Did that happen? The first thing she did after the shooting was text her boyfriend? What did the text say?
Man shot, killed by off-duty Dallas police officer who walked into wrong apartment p3
- Thread starter DevilsAdvocate
- Start date
Did that happen? The first thing she did after the shooting was text her boyfriend? What did the text say?
Thermal
August Member
She did CPR. Covered Precious Rear and Contacted Rock-hard Partner
chrispy
Graduate Poster
She texted twice at 10:02 and 10:03...still 2 minutes before other officers arrived, minutes she could have been attending to Mr. Jean.
ETA: She texted "I need you to be here... " (paraphrase) and than something else I can't remember right now without reviewing the tape.
Last edited:
Thermal
August Member
I think she attended to Mr Jean quite enough, thank you
chrispy
Graduate Poster
Wow. She can't remember her de-escalation training. It was "too long ago. I mean, it was over a year ago. If you asked me then..."
OMG! Did she really say anything like that? How long ago was her firearms training? She sure remembered that.
chrispy
Graduate Poster
Mr. Bob, I **** you not. The prosecutor also just pulled out the contents of her backpack that she dropped next to Mr. Jean. It contained "Combat Gauze" to control bleeding and a first aid kit, all untouched.
chrispy
Graduate Poster
Also of note, she was asked why she didn't retreat to cover and call in an officer assist. SHe just replied, "I could have". The prosecutor folled with, "The Dallas PD headquaters is 2 blocks away, correct?". SHe responded affirmatively. Then, "So, in 2 minutes you could have had the cavalry here, correct?". Again, she responded, "I could have".
Thermal
August Member
So her defense amounts to ' so **** him, amirite?'
I have a suggestion for our British posters on Nov 5th
I have a suggestion for our British posters on Nov 5th
chrispy
Graduate Poster
I mean, I don't know if I'd go that far, but they are certainly playing the "I ****** up, but it was accident" angle. They even had her mention, and this is the first time I've heard this, that she heard rustling and moving sound in the apartment. A defense attorney on the channel I am using said that it means they are trying to wedge possible Castle Doctrine into the defense. So basically in closing they will argue mistake of fact plus castle doctrine = not guilty.
So, actually, yeah. I guess the defense DOES amount to 'so **** him, amirite. Jeez.
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
I mean, I don't know if I'd go that far, but they are certainly playing the "I ****** up, but it was accident" angle. They even had her mention, and this is the first time I've heard this, that she heard rustling and moving sound in the apartment. A defense attorney on the channel I am using said that it means they are trying to wedge possible Castle Doctrine into the defense. So basically in closing they will argue mistake of fact plus castle doctrine = not guilty.
So, actually, yeah. I guess the defense DOES amount to 'so **** him, amirite. Jeez.
Well the defense really has **** all to work with. A plea and sentence bargain was probably her best bet.
applecorped
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 20,145
Guilty guilty guilty!
Again I don't care what Amber Guyver "insists" when the entire core of her defense is that she was wrong.
If she was incapable of knowing one floor from the other I don't think her opinion of the stance of the innocent person she shot should matter.
Her entire legal defense is based upon her being in unreliable narrator. She can't be that and be providing expert testimony on the same sequence of events.
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,449
I've been wanting to comment for a long while now and prolly have like forty posts all queued up but will ignore to jump in here...
Self-defense and / or protection of property is, by law, explicitly denied when a person is merely trespassing. IOW, it is NOT lawful to use deadly force against a trespasser but ONLY against a person who is committing one or more of several specified felonies. The law also explicitly states that there must be NO OTHER CHOICE but to use deadly violence. Guyger did not follow department training nor did she just follow common sense.
Also, Guyger took no time to ascertain that Jean was anything OTHER than, at most, a trespasser. She took no time to figure out which of those felonies that allow deadly force to be used that Jean was in the middle of committing.
And I agree with others here who are saying that they can find a little sympathy for Guyger; it does not excuse her killing Jean and she should spend a good long time in prison for it.
As to the typical cop macho ******** memes or military high-speed low-drag eyerolling crap.... that doesn't affect me quite as much as to Guyger and her fellow cops LYING and COVERING UP her actions afterward.
That is completely inexcusable. It's completely expected to occur, naturally but that is a complaint for a different time.
See, that's the thing. The law is clear that for castle law to apply, the person must be home or at the residence in question while the invader is the one invading. So since she was coming home and came upon "an intruder" it doesn't apply.I mean, I don't know if I'd go that far, but they are certainly playing the "I ****** up, but it was accident" angle. They even had her mention, and this is the first time I've heard this, that she heard rustling and moving sound in the apartment. A defense attorney on the channel I am using said that it means they are trying to wedge possible Castle Doctrine into the defense. So basically in closing they will argue mistake of fact plus castle doctrine = not guilty.
So, actually, yeah. I guess the defense DOES amount to 'so **** him, amirite. Jeez.
Self-defense and / or protection of property is, by law, explicitly denied when a person is merely trespassing. IOW, it is NOT lawful to use deadly force against a trespasser but ONLY against a person who is committing one or more of several specified felonies. The law also explicitly states that there must be NO OTHER CHOICE but to use deadly violence. Guyger did not follow department training nor did she just follow common sense.
Also, Guyger took no time to ascertain that Jean was anything OTHER than, at most, a trespasser. She took no time to figure out which of those felonies that allow deadly force to be used that Jean was in the middle of committing.
And I agree with others here who are saying that they can find a little sympathy for Guyger; it does not excuse her killing Jean and she should spend a good long time in prison for it.
As to the typical cop macho ******** memes or military high-speed low-drag eyerolling crap.... that doesn't affect me quite as much as to Guyger and her fellow cops LYING and COVERING UP her actions afterward.
That is completely inexcusable. It's completely expected to occur, naturally but that is a complaint for a different time.
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,449
Just want to say that I appreciate the very clear way you state this point / these related points of her defense and her defenders all very blatantly wanting it both ways.
chrispy
Graduate Poster
Agreed, and again the lead prosecutor did a phenomenal cross of Guyger. He broke everything down, form her decisions to her statements. Piece by piece he knocked that **** out of the park.
Yes.
Long story short before the incident she was all "OMG can't wait to hook up" and after it was "Holy crap I messed up."
chrispy
Graduate Poster
less than 2 days later she was back sexting him and asking him if he wanted to get drunk. Less than 48 hours after killing an innocent man. WTF?
She also texted him about the shooting while Jean lay bleeding out.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Forgive me if this has already been covered but I'm wondering about the position of mens rea or whatever you call it in America in this case. My first thought was that surely this wasn't murder because she didn't intend to kill him and so the necessary mens rea was absent, however I then wondered about the parallels with the Oscar Pistorius situation where it didn't matter whether he thought the person in the toilet stall was an intruder or not because even if he did it was murder to shoot to kill an intruder who wasn't directly threatening him and when he had the means of escape.
So how do they get mens rea into this one? By declaring that even if she had been in her own apartment it was still murder because he wasn't directly threatening her and she had the means of escape? How does this work in US law?
And while we're at it, why hasn't she taken a plea deal to culpable homicide or whatever the US equivalent is?
So how do they get mens rea into this one? By declaring that even if she had been in her own apartment it was still murder because he wasn't directly threatening her and she had the means of escape? How does this work in US law?
And while we're at it, why hasn't she taken a plea deal to culpable homicide or whatever the US equivalent is?
Last edited: