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

[William Parcher]

And of course, if the early report of knocking and saying 'let me in' has any teeth, the whole mistake of fact and self defense things are thrown out the window. You don't knock on your own door and demand entry where you live alone. I vaguely recall that the witness backpedaled on that report, though?

I think you are talking about "Bunny". She hasn't backpedaled. She has claimed to be getting death threats.

I don't think her testimonial is credible. She says that she began filming only 60 seconds after hearing the gun. But when we see her video it shows a much later scene. But her video doesn't seem to answer any questions about the killing itself and what exactly happened.

The bigger problem for Bunny as a witness is that she was inside an apartment far away from Jean and on a different floor. All the other reported witnesses are closer to Jean and even on his floor and none of those other witnesses report hearing what Bunny heard. The closest witness heard a speaking voice right before gunshots but could not hear what was said (unintelligible due to lack of sound clarity). That guy is like almost right next to Jean on the same floor.

 

[Whip]

Yes, you've repeatedly stated this while providing absolutely no reasoning behind WHY he would prop his door open.

This brings up an issue no one has mentioned before. If this were true, and you want to play the mistake-o-fact game, this means when she got to the door, she had to think to herself 'hmmmmmm I can't believe I left my door propped open when I left for work'.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

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.

I am not an attorney. I have an interest in law. I just wouldn't want to do it every day as a job.

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

Schulte is not actually saying that the mistake of fact would, itself, acquit Guyger. He says that if we accept the mistake of fact, then she is covered by the castle law. The actual shooting is not covered by mistake of fact. The actual shooting is covered by the castle law. The mistake of fact does not cover the shooting; it only gets us to the point where the castle law kicks in.

His earlier statement is just jumping to the conclusion: if we accept the mistake of fact, then she gets acquitted. If Guyger gets past the hurdle of the mistake of fact, then she can claim self-defense. If she claims self-defense, she would have to show that she reasonably believed that deadly force was immediately necessary. Under the castle law, a belief that deadly force is immediately necessary is presumed. It is automatic. Therefore, if Guyger gets past the hurdle of the mistake of fact, the rest is given, so she gets an acquittal. (At least in regards to a murder conviction. Criminally negligent homicide could still be on the table.)

However, as I have said before, I disagree that the castle law applies here because the language of the castle law in Texas says that it applies if the person believes that a person unlawfully entered their “occupied” habitation. That word “occupied” is there for a reason. It means something. It limits the conditions under which the castle law applies.

Guyger was not in an “occupied” habitation (her or what she believed to be hers) when Jean entered. Jean was already there. Guyger had no reason to believe that any other persons were lawfully occupying the apartment. Therefore, the castle law does not apply. That word “occupied” prevents it from being applied in this case. I think that is intentional to prevent situations like this and similar situation like walking in on the plummer, etc.

That means Guyger will have to show that she reasonably believed that deadly force was immediately necessary to protect herself against an attempted use of deadly force against her. That is probably going to be, “I thought he was reaching for a gun.”

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

I think you are talking about "Bunny".

That wasn't Bunny. It was one of the sisters that claimed to have heard "let me in". There is still an issue of credibility for that witness. They gave the information to Jean's lawyer instead of the police. They didn't hear anything else related to the incident. There were other closer witness that didn't hear that. It was never established when they heard someone say that. It may have been when the police had arrived and were banging and asking people to let them into the locked hallway.

If Jean answered the door, he couldn't have just backed away. He would have had to turn and go down the hallway and turn into the living room and then turn and come back toward the kitchen counter, while Guyger remained on the other side of the counter near the door.

Guyger's keys were still in the door when the police arrived.

Everything points toward the door being ajar. As I have said before, I think that after the apartment manger visited Jean about the marijuana complaint, he had the door slightly open and let it go and it didn't have enough force to completely close.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

I think murder 2 is exactly what she is guilty of, based on what we know. If you...ahem...cut her more slack, you are of course entitled to that opinion.

Texas doesn't have murder 2. Texas has capital murder (contract killing, murder while incarcerated or escaping prison, while committing another serious felony, killing a cop, judge, young child, etc.) and just regular murder. (And manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide.)

For the punishment phase, murder can be a first or second degree felony. To be second degree, it must be a crime of passion.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

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?

I doubt there is any precedent. Keep in mind that for the castle law to apply, the person must have a reasonable belief that the other person entered unlawfully and with force. It can’t just be anybody walking in the hall way. Or even just somebody in somebody’s home. It has to be more than that. It has to be someone who shouldn’t be there breaking in.

Unless somebody actually sees the person breaking into the apartment building, I doubt they could have a reasonable belief that the person entered unlawfully and with force. And even if they see somebody breaking in, it may be lawful. Maybe they forgot their key and decided to break in. Lawfully. Although a tenant who forgot a key and breaks in may actually be unlawful. We are drifting far out into the weeds here…

The definition of “habitation” in Texas law doesn’t exactly clarify the issue. It suggests that it would be limited to the person’s apartment. It could be argued that it could extend to the apartment building. Technically. I doubt that would fly. But who knows…

Which I think is very problematic with the castle laws. Even a Texas prosecuting attorney doesn’t seem to know the details of the law. And some issues are completely unknown. All laws have some grey areas, but this is serious.

This is the difference between “perfectly okay” and “horribly wrong”. Self-defense and years in prison for murder. And there is only a fine, uncertain line between those two.

I can understand the need for castle laws. But if we are going to have them, they need to be very well defined so that everybody knows the rules of the game. And taught to everyone. And required for people purchasing guns.

This is serious business where something that seems perfectly okay can go horribly wrong.

 

[Thermal]

I doubt there is any precedent. Keep in mind that for the castle law to apply, the person must have a reasonable belief that the other person entered unlawfully and with force. It can’t just be anybody walking in the hall way. Or even just somebody in somebody’s home. It has to be more than that. It has to be someone who shouldn’t be there breaking in.

Unless somebody actually sees the person breaking into the apartment building, I doubt they could have a reasonable belief that the person entered unlawfully and with force. And even if they see somebody breaking in, it may be lawful. Maybe they forgot their key and decided to break in. Lawfully. Although a tenant who forgot a key and breaks in may actually be unlawful. We are drifting far out into the weeds here…

The definition of “habitation” in Texas law doesn’t exactly clarify the issue. It suggests that it would be limited to the person’s apartment. It could be argued that it could extend to the apartment building. Technically. I doubt that would fly. But who knows…

Which I think is very problematic with the castle laws. Even a Texas prosecuting attorney doesn’t seem to know the details of the law. And some issues are completely unknown. All laws have some grey areas, but this is serious.

This is the difference between “perfectly okay” and “horribly wrong”. Self-defense and years in prison for murder. And there is only a fine, uncertain line between those two.

I can understand the need for castle laws. But if we are going to have them, they need to be very well defined so that everybody knows the rules of the game. And taught to everyone. And required for people purchasing guns.

This is serious business where something that seems perfectly okay can go horribly wrong.

I think there must have been some precedent where the four walls of castle have been extended to immediate surroundings? I mean, it must have been tried at some point?

My admittedly biased concern is the john who sprayed the car of a hooker who ripped him off with an AK-47...and was acquitted, because he was...*steadying himself*...trying to recover stolen property. I put nothing past the guys...and gals...of this Mad Max state.

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/jilted-john-acquitted-texas-prostitute-death-article-1.1365975

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

I think there must have been some precedent where the four walls of castle have been extended to immediate surroundings? I mean, it must have been tried at some point?

My admittedly biased concern is the john who sprayed the car of a hooker who ripped him off with an AK-47...and was acquitted, because he was...*steadying himself*...trying to recover stolen property. I put nothing past the guys...and gals...of this Mad Max state.

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/jilted-john-acquitted-texas-prostitute-death-article-1.1365975

That is not castle law. That is a law in Texas that permits deadly force against someone who is fleeing after committing theft in the nighttime where the property cannot be protected by any other means.

If Guyger shot Jean while he was jumping out a window onto a fire escape carrying away Guyger's jewelry box, that law might apply. But this case is nothing like that.

 

[Thermal]

That is not castle law. That is a law in Texas that permits deadly force against someone who is fleeing after committing theft in the nighttime where the property cannot be protected by any other means.

If Guyger shot Jean while he was jumping out a window onto a fire escape carrying away Guyger's jewelry box, that law might apply. But this case is nothing like that.

Yes, I know. I am noting that the fine State that can allow such lethal recourse must surely have had the boundaries of castle doctrine challenged at some point? Like every week? Like expanding them to the boundaries of the Northern Hemisphere?

My concern with all this is how a Texan jury is likely to interpret laws regarding lethal force, based on existing statutes and precedent, so I'm poking around for the general Texan mindset regarding lethal force and how it has withstood challenge.

 

[Thermal]

Texas doesn't have murder 2. Texas has capital murder (contract killing, murder while incarcerated or escaping prison, while committing another serious felony, killing a cop, judge, young child, etc.) and just regular murder. (And manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide.)

For the punishment phase, murder can be a first or second degree felony. To be second degree, it must be a crime of passion.

Yes, that's why I am using the casual phrase murder 2, to indicate the commonly understood distinction of lack of premeditation, but no wishy-washy manslaughter.

 

[William Parcher]

That wasn't Bunny. It was one of the sisters that claimed to have heard "let me in". There is still an issue of credibility for that witness. They gave the information to Jean's lawyer instead of the police. They didn't hear anything else related to the incident. There were other closer witness that didn't hear that. It was never established when they heard someone say that. It may have been when the police had arrived and were banging and asking people to let them into the locked hallway.

Bunny is one of the two sisters that Merritt has been working with. In an early statement he calls them sisters who are living in separate apartments. In a later statement he calls them independent witnesses but doesn't say sisters. The two women spoke to each other right after the incident (one went to the other's apartment).

I can give links to the articles which show that Bunny is one of the sisters. Both claim to have heard loud knocking and gunshots. One heard "Let me in" along with the knocking and no other words. The other heard "Oh my god why did you do that?" after the shots but didn't hear "Let me in".

 

[Belz...]

Of course it isn't, it's the answer to your question.

We used to play those kinds of games in elementary school, Darat.

Your post has nothing to do with my question. The question was: if you allow that she could reasonably think she was home, would it not mean that should be expected to defend that home?

That requires a yes or a no.

 

[Thermal]

Would that mean that she could gun down anyone she happened to run across in the hallways with impunity if she decided she felt threatened?

In Texas? I wouldn't doubt it. That's exactly why I'm thinking castle doctrine must surely have been challenged in court to extend beyond the four walls. I believe it already extends to workplace and vehicle. But hallways and sidewalks, I'm not sure.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If you're arguing for across the board application of castle doctrine AND removing the "But you have to at least be correct about being in your castle" from the equation you're arguing for legal murder in any way that matters.

This is functionally "You can kill anyone whenever the situation applies AND you don't even have to be right about the situation."

Again what even is murder, or any crime, in this context?

"LOL stupid kill happy Texans" is not an answer.

 

[Drewbot]

If she saw the door ajar, as a police officer, she might immediately think she has an intruder in her apartment.

Does anyone know if Texas has a duty to retreat law? Or if you can stand your ground?

 

[JoeMorgue]

If she saw the door ajar, as a police officer, she might immediately think she has an intruder in her apartment.

Again so the chick was so out of it as to not know which apartment she was at, but so in it that she caught this detail.

So she did a "Sherlock Scan" on the situation to catch the open door, the intruder while NEVER ONCE NOTICING IT WAS THE WRONG APARTMENT.

No. That's not how reality works.

I'm really getting sick of this fantasy world where this chick was wrong about everything that should have stopped her from killing Jean but correct about everything that would let her kill Jean with no rhyme or reason.

At this point there's no functional difference from her just picking and choosing which parts of the fantasy she was living in that would let her kill Jean.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

If she saw the door ajar, as a police officer, she might immediately think she has an intruder in her apartment.

Does anyone know if Texas has a duty to retreat law? Or if you can stand your ground?

No duty to retreat if I'm reading several links (one below) correctly. However, you can only "stand your ground" some place you have a right to be and you have to be defending, not attacking first. And those two points don't seem to be the case here.

https://www.texastribune.org/2012/03/27/texplainer-when-can-texans-use-deadly-force-self-d/

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Can she shoot someone in her apartment?"
"She wasn't in her apartment."
"In Texas you can defend yourself in your home."
"She wasn't in her home."
"Castle doctrine gives you the right to, in your home..."
"She wasn't in her home."
"You don't have a duty to retreat when cornered in your home..."
"She wasn't in her home."

 

[Thermal]

If you're arguing for across the board application of castle doctrine AND removing the "But you have to at least be correct about being in your castle" from the equation you're arguing for legal murder in any way that matters.

This is functionally "You can kill anyone whenever the situation applies AND you don't even have to be right about the situation."

Again what even is murder, or any crime, in this context?

"LOL stupid kill happy Texans" is not an answer.

...assuming you are talking to me...

I'm looking for ways that she would Not have the out that actual legal experts (not your feels) opine that she may have. For the ten thousandth time: I hope she rots in a cell for murder. It has been observed that under Texas law, she might walk free (but still face civil) I am questioning Texas law on the matter, because it is certainly...different...than other states.

Please, dude, please...get your head out of your ass.

 

[Thermal]

"Can she shoot someone in her apartment?"
"She wasn't in her apartment."
"In Texas you can defend yourself in your home."
"She wasn't in her home."
"Castle doctrine gives you the right to, in your home..."
"She wasn't in her home."
"You don't have a duty to retreat when cornered in your home..."
"She wasn't in her home."

"Legal experts say that mistake-of -fact allows her actions to be interpreted as though she were in her home."
"La la la can't hear you"