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

[Thermal]

Plauge311:

I asked based on what credible expertise in Texas law you pull rank on the Dallas County prosecutor and practicing Texas criminal defense lawyer. You respond by saying it is some dood's opinion, and you continue with the bald assertions about how he is wrong because you declare that mistake-of-fact stops at the door, because you say so. It seems you are hanging all this on an early, vague lone report of knocking that has been silent since? Good enough, thanks.

If at some point you catch up on the thread, I have been howling from the start that she had no excuse whatsoever to draw and fire, based on what we know, and she should go down on murder 2.So yes, I don't cut her any slack for criminal negligence, or not properly identifying her target, or anything else. Murder ******* 2.

 

[Thermal]

Dupe post. I hate cel phones

 

[plague311]

Plauge311:

I asked based on what credible expertise in Texas law you pull rank on the Dallas County prosecutor and practicing Texas criminal defense lawyer. You respond by saying it is some dood's opinion, and you continue with the bald assertions about how he is wrong because you declare that mistake-of-fact stops at the door, because you say so. It seems you are hanging all this on an early, vague lone report of knocking that has been silent since? Good enough, thanks.

My assertions are no more bald than yours and I haven't pulled rank on anyone. I used his same exact words, the same exact words in fact that you provided. He said she had to tie it in, if you can think of a different definition of those words then I'm all ears. I also quoted to parts from your source, which included the affidavit from the arrest warrant, that you are now saying has been silent. You seem to want everything both ways.

What report hasn't been silent since? Can you link me to one? Take your time, I'll wait. There hasn't been new in at least 2ish weeks.

If at some point you catch up on the thread

I am easily as caught up as you are, but I get it. If you imply I'm behind and lack information you can more easily dismiss my statements. There's a name for that.

I have been howling from the start that she had no excuse whatsoever to draw and fire, based on what we know, and she should go down on murder 2.So yes, I don't cut her any slack for criminal negligence, or not properly identifying her target, or anything else. Murder ******* 2.

Neat, you said least amount of slack out of anybody.

The things you say seem to consistently be at odds with other things you say.

 

[Blue Mountain]

(Not as mod, because I'm not one.) Plague311 and Thermal, do you think you dial it back a bit? The discussion currently seems to be generating more heat than light. I'm asking in lieu of reporting a couple of posts and giving some poor mod an hour or two of work deciding if the thread needs to be cleaned up.

 

[plague311]

It's a good way to kill a thread, but there's no reason conversations can't be heated. Also, swearing doesn't mean heated. I certainly wasn't heated just because swear words were used and it's a common misconception. I have and always will encourage people to report any one of my posts. My posts stand on their own, and I'll also stand by the fact that if a conversation isn't to your liking, just don't read it. No one is ever forced to read anything here and there are entire subsections of the forum I don't go to.

This has been happening a lot lately, must be something in the water.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Well it does in a way: once you think you're in your home you can be reasonably expected to defend yourself as if it were your home. That's on principle. However, not only is her intial mistake of fact not reasonable, imo, but since she was at the door she wasn't defending anything, even had it been her appartment.

 

[Belz...]

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.

People can have opinions that disagree with the law. I find certain laws ridiculous.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Well it does in a way: once you think you're in your home you can be reasonably expected to defend yourself as if it were your home. That's on principle. However, not only is her intial mistake of fact not reasonable, imo, but since she was at the door she wasn't defending anything, even had it been her appartment.

The difference is in order to meet the standards for self defense even within your own home you still have to present at least some level of situation awareness, target identification, and similar "I'm at least pretending to try to be aware of where I am"ness. You can't wake up in the middle of the night because you heard a noise in the other room and just shoot blindly into the dark without even opening your eyes or getting out of bed to check what the nosie is.

Again it all goes back to if this chick had the state of mind / situation awareness to identify a target as a threat, she had the state of mind / situation awareness to realize it wasn't her house.

If she didn't have the situational awareness to identify her apartment, she didn't have the situational awareness to identify the target and her self defense excuse falls even flatter.

This insane perfect balance between the two that can't possibly exist that we're being told we have to judge this situation under by the apologist is the issue, or rather one of many.

Long story short if she was so unaware of the actual situation she was in to be in the wrong apartment, there's no way she properly identified the target and vice versa. There is no way to "But she was sleepy mistake of fact in media reas" square that circle.

 

[Belz...]

The difference is in order to meet the standards for self defense even within your own home you still have to present at least some level of situation awareness, target identification, and similar "I'm at least pretending to try to be aware of where I am"ness. You can't wake up in the middle of the night because you heard a noise in the other room and just shoot blindly into the dark without even opening your eyes or getting out of bed to check what the nosie is.

Again it all goes back to if this chick had the state of mind / situation awareness to identify a target as a threat, she had the state of mind / situation awareness to realize it wasn't her house.

If she didn't have the situational awareness to identify her apartment, she didn't have the situational awareness to identify the target and her self defense excuse falls even flatter.

That doesn't even matter. She was in the door, not on her bed responding to someone coming in. In that situation at least she could say she was not able to retreat, or that she was protecting herself or her family from a potential lethal encounter. But here, even IF there was an armed intruder all she has to do is back away and leave, and she's safe.

