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

[Thermal]

I think the thread is roundly in agreement that it was reasonable to end up at the wrong door, but unreasonable to go all Yosemite Sam? So will a Texas jury agree, or stand by statute and precedent that say you can in fact start cracking off rounds without any concern for the lives of others if you feel that...where are we at now, your property may need defending...because it's dark outside?

 

[Bob001]

That is the gist of it. As long as she can reasonably to believe it was her apartment it is all legal. That gets to the real issue, how much would a reasonable person realize it wasn't their apartment?

I mean this isn't as simple as opening fire and shooting your kid/spouse or what ever when they are home when you don't expect or up getting a drink of water at night.

Back to the beginning: Assume she thought, however unreasonably, that she was in her own apartment. Was she justified in killing an unarmed man who posed no threat to her? That is the question the jury has to answer, and it's hard to understand how anyone could say yes.

 

[Disbelief]

I think the thread is roundly in agreement that it was reasonable to end up at the wrong door, but unreasonable to go all Yosemite Sam? So will a Texas jury agree, or stand by statute and precedent that say you can in fact start cracking off rounds without any concern for the lives of others if you feel that...where are we at now, your property may need defending...because it's dark outside?

And now becomes a viable defense for anyone else, which is definitely not a good precedent.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Back to the beginning: Assume she thought, however unreasonably, that she was in her own apartment. Was she justified in killing an unarmed man who posed no threat to her? That is the question the jury has to answer, and it's hard to understand how anyone could say yes.

Sure she reasonably thought he was a burglar then and that is the best way to stop him. Threat to her is only needed if that is what she is claiming, threat to her stereo though, that works great in texas.

 

[Thermal]

And now becomes a viable defense for anyone else, which is definitely not a good precedent.

Absolutely. The Texas case where it was found you could chase down a hooker and spray her car with rifle fire to 'reclaim stolen property' was gut-wrenching enough. But if this gets extended to shooting people just sitting at home...man, I don't even want to think about how bad that could get.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Absolutely. The Texas case where it was found you could chase down a hooker and spray her car with rifle fire to 'reclaim stolen property' was gut-wrenching enough. But if this gets extended to shooting people just sitting at home...man, I don't even want to think about how bad that could get.

To be fair that does seem to fit in perfectly with their pursuit doctrine with regards to lethal force to recover stolen goods. The only question would be does his criminal act negate the right to kill people stealing your stuff that all texans have.

If it was a simple burglary it would never have even made it to court.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I think the thread is roundly in agreement that it was reasonable to end up at the wrong door, but unreasonable to go all Yosemite Sam? So will a Texas jury agree, or stand by statute and precedent that say you can in fact start cracking off rounds without any concern for the lives of others if you feel that...where are we at now, your property may need defending...because it's dark outside?

I think the Texas jury will read into the law the assumption that one must actually be in the right to use lawful self defense. I don't think this "mistake of fact" castle doctrine/burglary in progress defense is going to cut the mustard for a jury. To be honest, if that were the factual reading of the law, a bench trial overseen by a judge would probably be the safer option.

I expect that they will go for a manslaughter defense, and depending on how sympathetic they can make Guyger seem, the jury might bite and she'll avoid a murder conviction.

 

[plague311]

Back to the beginning: Assume she thought, however unreasonably, that she was in her own apartment. Was she justified in killing an unarmed man who posed no threat to her? That is the question the jury has to answer, and it's hard to understand how anyone could say yes.

One of the lawyers that had been interviewed, I'm not sure what his role is, said that the fact she didn't say anything about him coming towards her, or trying to hurt her is going to make it tougher in court. He posted no threat.

 

[plague311]

Read today that the police want to postpone her trial to avoid the fair. They don't want to have to man both of them...

 

[Belz...]

This leaves out the fact that Jean's door is distinctly NOT like the other doors on his floor or in the building. He took steps to ensure that his door stood out. Mistake of Fact is fine and dandy, and all that good stuff. I just don't see it as the complete catch all that is being implied from time to time. Getting to the wrong door is fine, every action after that was a deliberate step that caused her to shoot someone.

Whether the door was open or not makes no difference. In fact, if the door were ajar it should work against more than if the door was closed. An open door should have made her wonder why and how it got opened.

Especially with the big mat in front of the door.

 

[Drewbot]

I think the Texas jury will read into the law the assumption that one must actually be in the right to use lawful self defense. I don't think this "mistake of fact" castle doctrine/burglary in progress defense is going to cut the mustard for a jury. To be honest, if that were the factual reading of the law, a bench trial overseen by a judge would probably be the safer option.

I expect that they will go for a manslaughter defense, and depending on how sympathetic they can make Guyger seem, the jury might bite and she'll avoid a murder conviction.

I agree, this is probably how it will go, however, remember, they don't have to convince the whole jury, just 1 or 2 people who will say "Yeah, I remember when I was tired and went the wrong way on the freeway for 45 minutes." or something like that. A judge is going to stick closely to the facts.

I think she had to get a jury, with the hopes that 1 or 2 will agree that a mistake was made, and that jail is not the proper punishment.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Read today that the police want to postpone her trial to avoid the fair. They don't want to have to man both of them...

That and they seem to be worried that the fair may be targeted by anyone disgruntled by the trial.

The fair is huge and does attract a very large and diverse crowd.

 

[plague311]

I agree, this is probably how it will go, however, remember, they don't have to convince the whole jury, just 1 or 2 people who will say "Yeah, I remember when I was tired and went the wrong way on the freeway for 45 minutes." or something like that. A judge is going to stick closely to the facts.

I think she had to get a jury, with the hopes that 1 or 2 will agree that a mistake was made, and that jail is not the proper punishment.

It can be both a mistake of fact getting to the door and murder once you're there.

I truly believe that the door locks are going to tell the story. If the door was closed and locked that makes her entire story complete and total ********. There's no way she gets in if that's the case.

That and they seem to be worried that the fair may be targeted by anyone disgruntled by the trial.

The fair is huge and does attract a very large and diverse crowd.

Yup, I have no doubts it's big and can be tough to handle. I also think this makes the memo stating that no one can take time off a lot more reasonable.

However, I can also see why people would think this could influence the outcome though too. If the jury hadn't been chosen that is...

 

[Darat]

I think the thread is roundly in agreement that it was reasonable to end up at the wrong door, but unreasonable to go all Yosemite Sam? So will a Texas jury agree, or stand by statute and precedent that say you can in fact start cracking off rounds without any concern for the lives of others if you feel that...where are we at now, your property may need defending...because it's dark outside?

Nope, read my post above, from what we know the mistake of fact only gets her to wrong door, what she then did is not connected to that mistake.

 

[plague311]

All the pre-trial motions are done and the trial starts in about 28 minutes. There was talk of removing some of Jean's family from the courtroom as they could be called to testify. His sister said something about being able to explain why he used pot, to which the Judge pretty much asked, why is it relevant?

I'm using this live blog. I'm not sure how good it will be but I think they're going to have a live feed. There were no questions about an electrical lock expert, or anything like that. The defense tried for a mistrial but it didn't work.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

All the pre-trial motions are done and the trial starts in about 28 minutes. There was talk of removing some of Jean's family from the courtroom as they could be called to testify. His sister said something about being able to explain why he used pot, to which the Judge pretty much asked, why is it relevant?

I'm using this live blog. I'm not sure how good it will be but I think they're going to have a live feed. There were no questions about an electrical lock expert, or anything like that. The defense tried for a mistrial but it didn't work.

Wondering how long this trial might last. Most of the facts are not really in dispute. I guess the defense will be putting forward some legal theory why this isn't murder, but the broad strokes of the killing are largely agreed upon. Maybe it will be fast?

 

[plague311]

Wondering how long this trial might last. Most of the facts are not really in dispute. I guess the defense will be putting forward some legal theory why this isn't murder, but the broad strokes of the killing are largely agreed upon. Maybe it will be fast?

From what I can tell the defense is going to pound away at the mistake of fact, sleep deprivation and maybe a "he smoked pot, he's the problem" type of angle.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Maybe it will be fast?

Most sources are saying two weeks. Probably doesn't include deliberation.


ETA: Judge told jurors to pack bags for two weeks. So apparently the 2 week estimate does include deliberation.

 

[Bob001]

From what I can tell the defense is going to pound away at the mistake of fact, sleep deprivation and maybe a "he smoked pot, he's the problem" type of angle.

Aren't there some limits on what the defense can do? Suppose he did smoke pot (about which there is dispute)? So what? What does that have to do with the matter at hand? Can the defense really say "This was a bad guy, no loss to the world, she did the community a favor..."? Yeah, we know all about blame the victim, but he did NOTHING to contribute to his death. Even pro-police jurors wouldn't swallow that, right?

 

[quadraginta]

Aren't there some limits on what the defense can do? Suppose he did smoke pot (about which there is dispute)? So what? What does that have to do with the matter at hand? Can the defense really say "This was a bad guy, no loss to the world, she did the community a favor..."? Yeah, we know all about blame the victim, but he did NOTHING to contribute to his death. Even pro-police jurors wouldn't swallow that, right?

Using the results of past trials as a basis for consideration I have to think that "pro-police" jurors will swallow just about anything that can be shoved down their throats, so long as it leads to a verdict of innocent for the cop in question.