• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
plague311 said:
They're taking a quick lunch but by the sounds of it the officers on-scene are saying that they were under the impression it was an officer involved shooting. That's why they let Guyger talk to other officers, get visits in the squad car, have the audio\video shut off, and was treated much differently than your average suspect.
Click to expand...


Blue Wall of Silence at work.

And yet, some people wonder why "good" cops get tarred with the same brush as bad ones.

As long as they keep on circling their wagons to cover up bad behavior by their fellow officers then they are getting a tarring they deserve.
 
Bob001 said:
Of course he should. But that raises a separate question. Her defense, such as it is, is that she thought she was confronting a burglar. But how many burglars smoke grass while they work? If she really smelled it, that would be a bigger clue that whoever was in "her" apartment wasn't somebody who needed or deserved to be killed on the spot.
Click to expand...

I think we've established at this point that her apologist don't require her to actually act as if she was in the alternative universe, the fact that she was "mistaken" is all that matters, even if she didn't logically act as if she believed her own mistake.
 
Drug\alcohol test was taken at 3 a.m. and came back clean.

Her keys were still hanging in the door, they wouldn't open the deadbolt when tested, the light flashed red and wouldn't allow any movement in the deadbolt.

Jean's keys went into the lock, light turned green, deadbolt would lock and unlock without issue.

ETA: The guy on the stand, missed his name, but he said when a key is put into the lock, and it unlocks correctly the lock will make a 'whirring' sound. When the wrong keys are put in there is no audible sound. There are both visual and audible sounds that indicate the lock has opened. No sign of forced entry, no shoe prints, or anything to indicate that anything was broken into.

787 sq. feet. That is small.
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
That's actually pretty fair-sized for a city apartment. In that building they have studios with less than 500 sf.
https://www.southsideflatsapts.com/floorplans.aspx
Click to expand...

Sure, it's a normal city apartment. My comment on it being small had more to do with the narrative we were getting prior to the trial. All this talk of a "hallway" and Botham approaching Guyger while ignoring commands doesn't really make since. There is no hallway, nor is there really much distance at all between the door threshold and the couch where Botham was sitting.
 
William Parcher said:
The couch was in a different position than when we see it here in this news video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Mb6EHNnpEA
Click to expand...

Parcher, the video in the link you posted shows the couch in the correct position, however, it did not tell me where the entry hallway was. In the video you posted, I thought the entrance hallway was to the left of the screen, and you would walk toward the couch from the couch's front.

Once I saw the cop video, I see the entrance is toward the left end of the couch if you're sitting on it.
 
William Parcher said:
This should be the floor plan for his apartment here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39366&d=1545326835

His couch is in the same place as the one shown in this floor plan. What you thought was the entrance door is actually the door to his bedroom.
Click to expand...

Ah. That's different from the one we previously thought it was. (It least it is different from the one I remember us picking out).

That has a much more direct path from the door to the couch.
 
Even watching at 1.25-1.5 speed, I am far behind. I just got through the defense opening.

He said, "You'll hear from Amber Guyger." I assume that means she will be taking the stand.

Defense opening was pretty much as expected. No surprises. Except that they are dismissing the prosecution's claim that there was a hookup plan for that night.
 
Last edited:
I'm on the Sgt. Watson testimony from yesterday.

The prosecution is looking great. Very sharp and prepared. The defense, not so much.

The defense just lost an objection to introduce the police Code of Conduct into evidence. They should have won that one.

It appears to be irrelevant whether she was considered on or off duty. Under Texas law, use of force by police offers is inclusionary, not exclusionary. In this trial, Guyger isn't charged with violation of the Code of Conduct; she is charged with murder.

The prosecution says they want the Code as evidence to address whether Guyger's actions were reasonable. I think Guyger's actions were unreasonable, but that isn't the question for this charge. This case is not a question of actus reus, but of mens rea. The question is not whether her actions were unreasonable, but whether her beliefs were reasonable.

I doubt anything in the Code even addresses the attentiveness of a police office walking home after work. Even it did, it would be irrelevant because she wouldn't have been considered on duty until she saw the "burglar" in "her" apartment. And even then, the question for mistake of fact and reasonable belief for the castle law is based on an what an "ordinary" person is in the circumstances would believe--not someone who had some special training or job requirements for conduct.

The defense just babbled something about irrelevant. No clear or convincing argument. Then they got caught because the said "off duty" in the opening statements. They knew this was coming. They should have been better prepared and steered well away from this issue.

The information form the Code may well influence the jury, but I don't think it actually leads to a logical argument for murder. However, it would be very important to criminally negligent homicide. If she was considered on duty and there are Standard Operating Procedures that she didn't follow, it's fairly easy to argue that she was negligent.

Based on this and the prosecution's opening statements, I'm starting to think that they are actually going after a conviction for criminally negligent homicide, with a outside chance at getting murder.

I'll move my money from hung jury to criminally negligent homicide. But there is still a long way to go.
 
Is there a rule about how long an exhibit can remain in front of a jury?

The prosecution showed a picture of Jean to the jury. They then also used it in testimony from the sister for identification. He then propped it up on the judge's bench in view of the jury. He didn't take it down.

The defense can't take it down or ask the judge to take it down without looking rather cold and heartless in front of the jury. What's the defense supposed to do?

Of course, this tacit could work for either side in any case.

It seems like there should be a rule that an exhibit must be taken down after it has been entered into evidence or questioning has been finished or there is a new witness, or something.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
I'm on the Sgt. Watson testimony from yesterday.

The prosecution is looking great. Very sharp and prepared. The defense, not so much.

The defense just lost an objection to introduce the police Code of Conduct into evidence. They should have won that one.

It appears to be irrelevant whether she was considered on or off duty. Under Texas law, use of force by police offers is inclusionary, not exclusionary. In this trial, Guyger isn't charged with violation of the Code of Conduct; she is charged with murder.

The prosecution says they want the Code as evidence to address whether Guyger's actions were reasonable. I think Guyger's actions were unreasonable, but that isn't the question for this charge. This case is not a question of actus reus, but of mens rea. The question is not whether her actions were unreasonable, but whether her beliefs were reasonable.

I doubt anything in the Code even addresses the attentiveness of a police office walking home after work. Even it did, it would be irrelevant because she wouldn't have been considered on duty until she saw the "burglar" in "her" apartment. And even then, the question for mistake of fact and reasonable belief for the castle law is based on an what an "ordinary" person is in the circumstances would believe--not someone who had some special training or job requirements for conduct.

The defense just babbled something about irrelevant. No clear or convincing argument. Then they got caught because the said "off duty" in the opening statements. They knew this was coming. They should have been better prepared and steered well away from this issue.

The information form the Code may well influence the jury, but I don't think it actually leads to a logical argument for murder. However, it would be very important to criminally negligent homicide. If she was considered on duty and there are Standard Operating Procedures that she didn't follow, it's fairly easy to argue that she was negligent.

Based on this and the prosecution's opening statements, I'm starting to think that they are actually going after a conviction for criminally negligent homicide, with a outside chance at getting murder.

I'll move my money from hung jury to criminally negligent homicide. But there is still a long way to go.
Click to expand...

Just watched CourtTV's lame Live wrap up show. They're calling Day 2 for the Defense! Maybe because they're all defense Attorneys? However, according to opinions expressed on social media Guyger's action after Botham was shot look damning. Tomorrow, Day3 kicks off with the Texas Ranger's testimony partII.

Now back to you in the studio.


ETA: The talking heads never mentioned the maintenance man that the Prosecution mentioned in the opening.
 
Last edited:
Elagabalus said:
Just watched CourtTV's lame Live wrap up show. They're calling Day 2 for the Defense! Maybe because they're all defense Attorneys?
Click to expand...

I haven't got to Day 2 yet.

Elagabalus said:
However, according to opinions expressed on social media Guyger's action after Botham was shot look damning.
Click to expand...

That's emotion talking rather than reason and law. The question is whether she committed a crime when she shot. Being uncaring and cold and callus afterward doesn't change what happened before. Even deleting data is not indicative of guilt because the evidence deleted has little to no bearing on what happened before. Unless the evidence shows that she intentionally went to murder Jean, which seems very unlikely.

This trial is not to determine whether Amber Guyger is a good person. Or even whether she did something wrong. It's not a question of whether she is a bad person who did a bad thing. The question is whether what she did is criminal. This case is really not a matter of facts, but a mater of law. This would be better (for me) if it were a trial by judge. But they went with a jury trial, presumably hoping for a hung jury. A jury trial is going to be more about emotion and influence than rational debate about the philosophy of law. So emotions are going to run high and wild, especially on social media.
 
Elagabalus said:
ETA: The talking heads never mentioned the maintenance man that the Prosecution mentioned in the opening.
Click to expand...

That is curious, because that has been the really big shocker for me so far. The prosecution does not have many logical avenues to a murder charge, but this fact opens up a big door.

For Guyger to use the castle law, she has to establish that she had a reasonable belief that she was confronting a person who entered her apartment unlawfully and with force. If she lived alone and nobody else was expected to be there, such a belief could certainly be reasonable. The lock didn't work and the door swung open--like some burglar had jimmied the lock. And then...there's the burglar! Unlawful and forced entry.

But if she was expecting maintenance guys to be at her place, that makes the belief questionable. I think the defense would argue that a maintenance worker would not start shouting at her and keep coming toward her. That's a good point. But maybe there are scenarios where that could happen.

The big kicker is that the defense in the opening statements said Guyger did not see that it wasn't her apartment because she had "tunnel vision" and was focused on Jean and not paying any attention to the other surroundings.

If she only saw a silhouette and didn't look around, how could she establish reasonable belief that it was a burglar and not a maintenance man? To establish that belief, should she have to get a good look at the guy, or find out what he is saying...or at look around. Maybe some water on the floor. Or hoses and parts next to the dishwasher. Or whatever the maintenance issue was. Maybe some tools sitting on a table.

With tunnel vision and not even looking around for any signs that it might be a maintenance man, I find it difficult to accept that she established a reasonable belief. And if she did look around, I find it difficult to accept that an ordinary and prudent person in those circumstances would not have realized that it wasn't her apartment.

That's a tricky wicket for the defense.
 
Last edited:
DevilsAdvocate said:
But if she was expecting maintenance guys to be at her place, that makes the belief questionable.
Click to expand...
We don't know the nature of the maintenance visit and we don't know what she would already know about the details of the service visit (such as who, when, etc.)

She may have had instant certainty that the 10:00pm "guy in the dark" is not the building maintenance guy.

She may have even thought that the intruder gained easy entry to her apartment because the (earlier) maintenance guy somehow screwed up her lock and now anybody could just push the door open.

That maintenance could have been a quicky daytime thing and she knew it. Besides that, doing any non-emergency maintenance in an apartment building at 10pm is really odd.
 
William Parcher said:
We don't know the nature of the maintenance visit and we don't know what she would already know about the details of the service visit (such as who, when, etc.)

She may have had instant certainty that the 10:00pm "guy in the dark" is not the building maintenance guy.

She may have even thought that the intruder gained easy entry to her apartment because the (earlier) maintenance guy somehow screwed up her lock and now anybody could just push the door open.

That maintenance could have been a quicky daytime thing and she knew it. Besides that, doing any non-emergency maintenance in an apartment building at 10pm is really odd.
Click to expand...

Noted earlier, when you live in an apartment building, it doesn't matter what the time is, an emergency worker might be in there unannounced. This is one of those things that differentiates apartment life from a single family dwelling. And slams the door, so to speak, on any rationalization of her thinking nobody else 'should' be in there and so they deserved to die
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom