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

Status
Not open for further replies.
William Parcher said:
Imagine that you and I are on the jury.
Click to expand...

Hey here's a radical idea. You've been role playing as part of the legal defense of this woman for about a hundred pages now. For a change why not imagine you're sitting in your own home doing nothing and someone blunders in and shoots you dead.
 
"Here Lies Botham Shem Jean"

Beloved Son and Friend

b. 1992- d. 2018

Hey, she was mistaken"
 
Last edited:
Whip said:
Then why not pull out a taser instead of a gun?
Click to expand...

We've covered this... because she was mistaken about everything except anything that wouldn't have allowed her to kill Jean.

So which apartment she was in, wrong.

Which weapon to use, wrong.

Whether the target was armed, wrong.

The most basic questions of her situation and literal position in space, wrong.

Ability to on call perform a "Sherlock Scan" on the door to notice it's open? Still functioning.

Ability to notice the door mat or door number while performing that Sherlock Scan? Nope.

The split second "response to threat" reflex? 100 PERFECTLY INTACT!

Literally every factor that let her kill Jean she was right about, every factor that wouldn't she was "LOL mistaken" about.
 
Last edited:
William Parcher said:
My understanding of the role of Jury Foreman is the same as what's stated on Wikipedia.

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.
......
Click to expand...

That's what I said: "... sends notes to the judge." Then the judge calls the whole jury in and answers their question. The foreman doesn't communicate privately with the judge and then tell the jury "This is what the judge says," nor does he have any more influence than any other juror on how the law is applied or how the verdict is reached.
 
I served on several juries in WA state. Each jury debated the facts and in some cases argued about the definition of a word. At least one time we sent a question to the judge. The foreman worded the question the way we agreed, gave it to the bailiff, then we went on talking. A short time later we got a written answer from the judge delivered to us by the bailiff.
 
William Parcher said:
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?
Click to expand...
Nope. Even more than someone that wanders around with a lethal weapon at their side a trained police officer knows the reason you aim and fire your gun at someone is to kill that person.
 
William Parcher said:
<snip>

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?
Click to expand...


It suggests that at least that much of the training she was supposed to have had stuck with her.

Always cross your "T" s and dot your "I"s.

I suspect that gets drilled into cops during training pretty hard. It helps provide plausible deniability.

Just because they might be preparing to fire as they do it is rarely considered to be a flaw.

"Hands in the ai ..." Bang, Bang.​
 
If the Defense is taking the Stand your Ground, or Castle doctrine tack, Why would police training enter into this?

Wouldn't it be "OMG someone is in my house coming toward me! BOOM BOOM"?

We don't know that she gave verbal commands yet do we?
 
Drewbot said:
If the Defense is taking the Stand your Ground, or Castle doctrine tack, Why would police training enter into this?
Click to expand...

The Defense will present it as she's a cop when that fact suits their narrative and she wasn't a cop when that fact doesn't.
 
Bob001 said:
"Defense," of self, others, home or in any other situation, is premised on a response that is proportional to the threat. You can use force to stop the assault, the trespass or the theft, but you can't use more force than is required. If somebody punches you, you can punch him back until he stops. You can't kick him to death. If somebody breaks into your house and leaves when you shout "get out!," you can't shoot him in the back as he runs away.

The problem here is confusing "self-defense" with "blowing away a stranger on sight." Those are not the same things. That's where the distinction needs to be made.
Click to expand...

Please review Texas defenses against shooting people. There you can shoot burglars fleeing with your stuff so don't try to use some other states laws as if they were remotely relevant in Texas.
 
William Parcher said:
She says she did and it's in the affidavit. It wouldn't be there if she hadn't stated it to them at some point.
Click to expand...

You can't point at "Well she said so" when the entire apologetic narrative is based on her being so out of it that she didn't even know which apartment she was in.

She was either the frazzled sleep deprived walking zombie not responsible for her own actions or she's a reliable witness to the events she took part in, not both. If she's gonna hide behind "Well I didn't know what I was doing LOL" when really don't need her opinion about anything else that may or may not have happened.

But again a magical balancing act between a perfect state of mind to do everything required to kill Jean and total lack of a state of mind for everything would have kept her from killing Jean is where you just have to be at.
 
Last edited:
DevilsAdvocate said:
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.
Click to expand...

*shrug* Ok. As I said, I was skeptical as well, but to say that there was no interaction at all is probably not correct. I'm sure they've run into each other at least a few times.
 
In fairness, you can be mildly out of it and end up at the wrong door. It doesn't negate all her credibility.
 
JoeMorgue said:
You can't point at "Well she said so" when the entire apologetic narrative is based on her being so out of it that she didn't even know which apartment she was in.

She was either the frazzled sleep deprived walking zombie not responsible for her own actions or she's a reliable witness to the events she took part in, not both. If she's gonna hide behind "Well I didn't know what I was doing LOL" when really don't need her opinion about anything else that may or may not have happened.

But again a magical balancing act between a perfect state of mind to do everything required to kill Jean and total lack of a state of mind for everything would have kept her from killing Jean is where you just have to be at.
Click to expand...

She can come right out of the frazzle zombie state and into full awareness reality with an adrenaline rush. I think that would have happened when she saw Jean. It's not a stretch to believe her account as we know it. A mindless zombie until she is jolted awake by the perceived presence of an intruder.

The closest witness is a guy right next to Jean and on the same floor. It would be an ideal place to hear something. He says he heard words but couldn't tell what was said. Those words could have been Guyger's verbal commands before shooting.

But there's apparently no independent proof that she gave verbal commands.
 
Thermal said:
In fairness, you can be mildly out of it and end up at the wrong door. It doesn't negate all her credibility.
Click to expand...

I have looked all over to see if I could find someone that recorded the same walk that Amber took to get to her door. I can't seem to find one, but I would be EXTREMELY interested, to say the least, in what it took to get her from the ramp to the door.

I agree, mildly out of it happens, but some of the descriptions make this sound like it was a pretty distant walk from car to door.
 
Right, but when you are not on your toes for details, you could easily not pay attention to painted and lit up numberings. The red mat is much tougher to miss. Strains credibility, even. As I read the descriptions earlier, the walks were structurally identical.

As I see it, she made one small mistake: driving one too many floors in a presumably corkscrew garage. Walking on autopilot, not seeing signs. I mean, I can't remember the last time I looked at my house numbers or street signs.

But when you draw and shoot, you have no excuses.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom