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

[Dr. Keith]

The whole "Well I'm just saying what the jury might say" still comes across as rather distasteful and sideways apologetics to me.

No, it is honest analysis of what is coming next.

There will be a trial. Lawyers for the prosecution will say she is guilty. Her defense lawyers will say she is not. They will argue at least that she is not guilty due to mistake of fact. The prosecution will argue that even with mistake of fact she is still guilty. The jury of Texans will make a decision based on those arguments.

When you talk about the law outside of that context it just doesn't matter. Who cares what the law is in Idaho of Illinois, or what the law should be in Texas. (Well, I care a bit about that last one.) What matters, what is topical to this thread, is what have other Texas juries decided. Other Texas juries in big cities like Houston and Dallas, not just backwoods juries for West or Centerville*. That is why people are saying that this defense is not asa crazy as it would sound in most other places. Crazy **** happens down here.




* West is really in Central Texas and Centerville is really in East Texas. That is how confusing Texas is.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

I don't get where you guys think that she has to prove self-defense.

I Said where I am getting it. It is from the word "occupied" in the law. Schulte did not mention that issue, so I don't think he considered it. He may not even be aware of it and is just talking to the press using a general interpretation of the castle law without looking at the actual details.

I interpret "occupied" to mean that the house had to be occupied when someone broke in. The defense may offer a different interpretation. The defense may argue that once someone enters their house with a burglar inside, then the house becomes occupied and the law applies. In other words, if someone breaks into an unoccupied house, the resident can't just shoot them through the window, but if they go into the house then they can shoot. That's not my interpretation, but it is not a completely unreasonable interpretation.

To rule on the interpretation the court would likely look to case law and congressional intent. I can't find any cases that hinged on that issue. There may not be any case law.

So the court would look at congressional intent. What did the legislature mean by "occupied"? That's not an easy question. It appears the legislation did not discuss that word when the law was passed. they just copied language used by other states.

We can look at what other state legislatures said, but it appears the language actually came from groups supporting the legislation rather than the legislatures themselves. I have dug back in the history of castle laws a bit, but I haven't got back far enough to find out where that word got introduced. I expect the defense and prosecution have been doing some heavy duty research into that word.

If the court interprets the law as I do, then the castle law does not apply. Guyger would then have to prove use of lethal force for self-defense.

 

[William Parcher]

I interpret "occupied" to mean that the house had to be occupied when someone broke in. The defense may offer a different interpretation. The defense may argue that once someone enters their house with a burglar inside, then the house becomes occupied and the law applies. In other words, if someone breaks into an unoccupied house, the resident can't just shoot them through the window, but if they go into the house then they can shoot. That's not my interpretation, but it is not a completely unreasonable interpretation.

There might even be a third interpretation of "occupied" and that is a home in which someone lives. You can imagine a vacant home with a For Sale sign in the yard. That home is not occupied at all and it is also nobody's castle, so to speak.

 

[William Parcher]

Castle Doctrine and "laying in wait"...

How would Castle Doctrine work in this hypothetical situation?

A guy intends to rape a woman. He breaks into her home through the back door and hides, knowing that she is not home and will return. He has no weapons and isn't stealing anything. She enters through the front door and then soon sees him. She is armed.

Is Castle Doctrine (CD) cancelled because he was inside first? Does CD only kick in the moment he touches her? Is CD in effect from the moment she sees him regardless of what he does? Or what?

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

There might even be a third interpretation of "occupied" and that is a home in which someone lives. You can imagine a vacant home with a For Sale sign in the yard. That home is not occupied at all and it is also nobody's castle, so to speak.

Well, it would have to meet the definition of "habitation", which is defined in Texas law. It basically means a place where people sleep. I don't think there is any question that the apartment is a "habitation".

In some cases the word "occupied" is used as you describe. But it would seem unusual here. The law also mentions vehicles and businesses. As I read it, the word "occupied" also applies in those cases. Other states specifically refer to an "occupied vehicle". Using you definition wouldn't really make sense in terms of a vehicle.

Also, this would mean that if someone had a furnished rental property with no current renter and they were there at night cleaning and someone broke in, the castle law would not apply. I'm not sure it would make sense for the legislature to specially exclude such circumstances.

Terms like "occupied habitation" are used frequently in laws. It doesn't appear to always mean the same thing. There is probably some standard that applies tot he Texas law. I'm not sure what that standard interpretation is.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Castle Doctrine and "laying in wait"...

How would Castle Doctrine work in this hypothetical situation?

A guy intends to rape a woman. He breaks into her home through the back door and hides, knowing that she is not home and will return. He has no weapons and isn't stealing anything. She enters through the front door and then soon sees him. She is armed.

Is Castle Doctrine (CD) cancelled because he was inside first? Does CD only kick in the moment he touches her? Is CD in effect from the moment she sees him regardless of what he does? Or what?

I've been considering that scenario for several weeks. It certainly seems like the castle law would apply in that case.

The same for a vehicle. Bad guy is hiding in the back seat. The driver gets in. The bad guy jumps up. Does castle law apply even though the vehicle wasn't occupied when the bad guy got in? If it does apply, what would an "occupied vehicle" mean?

What is the purpose of the word "occupied"? Just to exclude unrented apartments and such, for some reason?

These deadly laws are confusing.

This case could draw out a lot of issues on castle law, defense of property, duty to retreat, etc. I think these laws should be reconsidered and at the very least be extremely well defined. I hope this case may cause some improvement to these types of laws.

 

[William Parcher]

No references to her employment status will be made during the trial...

...Dallas News reported on Tuesday that “people who seem extremely pro-police or highly sympathetic to the causes of groups such as Black Lives Matter” will not be selected as potential jurors in the murder case.

Many people who have been following the case from the beginning have said they don’t trust law enforcement and courts in Dallas to bring justice to Jean’s family. That was true again last month when Guyger appeared in court late last month, when her defense lawyers and prosecutors agreed not to make reference to her employment status during the trial. It was unclear if that meant that lawyers wouldn’t say that Guyger, 31, was off-duty when she shot Jean, who was just 26 years old when he died. It may have been referring to her being fired from the Dallas Police Department. Or perhaps both...

https://newsone.com/3886001/amber-guyger-murder-trial-dallas-police

 

[William Parcher]

Here's another twisty hypothetical concerning CD and "occupied home".

A mother and her 19 year old daughter live together in a home. The mother works a typical day shift and the daughter is unemployed and mostly stays at home. Almost always when the mother returns from work the daughter is there at the house.

That rapist from my first hypothetical is in this scenario as well. He intends to rape the mother and breaks in the back door and hides and waits. Again he is unarmed and steals nothing. She comes in the front door and she is armed. She sees him. Immediately she thinks, "OMG what has he done to Amy and what will he do to me?" Within seconds she draws her gun and shoots him dead. She searches the house and cannot find Amy anywhere.

Amy had left the house to have ice cream with her friend Stacy. She left about 5 minutes before the guy broke in and he even saw her leave - knowing that the house would then be unoccupied.

The mother knows about CD and believes that it covers her in killing this guy. But when her daughter tells her about the ice cream trip she suddenly realizes that, "OMG, I killed a guy who entered my unoccupied home and I can't be protected from prosecution because my house was unoccupied and I didn't know it was unoccupied". The following day she is charged with Murder because CD doesn't apply because the house was unoccupied.

So, is she screwed and will go down for Murder because CD is cancelled? Or, will CD protect her because she had a Mistake-Of-Fact?

Mistake of Fact: Mother thought the house was occupied by the daughter (but it wasn't).
Castle Doctrine: It applies and protects her because she had a real mistake of fact.

She is acquitted because of the combination of Mistake of Fact and Castle Doctrine.

Or, is she found guilty and does some hard time behind bars?

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

So, is she screwed and will go down for Murder because CD is cancelled? Or, will CD protect her because she had a Mistake-Of-Fact?

She would be protected because she had a reasonable belief. In this case "the actor knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used unlawfully and with force entered...the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment"

 

[William Parcher]

She would be protected because she had a reasonable belief. In this case "the actor knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used unlawfully and with force entered...the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment"

Bang! Bang! He's dead.

Amy comes running down the stairs.

Mom, what did you do?
I shot that son of a bitch! Are you okay? Did that man hurt you?
Mom, that's my friend Arnold. You haven't met him before. He came over for a visit. Why did you kill him?
Because Castle Doctrine.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Bang! Bang! He's dead.

Amy comes running down the stairs.

Mom, what did you do?
I shot that son of a bitch! Are you okay? Did that man hurt you?
Mom, that's my friend Arnold. You haven't met him before. He came over for a visit. Why did you kill him?
Because Castle Doctrine.

This is the dilemma of the castle law. On one hand, if a person is at home and a bad guy is breaking in, the resident should not have to wait to confirm for sure that there is a deadly threat because the bad guy is not going to hesitate. On the other hand, shooting without hesitation is going to result in some mistakes.

The castle law will save some people who otherwise would have been killed by a criminal. But it will also result in some innocent people being killed. This is not an easy situation to address. It is not easy at all.

But I think we are digressing into the benefits and drawback of castle law, rather than the actual topic of the thread.

 

[Thermal]

I Said where I am getting it. It is from the word "occupied" in the law. Schulte did not mention that issue, so I don't think he considered it. He may not even be aware of it and is just talking to the press using a general interpretation of the castle law without looking at the actual details.

I interpret "occupied" to mean that the house had to be occupied when someone broke in. The defense may offer a different interpretation. The defense may argue that once someone enters their house with a burglar inside, then the house becomes occupied and the law applies. In other words, if someone breaks into an unoccupied house, the resident can't just shoot them through the window, but if they go into the house then they can shoot. That's not my interpretation, but it is not a completely unreasonable interpretation.

To rule on the interpretation the court would likely look to case law and congressional intent. I can't find any cases that hinged on that issue. There may not be any case law.

So the court would look at congressional intent. What did the legislature mean by "occupied"? That's not an easy question. It appears the legislation did not discuss that word when the law was passed. they just copied language used by other states.

We can look at what other state legislatures said, but it appears the language actually came from groups supporting the legislation rather than the legislatures themselves. I have dug back in the history of castle laws a bit, but I haven't got back far enough to find out where that word got introduced. I expect the defense and prosecution have been doing some heavy duty research into that word.

If the court interprets the law as I do, then the castle law does not apply. Guyger would then have to prove use of lethal force for self-defense.

Ok, but might you be putting too much reliance on 'occupied'? I don't think it was ever intended or foreseen to intersect with mistake-of-fact, and if MOF is accepted, she is 'occupying' 'her' home.

Except that she was in the hallway, and as far as we know never actually touched his property at all, except to push a key into the lock...

**** it. I give. See you guys on the thread where she is acquitted and Dallas turns into a war zone.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

I did a bit more looking into this “occupied” issue. I’m not sure if I am more or less confused.

The best resource I have found is this Supreme Court case United States v Stitt and United States v. Sims.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-765/51424/20180626164915138_17-765tsUnitedStates.pdf

I have not read through it entirely. It is rather lengthy to go into all of it.

The shortish version is that the term “occupied habitation” comes from burglary law. They used to use terms like “dwelling house”. The word “occupied” started being used to differentiate certain places where breaking in would be burglary and places where it would not be burglary.

An “occupied dwelling” would be a place where people actually live. Breaking in there would be burglary. But an abandon dwelling where nobody lives would not. A structure like a barn or shed would not be, unless it was actually occupied by someone at the time.

Something can be an “occupied dwelling” even if nobody is in the building at the time, but an “occupied structure” means that there has to be someone actually in the building. The word “occupied” means two different things.

