Thermal
August Member
Professional jurers, maybe with formal testing to demonstrate court approved objectivity?
Cont: Man shot, killed by off-duty Dallas police officer who walked into wrong apartment p2
- Thread starter William Parcher
- Start date
- Status
Professional jurers, maybe with formal testing to demonstrate court approved objectivity?
Thermal
August Member
Pretty much agreed, then
Maybe, but the whole idea of a "Professional juror" makes me queasy.
Again speaking totally from a gut feeling, more of just some sanity imposed on jurors, less ability to just go "We're going to award this man 90 gazillion dollars because we got convinced by a legal used car salesman that weed killers did it."
But I could be mistaking what I want to happen with what I think will happen.
Distracted1
Philosopher
It is exculpatory IMO if the act is a legal one had the perpetrator not been in error.
Drewbot
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 7,719
Dr. Keith, I think the Manslaughter charge was the appropriate charge.
Because of the potential scandal Dallas is facing with regards to overtime, I've been thinking that they may have intentionally over-charged this, hoping to induce a plea to a lesser charge.
The problem with the murder charge, is that they have to show intent, that she was intending to shoot a stranger in his own apartment. When her actual intent, the defense will present to the jury was to protect herself in what she thought was her own apartment.
What will they say her motive was, if she intended to kill Botham Jean in his own apartment? From reports they do not know each other. They won't be able to show intent to murder someone, only intent to protect her person or property.
Because of the potential scandal Dallas is facing with regards to overtime, I've been thinking that they may have intentionally over-charged this, hoping to induce a plea to a lesser charge.
The problem with the murder charge, is that they have to show intent, that she was intending to shoot a stranger in his own apartment. When her actual intent, the defense will present to the jury was to protect herself in what she thought was her own apartment.
What will they say her motive was, if she intended to kill Botham Jean in his own apartment? From reports they do not know each other. They won't be able to show intent to murder someone, only intent to protect her person or property.
Distracted1
Philosopher
Pretty much. With a caveat.
I don't see her as villainous. Just as an ordinary person who screwed up in an extraordinary way.
plague311
Great minds think...
That's not at all true. There were reports they had run-ins previous to this over his music, and there are also reports that people heard her knocking on his door and screaming for it to be opened.
I'm skeptical, not dismissive mind you just skeptical, of stuff like that. Second hand eye witness stuff is notoriously unreliable.
It should be looked into for sure, but I'm not ready to start re-writing the whole narrative to account for a history between the two just yet.
A history between Jean and Guyger would make this a lot weirder.
Thermal
August Member
Might disagree on that. Guyger was ready to kill, and was her first instinct. Time bomb on the hoof, IMO.
I doubt ordinary people are so inclined to kill at the drop of a hat. Even cops. It takes a ...special...kind of person to go from fumbling with keys to executioner without so much as a cursory glance around to make sure you know what you are doing
IIRC the DA did not go the Grand Jury with a murder charge. The Grand Jury is the one who moved it up to murder.
I'm not a criminal attorney, but the language is pretty clear:
Knowingly does not require intent. And self defense is a defense to a charge to murder. So, I think murder fits, and she has to prove a self defense claim. I think that should be difficult in this situation since she was the intruder, not him.
I don't think intent is needed, only knowingly. She pointed the gun at a man in his own apartment and then pulled the trigger knowing that it would kill him. Maybe she can mount a defense, but I sure as hell hope not.
Last edited:
plague311
Great minds think...
I wholeheartedly agree with this. I only brought up because Drewbot spoke definitively. I think it's in question as well, for sure. The only part that would make it even kind of plausible for me is:
- Guyger gets done with work
- Parks on the 4th floor because she intended to talk to Jean about his music knowing that she had a long day at work, it was later and night and wanted to ensure a good nights sleep
- She goes to his door, knocks on it a few times, and so on...
I have absolutely nothing at all to back up any of that, just an alternate scenario.
I have the gift of hindsight, but the moment the I noticed the door was open I would have taken in my surroundings. The floor mat, the light, etc.
Which is why I agreed with Darat with regards to the mistake of fact getting her to the door. As he said, once she's there she deliberately took each step from that point forward. Even her mistake of fact to get her to the door doesn't allow her to enter the home without permission.
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,487
No.
Dallas Morning News said:
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/cri...-s-home-before-he-was-killed-by-amber-guyger/
This has been discussed previously. "Manslaughter" in Texas does not mean what it may mean in other states. Deliberately pointing a gun at someone and shooting at him twice, striking him once and killing him, is not a negligent or reckless act. It is murder.
https://www.medlinfirm.com/blog/the-difference-between-manslaughter-and-murder-in-texas/
https://www.versustexas.com/felony/manslaughter/
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,686
I think the DA did go after a murder indictment. It was the Rangers that issued the arrest warrant for manslaughter. It was reported that DA Johnson had some heated discussions about that charge. Newly elected DA Creuzot specifically said the charge should be murder, not manslaughter.
DA Johnson kept a pretty tight lip. So we don't know for sure. But it sure sounds like she went in asking the grand jury for a murder indictment.
Thanks for the correction.
I still don't think they were over-charging to get a plea deal. This was always going to go to a jury.
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,686
Those claims came from Merritt, the lawyer for Jean's family. Merritt has backed off those claims.
There was a complaint against Jean, but it was not about music or noise. It was about the smell of marijuana coming from his apartment. It was almost certainly not made by Guyger. The apartment manager visited Jean that day and determined that the smell was not coming from his apartment. (I have guessed that this is when the door did not properly close.)
The "Let me in!" claim is largely unfounded. The witness was not likely in a position to hear that. The witness reported this to Merritt, not the police. Other witness closer did not report haring anybody say that.
Merritt backed off and said there was no music or noise complaint by Guyger. There was no relationship or connection between Guyger and Jean.
In the civil suit filed by Merritt, there is no mention of either of these claims. There is no mention that Guyger and Jean knew each other or had any connection.
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,686
Manslaughter would not apply. Manslaughter requires recklessness. Recklessness means that someone knew that they were doing something wrong where someone could get killed.
But criminally negligent homicide could apply. Negligence means that someone did not know but ought to have known that they were doing something wrong where someone could get killed.
Why?
https://www.bhwlawfirm.com/texas-penal-code/criminal-homicide/
Sounds like that would be something like, say, cleaning a loaded gun while drunk. Pointing a gun at someone and shooting at him twice is surely intentional.
Disagree with this.
Reckless means that some doesn't take into account/care about consequence of actions and I think she qualifies quite well.
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,686
Your definition applies to both recklessness and negligence. But there is a legal difference between the two.
"A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur."
This would mean the prosecution would have to prove that Guyger was "aware" of the risk or that she could end up shooting an innocent person, but did it anyway. If Guyger was not aware of the circumstances, she wasn't reckless.
"A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur."
The only difference in the definition is between "is" and "ought to be". The prosecution would only have to argue that Guyger should have been aware that by walking around with a gun at the ready while completely exhausted and not paying attention to anything that she was creating a substantial and unjustifiable risk that she could kill an innocent person.
- Status