 

[JoeMorgue]

That doesn't even matter. She was in the door, not on her bed responding to someone coming in. In that situation at least she could say she was not able to retreat, or that she was protecting herself or her family from a potential lethal encounter. But here, even IF there was an armed intruder all she has to do is back away and leave, and she's safe.

Indeed. If Guyger had fully entered the dwelling (ignoring how she would manage that and still not realize it was her apartment) and then been surprised by Jean there might, might be situations were her defending herself with lethal force might be... debatable at least.

But we're about a dozen nested excuses, most of which contradict other excuses, deep from any actual point that matters.

 

[Darat]

Well it does in a way: once you think you're in your home you can be reasonably expected to defend yourself as if it were your home. That's on principle. However, not only is her intial mistake of fact not reasonable, imo, but since she was at the door she wasn't defending anything, even had it been her appartment.

I'm actually quite happy to give her the benefit of the doubt that she found herself at the wrong door, so I don't think she should be prosecuted for trespass (if that is a criminal matter in her jurisdiction) or breaking and entry*.

(*We do have a little bit of confusion as it is not clear if the door was open and how she actually gained entry but if we go from what she said she didn't break in.)

 

[Darat]

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:



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

Thermal - that article is badly formated the part that says:

"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."​

Those are the journalist's words and interpretation not those of Schulte. And I think if you remove that paragraph it is not as clear cut that he is saying the mistake of fact gets her past the door.

 

[Distracted1]

That doesn't even matter. She was in the door, not on her bed responding to someone coming in. In that situation at least she could say she was not able to retreat, or that she was protecting herself or her family from a potential lethal encounter. But here, even IF there was an armed intruder all she has to do is back away and leave, and she's safe.

The information is far from complete, however, it has been presented that the doors to these apartments shut themselves.
She could still have retreated- but it would have been more difficult to do so without turning around had the door shut behind her.

 

[Belz...]

I'm actually quite happy to give her the benefit of the doubt that she found herself at the wrong door, so I don't think she should be prosecuted for trespass (if that is a criminal matter in her jurisdiction) or breaking and entry*.

(*We do have a little bit of confusion as it is not clear if the door was open and how she actually gained entry but if we go from what she said she didn't break in.)

Uh-huh, but do you agree with the consequent: if you allow that she could reasonably think she was home, would it not mean that should be expected to defend that home?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Uh-huh, but do you agree with the consequent: if you allow that she could reasonably think she was home, would it not mean that should be expected to defend that home?

Yes, in theory. But her actions following that would not meet the standards of self defense. She didn't identify the target.

Again this was an apartment. Let's say it was her apartment. She just put two into the center mass of an electrician the landlord let in to check a blown fuse. Or a plumber who was checking a leak in the apartment above her and killed the power for safety reason while he checked an overhead fitting. God help us if anyone ever throws this woman a surprise party she'll wipe out an entire family line.

You don't; not in your home, not on patrol, not a battle field, not when defending the last refuge of mankind from the horde of mutant foot soldiers of the Zorlackian Star Empire do you fire into the dark at something that might be a threat.

 

[Darat]

Uh-huh, but do you agree with the consequent: if you allow that she could reasonably think she was home, would it not mean that should be expected to defend that home?

Going to the wrong door is something I can accept one can do "unconsciously" if you like.

But entering an apartment, and deciding to kill someone and taking several steps to do that - nope I don't think you can do that "unconsciously" (and if someone could they are a clear and literally a deadly danger to society!)

 

[Thermal]

Thermal - that article is badly formated the part that says:

"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."​

Those are the journalist's words and interpretation not those of Schulte. And I think if you remove that paragraph it is not as clear cut that he is saying the mistake of fact gets her past the door.

Schulte himself is directly quoted as saying if the jury accepts mistake-of - fact in getting to the door, she is entitled to acquittal (by extrapolating castle doctrine). I don't think there is anything equivocal or ambiguous in his statement. Unless you challenge his expertise in the matter, I think he would be the most credible authority on the matter yet presented, no?

And as I keep repeating, I sincerely hope the jury doesn't buy it. I don't think her shooting constitutes a legitimate use of self defense either, even in a no-duty-to-retreat state, but if Schulte knows what he is talking about (and I presume he does), then Guyger has a statutory out. That would be an abomination, but it looks like a real threat.

 

[Thermal]

People can have opinions that disagree with the law. I find certain laws ridiculous.

Agreed, of course, and I have been arguing vehemently that if this is a legit defense then I hope Texas reconsiders their laws.

However, the arguments lobbed against me have been pretty much in bad faith (racism and cop apologetics, for Christ's sake), so I'm bailing. Tis still a silly place

Eta: forgot the important part. I am getting arguments that mistake-of-fact simply doesn't apply, not that it's ridiculous.

 

[Thermal]

One other thing regarding this 'her house's thing. She was not the property owner. She was a leasing tenant. Even if she was in the hall, I think her leasing terms would extend to the hall and other common areas, and castle doctrine would still apply. Surely there would be Texas precedent on that?

Still holding out that the jury will not find self defense, but I don't know on what statutory grounds.

 

[Thermal]

The information is far from complete, however, it has been presented that the doors to these apartments shut themselves.
She could still have retreated- but it would have been more difficult to do so without turning around had the door shut behind her.

*should shut themselves. I can walk you down to Penn's Landing and show you self closing doors in condos that notoriously stick. Might have this problem in the South Flats, too