I think that is where we get castle laws that have “occupied habitation or occupied vehicle”. And even the Texas law that has “occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business”. That one word “occupied” can mean “generally lived in” when applied to a habitation, but also mean “somebody is actually in there” when applied to a vehicle.

Historically, that seems to be the most common reading.

But it is not entirely clear how it is meant in Texas law. Especially because the next line says, “attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation”. The word “occupied” is absent when it is clear the person is in the house.

Is the word “occupied” there to limit the castle law to a home invasion where someone is at home and there are people breaking in, or is it far less meaningful word that is a hold-over from old-timey burglary laws?

The more I look at it, the more it looks like WilliamParcher’s suggestion is correct: occupied in this context just means a place where people are living. If the court takes that interpretation, Guyger has a pretty clear path to avoiding a murder conviction. Which feels somewhat troublesome. It makes the castle law rather broad.

 

[Thermal]

That's my assumption, too: 'occupied' intending to distinguish a place where you could kill people living in there, as opposed to a storage shed where you would expect no living people to harm

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

That's my assumption, too: 'occupied' intending to distinguish a place where you could kill people living in there, as opposed to a storage shed where you would expect no living people to harm

Yes. But it is a bit weird.

It makes sense in terms of defining burglary, because then we are considering the mind of the burglar. Busting into a home poses much more danger to the public than busting into a storage shed. Unless someone is actually in the shed, in which case it would then be considered occupied.

But with the castle law, things are reversed. We are considering the mind of the resident.

I think the idea is that the castle law basically says that when you are in the place where you regularly live, you have a special right to feel secure in that place, therefore you get the presumption that deadly force is necessary for anyone breaking in or who has broken into that place.

I think that is what the law is getting at. Which is obviously horribly ironic in this case.

 

[William Parcher]

Something can be an “occupied dwelling” even if nobody is in the building at the time, but an “occupied structure” means that there has to be someone actually in the building. The word “occupied” means two different things.

Yeah, there is almost no limit to the weirdness.

A house is vacant with no furniture and a For Sale sign outside. An armed burglar breaks in and starts stealing fixtures. A few minutes later another burglar who is unarmed breaks in wearing all-black with a ski mask and gloves. He is obviously not the home owner or the realtor. Burglar #1 immediately shoots him dead.

Is Burglar #1 protected by Castle Doctrine because he was occupying the structure and therefore it was an "occupied structure"?

"You can charge and convict him with trespassing or burglary or both, but you can't do that for Murder because when he entered that unoccupied structure he then occupied it and therefore it immediately became his Castle. The Castle Doctrine gives him full rights to kill the intruder who was dressed in black."

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Is Burglar #1 protected by Castle Doctrine because he was occupying the structure and therefore it was an "occupied structure"?

No. Burglar #1 did not have a reasonable belief that someone was entering his occupied habitation. He knew the habitation wasn't his (the actor's).

And Burglar #1 was "otherwise engaged in criminal activity", which excludes the castle law. And actually excludes any use of force. That's why Guyger has to use mistake of fact. She was engaged in criminal activity (trespass, if nothing else). The mistake of fact can (presumably) negate that that criminal activity where she can make a self-defense claim, and perhaps apply the castle law.

 

[Drewbot]

Evidently someone else read the Police Chief's actions the same way I did.

Dallas Police Preparing As If Amber Guyger Will Be Acquitted For Killing Botham Jean

https://newsone.com/3886001/amber-guyger-murder-trial-dallas-police/

 

[plague311]

Evidently someone else read the Police Chief's actions the same way I did.



https://newsone.com/3886001/amber-guyger-murder-trial-dallas-police/

Welcome to 2 pages ago. You always prepare for the worst case scenario, it's called "planning" and "strategy". Perhaps if this stupid bitch would have planned and strategized better we wouldn't be having this conversation as she wouldn't have barged into the wrong apartment and shot a man for doing nothing.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Of course she's gonna walk. All it's gonna take is one juror to swallow the nonsense we've now two threads in about.