Man shot, killed by off-duty Dallas police officer who walked into wrong apartment p3

Rolfe said:
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?

Abs while we're at it, why hasn't she taken a plea deal to culpable homicide or whatever the US equivalent is?
Click to expand...

The prosecution did a really good job of asking Guyger directly if she was trained to shoot to kill. She said yes. They followed with, "when you fired your weapon did you intend to kill your target?" (paraphrase). She waffled abit and then replied, "yes". So when she fired, she intended to kill
 
Amber Guyger did not shoot Botham Jean by accident.

She shot Botham Jean while operating under mistaking information. Information that a reasonable person would not be mistaken about.

That's been this entire debate, that no matter what legalese about "mistake of fact" or "in mens rea" says you can't just go "I was wrong, I'm legally untouchable."
 
Last edited:
chrispy said:
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?
Click to expand...

I've needed a drink and a hug over much less consequential stuff. This is actually the most humanizing and understandable things she's done, in my opinion.
 
Rolfe said:
Abs while we're at it, why hasn't she taken a plea deal to culpable homicide or whatever the US equivalent is?
Click to expand...

Sad to say, it's a jury trial and in the US there are a lot of people who won't consider a white cop killing a black man to be a crime.

And, as others have pointed out, she did intend to kill.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
I've needed a drink and a hug over much less consequential stuff. This is actually the most humanizing and understandable things she's done, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Was it a drink and a hug she was after, or body shots and banging?

Get it, body shots and banging? Jean sure did.

And **** her with a chainsaw
 
JoeMorgue said:
Amber Guyger did not shoot Botham Jean by accident.

She shot Botham Jean while operating under mistaking information. Information that a reasonable person would not be mistaken about.

That's been this entire debate, that no matter what legalese about "mistake of fact" or "in mens rea" says you can't just go "I was wrong, I'm legally untouchable."
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree, but seeing the prosecution nail it down in her own words was wonderful. A very good line of questioning to get her to the point where she says, "Yes, I intended to kill him" is no small feat. While most of us on the board see it as cut and dry, leaving no wiggle room for the jury should be paramount, seeing how often killer cops get off for these sort of things. Agree Joe?
 
JoeMorgue said:
Amber Guyger did not shoot Botham Jean by accident.

She shot Botham Jean while operating under mistaking information. Information that a reasonable person would not be mistaken about.

That's been this entire debate, that no matter what legalese about "mistake of fact" or "in mens rea" says you can't just go "I was wrong, I'm legally untouchable."
Click to expand...


It's quite similar to the Oscar Pistorius debate then, I think. I remember a friend who is a senior (Scottish) lawyer who also lives half the year in South Africa patiently explaining time and time again how Pistorius was guilty of murder even if he genuinely thought the person in the toilet was an intruder, so most of the debate surrounding the case was irrelevant. Then there was an appeal or some sort of do-over because the original judge herself didn't seem to understand this point?

OK, I'm convinced. This woman is toast.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
I've needed a drink and a hug over much less consequential stuff. This is actually the most humanizing and understandable things she's done, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Sure, me too. But sexting and sending nude pictures and suggesting getting drunk to your married-with-kids boyfriend less than 48 hours after shooting a man is not going to humanize her IMHO.
 
Rolfe said:
It's quite similar to the Oscar Pistorius debate then, I think.
Click to expand...

I only have passing, layman knowledge of the Oscar Pistorius case, but yes there do seem to be at least some parallels from what I tell.
 
Rolfe said:
It's quite similar to the Oscar Pistorius debate then, I think. I remember a friend who is a senior (Scottish) lawyer who also lives half the year in South Africa patiently explaining time and time again how Pistorius was guilty of murder even if he genuinely thought the person in the toilet was an intruder, so most of the debate surrounding the case was irrelevant. Then there was an appeal or some sort of do-over because the original judge herself didn't seem to understand this point?

OK, I'm convinced. This woman is toast.
Click to expand...

There's a little bit more to it. In Texas, you can shoot a person dead in your "castle" if you reasonably perceive them to be a threat. The jury might be unwilling to convict her of murder but find a lesser charge of negligent homicide/manslaughter more palatable, etc.
 
If I'd been in her position I'd have been looking to plea-bargain it down to that in the first place.
 
Rolfe said:
It's quite similar to the Oscar Pistorius debate then, I think.
.....
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go too far down that road. In P.'s case, he knew his girlfriend was staying with him. But his first thought at hearing a noise was not, "Reeva's in the bathroom." He thinks "An intruder's going to kill me!" At least that's his story, which some don't buy at all. But Guyger wasn't even in her own home and should have known it.

And it needn't be noted that Scottish, South African and Texas law vary considerably.
 
Last edited:
I don't want to belabour the point, because as you say the legal systems are significantly different. However most jurisdictions have a distinction similar to murder/culpable homicide based on whether the perpetrator had an intent to kill. And I saw the question of whether Oscar Pistorius should have realised it was probably Reeva in the bathroom as being similar to the question of whether Guyger should have realised that she was not in her own apartment.

This led on to my question, which was whether Guyger was still guilty of murder even if she didn't realise it wasn't her own house, similarly to the way Pistorius was still guilty of murder even if he genuinely thought he was shooting at an intruder. I can see that at this point the different legal systems make the circumstances quite different.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
I don't want to belabour the point, because as you say the legal systems are significantly different. However most jurisdictions have a distinction similar to murder/culpable homicide based on whether the perpetrator had an intent to kill. And I saw the question of whether Oscar Pistorius should have realised it was probably Reeva in the bathroom as being similar to the question of whether Guyger should have realised that she was not in her own apartment.

This led on to my question, which was whether Guyger was still guilty of murder even if she didn't realise it wasn't her own house, similarly to the way Pistorius was still guilty of murder even if he genuinely thought he was shooting at an intruder. I can see that at this point the different legal systems make the circumstances quite different.
Click to expand...

Yes, but regardless of her mistaken belief that it was her aprtment, she was asked directly if she intended to kill Mr. Jean. She replied "yes". It was a prudent move by the prosecutor to make sure he established intent in the eyes of the jury.
 
Not to digress too far, but who was Amber Guyger before she became a cop? What kind of jobs did she have? Did she go to college? Is she a vet? It's not directly relevant to her (obvious) guilt, but her previous life experience might have had something to do with her apparent eagerness to kill.
 
Bob001 said:
Not to digress too far, but who was Amber Guyger before she became a cop? What kind of jobs did she have? Did she go to college? Is she a vet? It's not directly relevant to her (obvious) guilt, but her previous life experience might have had something to do with her apparent eagerness to kill.
Click to expand...

I also want to know what happened at the MLK parade in 2017. The prosecution asked about her experience at said parade, but the defense objected and it was sustained. Never came up again.
 
chrispy said:
Yes, but regardless of her mistaken belief that it was her aprtment, she was asked directly if she intended to kill Mr. Jean. She replied "yes". It was a prudent move by the prosecutor to make sure he established intent in the eyes of the jury.
Click to expand...


Yes, that's the place where I'm trying to tease out the distinction. If the "castle doctrine" in Texas allows her to kill someone if she's defending her own house, does it cover her to kill intentionally even if she only sincerely thinks she's in her own house?

From what someone else said about the restrictions around the castle doctrine, it would seem probably not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom