key had been denied.

That's fine, you can think we are not right, and not call us racists.

I have no idea who you think you're talking to, but I haven't called anyone racist.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Which fits along with some of the evidence so far. Again, Mistake of Fact only gets you to the door. If she knocked at all, that defense is gone. That means she recognized she was at the wrong apartment, why else would you knock on your own damn door if you're not in your apartment? It also means the door wasn't ajar, or propped open, and her key had been denied.

Ah but you see that's where the dual-apologist come in. You see she was also.. a little tired.

That why even when she acts in a way that doesn't fit with the "mistake of fact" world she was living in, it's not her fault.

She isn't even required to be live in her fantasy world consistently for it to be an excuse.

 

[plague311]

Ah but you see that's where the dual-apologist come in. You see she was also.. a little tired.

That why even when she acts in a way that doesn't fit with the "mistake of fact" world she was living in, it's not her fault.

She isn't even required to be live in her fantasy world consistently for it to be an excuse.

I have apparently been living my life all wrong.

 

[Thermal]

From your same exact source:



Which fits along with some of the evidence so far. Again, Mistake of Fact only gets you to the door. If she knocked at all, that defense is gone. That means she recognized she was at the wrong apartment, why else would you knock on your own damn door if you're not in your apartment? It also means the door wasn't ajar, or propped open, and her key had been denied.

Answering your last couple posts:

You are still baldly asserting that your interpretation of mistake-of-fact trumps that of *Thermal composes himself* a Dallas County prosecutor and practicing Texas criminal defense attorney. Gonna have to go ahead and ask: on what expertise do you dismiss his intrrpretation of Texas law in this matter? Not your feels, or your wishes, if you please.

For you and at least one other comprehension challenged poster: I want to see this bitch swinging from the nearest gallows. I find it an obscene travesty that Texas law may provide an out for her, and I am pretty obviously outraged by this. I have been arguing that her actions were reprehensibly callous and indifferent to human life, for multiple reasons that I have fleshed out in painful detail. You see this as...apologetics.

Really can't help you here, bud.

Eta, forgot: a poster asked if Guyger identified herself as police. I responded that we don't know, but pointed out that you can identify a uniformed police officer standing in front of you in like a tenth of a second. That's not apologetics either. That's answering a question as completely as I could think to, for someone who appears not to have been following the thread. The insanity, as you call it, is in twisting that answer to be 'apologetics' from the poster who cuts this c- word the absolute least amount of slack of anyone on the thread

 

[jimbob]

American cops retain cop powers even when off duty



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.

The first part - that doesn't include warrantless entry into someone else's property except in very specific circumstances.

I agree with your second part, but in this case, there are several mistakes of fact that all needed to line up.

I was saying that she was obviously guilty of Negligent Homicide at least, but looking at https://sharpcriminalattorney.com/b...gent-homicide-in-texas-laws-and-consequences/ that looks to be far less serious, and deals with crimes of omission.

Criminally Negligent Homicide vs. Manslaughter
Criminally negligent homicide is similar to another criminal offense known as manslaughter. In terms of punishment, criminally negligent homicide is not as severe as manslaughter. However, these two charges share some characteristics.

For example, they both involve the killing of another person without the element of premeditation. Manslaughter, however, refers to the death of another person caused by recklessness. A person who commits a “heat of passion” killing may be charged with manslaughter because they acted with disregard for another person’s life, even though they did not plan to. Also, a person who fires a gun randomly and kills another person may be charged with manslaughter because they recklessly disregarded gun safety.

Criminally negligent homicide is a distinct charge because it refers to a death that is caused by a person who omitted certain actions even though they should know better. For example, a person who fails to help a person that they have injured may be charged with this offense if that person dies as a result of their injury.

At the kindest, she had been lethally reckless, and her recklessness was at the end of a chain of inattention.

• She failed to spot that she'd gone to the wrong floor
• When getting to the wrong door, she failed to spot that it wasn't hers.
• She then spotted someone in the apartment who wasn't behaving* as an intruder.
• She claims that she gave him instructions that he disobeyed. Given her performance up to this, that is possibly questionable.
• She then shot him twice. I guess it was surprising that Ms Magoo managed to hit him, but unfortunately she did.

*Not ransacking his own room, nor skulking around but behaving as though he was at home

 

[plague311]

Answering your last couple posts:

You are still baldly asserting that your interpretation of mistake-of-fact trumps that of *Thermal composes himself* a Dallas County prosecutor and practicing Texas criminal defense attorney. Gonna have to go ahead and ask: on what expertise do you dismiss his intrrpretation of Texas law in this matter? Not your feels, or your wishes, if you please.

LoL No, I'm not baldly asserting that at all. So before you haul off and claim I can't read for comprehension, perhaps you should read for comprehension, eh?

The individual you are using as a source is stating the part you quoted while going on the premise that she mistakenly walked to the wrong apartment, entered it (because the door was ajar), and OMGZ, Evil Doer!!!! pew pew!!!

In other words, what SHE is claiming happened. I specifically quoted the ******* affidavit that directly refutes that claim. Meaning, your dood might be entirely right, but he's operating off of a different set of information FROM THE ******* POINT WHERE AMBER GETS TO THE GOD DAMN DOOR. From that point, Amber could be full of **** entirely. Get it? Am I clear? So her Mistake of Fact ONLY GETS HER TO THE ******* DOOR. After that her claim is completely unfounded and unsupported.

Also, I quoted the same guy, the same quote you used, to show that he put a massive qualifier in there. He said she would have to tie her mistake of fact to her shooting. So again, Darat isn't wrong about it getting her to the door. It gets her there, and then she has to tie that into her shooting Jean.

For you and at least one other comprehension challenged poster:

Yeah, that line has aged well.

I want to see this bitch swinging from the nearest gallows. I find it an obscene travesty that Texas law may provide an out for her, and I am pretty obviously outraged by this. I have been arguing that her actions were reprehensibly callous and indifferent to human life, for multiple reasons that I have fleshed out in painful detail. You see this as...apologetics.

Again, Master of Reading for Comprehension, if you're going to include me in something. Make sure I said it. I referred to the specific instance of you claiming Jean should have known she's a cop because she was wearing a uniform. Not all this other ******** you're attributing to me.

Really can't help you here, bud.

You haven't helped me with anything so far, no reason to think this would be any different.

Eta, forgot: a poster asked if Guyger identified herself as police. I responded that we don't know, but pointed out that you can identify a uniformed police officer standing in front of you in like a tenth of a second.

You can identify where you live in like...a tenth of a second too. She was standing with light behind her, not in front of her, by every count of the story.

That's not apologetics either.

Yeah, it is as it's implying that Jean should have noticed she's a cop. The chain of conversation was that he should have listened to her because she was a cop.

That's answering a question as completely as I could think to, for someone who appears not to have been following the thread. The insanity, as you call it, is in twisting that answer to be 'apologetics' from the poster who cuts this c- word the absolute least amount of slack of anyone on the thread

Huh? Who is cutting her the least amount of slack? You?

 

[Thermal]

The first part - that doesn't include warrantless entry into someone else's property except in very specific circumstances.

I agree with your second part, but in this case, there are several mistakes of fact that all needed to line up.

I was saying that she was obviously guilty of Negligent Homicide at least, but looking at https://sharpcriminalattorney.com/b...gent-homicide-in-texas-laws-and-consequences/ that looks to be far less serious, and deals with crimes of omission.

​

At the kindest, she had been lethally reckless, and her recklessness was at the end of a chain of inattention.

• She failed to spot that she'd gone to the wrong floor
• When getting to the wrong door, she failed to spot that it wasn't hers.
• She then spotted someone in the apartment who wasn't behaving* as an intruder.
• She claims that she gave him instructions that he disobeyed. Given her performance up to this, that is possibly questionable.
• She then shot him twice. I guess it was surprising that Ms Magoo managed to hit him, but unfortunately she did.

*Not ransacking his own room, nor skulking around but behaving as though he was at home

Yes, but I can completely see walking up to the wrong door in an apartment building with similar layouts. It's a goofy, careless mistake, but it can happen. I can't wrap my head around that excusing the subsequent shooting, though, because I don't see it as a situation where anyone should have opened fire under any circumstances. Thars what makes this mistake-of-fact angle such an abomination. If the jury buys it as a reasonable mistake, she walks.