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

[William Parcher]

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.

I don't know if you mean "walking around with a gun in hand", or "walking around with a holstered gun".

 

[Elagabalus]

Don't know, but I don't see how she should. If one accepts that an act based upon a reasonable mistake is exculpatory. And that the act she committed would have been legal had she not been mistaken, (Which I do so far)It seems to me she is absent criminality.

In my limited understanding of the legal system, that is one of the basis for the existence of a separate civil court.

I believe an outside source* was brought in to investigate. What did that outside source conclude?


*OK it was the Texas Rangers.

Speaking of SJW's. The prosecution could pursue the 4/8 chan angle. Here's a guy sitting on the couch just watching the game and in comes a woman cop who shoots him dead. Will any man ever be safe from these incompetent women? A bit of a Hail Mary , but there ya' go ...

 

[cullennz]

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.

Fair call, but if I was on the jury I would say she was aware given her training and job.

And I don't buy the "exhausted" excuse either.

Plenty of people do double shifts day after day and can still function in a sane way

 

[William Parcher]

Why?


https://www.bhwlawfirm.com/texas-penal-code/criminal-homicide/

Under section 19.05, Criminally Negligent Homicide is the death of a person caused by another person’s extremely careless behavior. Criminally Negligent Homicide is not an intentional killing, but rather a person dying because of another person’s irresponsible behavior.

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.

Amber Guyger killed an innocent man in his own home. But she did not intend to kill an innocent man in his own home.

but rather a person dying because of another person’s irresponsible behavior.

That's what happened.

My opinion is that she deserves to be convicted of Criminally Negligent Homicide.

 

[Bob001]

Amber Guyger killed an innocent man in his own home. But she did not intend to kill an innocent man in his own home.
....[/STRIKE]

She did in fact kill a man and intended to do so. That's why it's more than negligence.

 

[Thermal]

She did in fact kill a man and intended to do so. That's why it's more than negligence.

Exactly. Not giving a **** who you are killing falls under murder, not whoopsie

 

[William Parcher]

She did in fact kill a man and intended to do so. That's why it's more than negligence.

She had no intent to kill an innocent man in his own home. Instead it was her irresponsible behavior that caused that to happen.

Imagine that you and I are on the jury. Our disagreement on the definition of this charge could not allowed to proceed because it would impede justice. Our disagreement would have to be settled by the Judge or Jury Foreman.

 

[Thermal]

"Hey judge, if you deliberately draw your weapon and gun someone down, is that intentionally causing someone's death or more of an oversight?"

 

[William Parcher]

Exactly. Not giving a **** who you are killing falls under murder, not whoopsie

Do you mean like a spree shooter who sets out with the intent to kill people?

And she gave verbal orders before shooting. Does that not suggest an intent to apprehend rather than to simply kill? If your intent is to kill then why give any verbal orders at all?

 

[Thermal]

Regarding this intentionally killing an innocent man line of thinking: don't most murderers think their victims are not innocent? Is a wife shooting her cheating husband down also not guilty of murder?

 

[Thermal]

Do you mean like a spree shooter who sets out with the intent to kill people?

And she gave verbal orders before shooting. Does that not suggest an intent to apprehend rather than to simply kill? If your intent is to kill then why give any verbal orders at all?

Honestly? Habit. Automatic reaction. If she had the presence of mind to try to apprehend, I think she missed a variety of other methods and means to achieve that goal.

Or she didn't give a flying ****. Either way, bang bang the guy watching football is dead. And it was quite intentionally caused by Guyger. She would then be claiming her additional mistake of fact was in her interpretation of his intentions.

 

[Darat]

Do you mean like a spree shooter who sets out with the intent to kill people?



And she gave verbal orders before shooting. Does that not suggest an intent to apprehend rather than to simply kill? If your intent is to kill then why give any verbal orders at all?

Guns are often described as "lethal weapons", shooting at someone with a lethal weapon is intending to kill someone.

 

[Darat]

Regarding this intentionally killing an innocent man line of thinking: don't most murderers think their victims are not innocent? Is a wife shooting her cheating husband down also not guilty of murder?

It's nothing but an emotionally laden word, it adds nothing at all legally to what she did whether you describe Jean as an "innocent man" or " a man who had been convicted in a court of law for shop lifting in 1998 so was a guilty man" it doesn't change what she did.

To remind folk, we are all "innocent until proven guilty".

 

[Thermal]

Let's briefly recap the mistakes of fact claims:

1. Drove to wrong floor of parking garage
2. Didn't notice multiple signs of being on wrong floor, for brevity up to red mat
3. Not understanding why a key wouldn't work
4. Not understanding a door that she did not leave open was open, indicating she might not be where she thought she was
5. Mistaking the darkened (but not pitch black) look of someone else's apartment for her own
6. Probable smell of pot mistaken for...i dunno, her potpourri?
7. Dog not seen or heard, mistaken for dog quietly reflecting on his life choices
8. Mistakes guy minding his own business for intruder
9. Mistakes years of training in apprehending nonviolent suspects for 'optional suggestions'
10. Mistakes situation for being primarily a poor career move (repeating ' I'm *****' on tape)

Damn. Filled her punch card for a free murder.

 

[Darat]

Do you mean like a spree shooter who sets out with the intent to kill people?



And she gave verbal orders before shooting. Does that not suggest an intent to apprehend rather than to simply kill? If your intent is to kill then why give any verbal orders at all?

You don't apprehend by twice firing your gun, , you would use non lethal weapons and means if your intention is to apprehend.

 

[Bob001]

She had no intent to kill an innocent man in his own home. Instead it was her irresponsible behavior that caused that to happen.

Imagine that you and I are on the jury. Our disagreement on the definition of this charge could not allowed to proceed because it would impede justice. Our disagreement would have to be settled by the Judge or Jury Foreman.

She intended to kill a man. It's up to her to justify it. And she can't.

And while a judge gives instructions about the law and how to apply it, the foreman settles nothing. He counts the votes and sends notes to the judge. He is a layperson. He has no authority to define the law for other jurors.

 

[Bob001]

....
And she gave verbal orders before shooting. Does that not suggest an intent to apprehend rather than to simply kill? If your intent is to kill then why give any verbal orders at all?

That is entirely her unsupported claim. And if she burst into his home and screamed "Get on the ground!," and he stood up with his bowl of cereal and said "What the hell...?," does that constitute disobedience to a lawful order justifying his death?

Murder. Lock her up.

 

[Darat]

Amber Guyger killed an innocent man in his own home. But she did not intend to kill an innocent man in his own home.





That's what happened.



My opinion is that she deserves to be convicted of Criminally Negligent Homicide.

She certainly did intend to shoot someone, or rather we have heard no evidence that her gun fired twice by accident or by negligence, she intended to kill the person she aimed and fired her gun at.

If you want to go for a mistake of fact / negligence alibi in her intent to kill someone you need to pull out something like: she thought she'd loaded her gun with blanks, or she had an involuntarily muscle spasm in her hand twice that caused the trigger to be pulled, twice.

Her intent was clearly to kill.

 

[William Parcher]

And while a judge gives instructions about the law and how to apply it, the foreman settles nothing. He counts the votes and sends notes to the judge. He is a layperson. He has no authority to define the law for other jurors.

My understanding of the role of Jury Foreman is the same as what's stated on Wikipedia.

The foreperson's role may include asking questions (usually to the judge) on behalf of the jury, facilitating jury discussions, and announcing the verdict of the jury.

When jurors disagree on the applied definition of a charge then it seems that the Foreman would or could seek the judge for clarification that would settle things.

If all of us here were on the jury then it might be necessary for the Foreman to ask questions of the judge on behalf of the jury. None of us are stupid or irrational. This same argument over definitions could happen during the actual trial of this case.

 

[Distracted1]

It's nothing but an emotionally laden word, it adds nothing at all legally to what she did whether you describe Jean as an "innocent man" or " a man who had been convicted in a court of law for shop lifting in 1998 so was a guilty man" it doesn't change what she did.

To remind folk, we are all "innocent until proven guilty".

Good point.