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

chrispy said:
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.
Click to expand...

That was when she shot a suspect who had grabbed her taser.
 
Yes, I did figure it out. Here, the word is exclusively used to mean veterinary surgeon.
 
Rolfe said:
Got any more detail on that? Is it covered in an accessible article?
Click to expand...

The guy she shot was Uvaldo Perez. You should be able to find an article accessible to you searching on that name.

Police were arresting him. She was assisting. He was resisting and became combative. She shot him with a taser. He grabbed her taser away from her. She shot him. She was not charged. He was sentenced to prison for a couple years.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
The guy she shot was Uvaldo Perez. You should be able to find an article accessible to you searching on that name.

Police were arresting him. She was assisting. He was resisting and became combative. She shot him with a taser. He grabbed her taser away from her. She shot him. She was not charged. He was sentenced to prison for a couple years.
Click to expand...

That's been noted before. But it didn't have anything to do with any MLK Day parade, which apparently was the subject of the question at trial. And she was the only one of several cops on the scene who felt the need to open fire.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/cri...ay-from-officer-in-pleasant-grove-police-say/
 
Rolfe said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ah, sorry. I didn't quite parse what you were getting at. The way it was worded by the state makes me think that they were stripping away her castle doctrine defense by stating and getting her to agree to all the chances she had to de-escalate, call for back-up, observe her surroundings PLUS her admission that she shot to kill intentionally. SO I would think not in this case.
 
chrispy said:
Ah, sorry. I didn't quite parse what you were getting at. The way it was worded by the state makes me think that they were stripping away her castle doctrine defense by stating and getting her to agree to all the chances she had to de-escalate, call for back-up, observe her surroundings PLUS her admission that she shot to kill intentionally. SO I would think not in this case.
Click to expand...

That's the truly ****** up thing about Texas is you aren't actually required to backup in Texas. The "Stand Your Ground" \ "Castle Doctrine" gives Texans full rights to shoot someone that they feel is a threat to them. Sometimes, not even to them, but to their neighbors (kind of). One person chased down a hooker that stole his money, killed her, and he got off.

Texas is really random. I truly believe she'll be found guilty of a crime. If going by your breakdown (thank you for that by the way, I didn't get to watch today since I was on a full day network install) of the prosecution's verbal assault on Guyger! I think, as long as he doesn't blow the closing (I honestly think he's done a really good job this whole trial, good prosecutor), I think they'll get him at the very least of Negligent Homicide. I had always hoped for, and believe she's guilty of, homicide straight up, but...Texas.
 
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?

And 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...

There are two other sections with thousands of posts discussing the legal issues in this case. Here’s a summary.

U.S. law uses the concept of mens rea. A civil act is a wrong committed against a person; a criminal act is a wrong committed against the state. Except for limited liability law like traffic violations, mens rea generally applies, but we have to look at individual laws to determine the level of culpability required.

In the U.S. almost all criminal law is at the state level. Laws vary from state to state. In this case, it is under Texas law. The homicide law can be found at https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.19.htm

Under Texas law, criminal homicide is murder, capital murder, manslaughter, or criminally negligent homicide. Capital murder is murder while committing other certain felonies or murder of a judge, police officer, young child, and other such aggravating factors. That’s not relevant here.

Murder is when someone “intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual” (or intends to cause injury that results in death or kills someone while committing a felony). That’s it. It doesn’t say “with malice” or “with forethought” or anything like that. (Murder can be a 2nd degree felony instead of 1st degree if it is a crime of sudden passion, but that isn’t relevant to this case.)

Manslaughter is recklessly causing a death; that means the person did or did not do something they knew could cause a death. Criminally negligent homicide is negligently causing a death; that means the person did or did not do something they should have known could cause a death.

Texas law ahs the defense of mistake of fact. But that defense only applies if the mistake would remove culpability if it were true. But for murder the culpability is only knowingly and intentionally killing someone. Guyger surely did that. She didn’t think she was shooting at a bear or that her gun wasn’t loaded or something like that. So that defense does not apply. At least not directly.

Mistake of fact, both as a defense and a legal concept, does apply indirectly for a claim of self-defense. This is what the defense is claiming.

Self-defense is not justified if a person was committing a criminal act (other than a traffic violation). But that criminal act could be excused by a defense of mistake of fact. (At least that is my opinion.)

Mistake of fact as a legal concept would (in my opinion) also apply in determining whether deadly force was justified for self-defense. We would treat the circumstances as if the mistake were true. But a mistake of fact must be reasonable. In Texas, that is likely to be interpreted as mistake that an “ordinary and prudent” would make. A big issue for this trail is whether Guyger’s mistake meets that standard.

In Texas, deadly force is justified to protect against unlawful deadly force if the person “reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.” There is no duty to retreat. The jury may not consider whether a person failed to retreat when determining whether a person reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary.

Deadly force is considered reasonable to prevent the imminent commission of certain felonies, but those don’t apply to this case.

Texas has the “castle law”. That means that a belief that deadly force is necessary is presumed to be reasonable if the person “knew or had reason to believe” that the person had “unlawfully and with force entered…the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment”. It doesn’t say the person had to be in their home. They just have to have a reasonable belief that these circumstances existed.

We had some discussion about what “occupied” means. My opinion (based on the way the term has historically been used in regards to burglary) is that is means a place where someone regularly sleeps, and doesn’t mean that there actually has to be someone in the house when the bad guy breaks in. But that’s, just like, my opinion, man.

I haven’t got very far into watching the trial, but I don’t think either side has brought up the castle law. Maybe the court ruled in a pre-trail hearing that it doesn’t apply. Or maybe they can’t bring it up until a future hearing. Or maybe they are waiting for closing statement after the court has ruled on the wording of the instructions to the jury. I’m not sure what is going on.

There has also been a issue raised of defense f property. In Texas, deadly force can be used to protect property if a person believes certain crimes are being committed. That includes theft in the nighttime. Duty to retreat would not apply to defense of property. Guyger would have to prove that Jean was committing theft and that deadly force was the only reasonable means to stop it. The defense does not seem to be raising that defense.

Guyger has been charged with murder. We have not been able to confirm that the jury will have the option to convict under the lesser included offenses of manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide, but both sides are acting like that is the case. The prosecution introduced evidence relevant to those charges. For example, under the Code of Conduct she was “on duty” even though she was off the clock and the Standard Operating Procedures say to call for backup when confronting a burglar. The prosecution could also argue that, especially as a police officer, she had a responsibility to be aware of her surrounding, turn on the lights, etc.

The big issues for this trial are: Does Guyger’s mistake meet the standard of mistake of fact? If so, can she claim self-defense? Does the castle law apply? If so, did the circumstances meet the standard for that law? If not, did she have a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary to protect her life? If she is not guilty of murder, is she guilty of committing a homicide due to recklessness or negligence?
 
My Canadian sensibilities tell me that this is clearly manslaughter, Guyger should go to jail, never be a cop again, and never be allowed to carry a gun again.

This ain't Canada, though. This is Texas. I admit I have no idea what might happen.
 
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...

She is 31 years old. Single. No children.

Grew up in Arlington, Texas. Parents divorced when she was young. Lived with her mother. Mother worked part-time. Support from her father. One sister 7 years older (Allie, restaurant worker). One brother 2 years older (Day, who’s still in the Navy).

Wanted to be a police officer since she was six. Did ride-alongs with Arlington police in high school. Did swimming. Played violin and trumpet in marching band, orchestra, and a mariachi band. Worked at retail store (sales and manager). Graduated high school in 2008.

Attended Tarrant County community college. Transferred to University of Texas at Arlington. Waitress at TGI Fridays. Studied criminology. Completed about 100 hours of study. Didn’t graduate. Left school to apply to be police officer.

Hired by Dallas Police Department in 2013. Graduated from police academy. Worked patrol. Joined Crime Response/Reduction Team January, 2017.
 
William Parcher said:
The amount of light emitted by the TV would depend on what was being broadcast. Bright scenes are bright and dark scenes are dark. We don't know what was on the screen for those few seconds and can't really say that the living room would not have been dark.
Click to expand...

A flat screen tv emits light once it is on. A 50 inch tv will emit light even on a blank channel once it is on and that may be the reason why she did not have to put on the lights.

She must have seen that there was only one person in the room using the very light coming from the 50 inch tv.

It would have been extremely idiotic for her to enter the room not being able to see and therefore not able to see how many persons are in the apartment so the 50 inch tv light must have been sufficient.


Also it is absolute nonsense that an unarmed Botham would attempt to attack or approach a person with a gun already drawn.

It is far more likely that Botham would have attempted to hide or duck behind the kitchen counter.

In the trial Amber Guyger did not even identify herself as a police officer she claimed she said put your hands up.

Amber Guyger appears to be lying about the event on Sept 6.

If someone enters an apartment while it was dark as she claimed and tells the unarmed occupant put your hands up then it is likely that the unarmed occupant would immediately dive for cover.



I have been held at gunpoint during a robbery and I did not dare move a inch.

In addition, the downward trajectory of the bullet which struck Bothman suggests that he was not upright at all.
 
Last edited:
I skipped ahead to Guyger's testimony. I just got to the cross examination. The prosecutor got harsh with her right quick.

When she said sitting alone with Jean was the scariest thing she could imagine, I knew she was in trouble. Jean was just in the safety and security of his home when some stranger burst in and shot him to death for no reason. How scary is that?

What is she scared of? Why is she scared to be alone? I can't read that as anything other than being scared about what was about to happen to her.

This trial is about whether she committed a crime. It's not about her character. But, holy cow! What she said is pretty selfish and cold.

I'm going to watch the rest now. I want to see if the defense attorney has any hair left.
 
The mere fact that Amber Guyger only fired two shots is evidence that the lighting from the 50 inch tv was very good. She could see he was shot and stopped firing immediately.
 
Amber Guyger is lying. She claimed she told Botham "Let me see your hands". She forgot the lights were off .
 
Devil's Advocate, thank you very much indeed for typing that long and informative summary of the legal position. Extremely helpful and I will be referring back to it from time to time. Very grateful.
 
dejudge said:
Amber Guyger is lying.
Click to expand...


Based on what I've read so far, it would seem so. But then, she has to. She's done something that's likely to get her convicted of an extremely serious crime (whether actual murder or a culpable homicide-type offence) and her only chance is to concoct a story where her culpability is minimised and stick to it.

What intrigues me here is, why did she actually do it? (I realise this has probably been covered in the bits of the thread I didn't read, having taken a holiday after about the first three pages of the first edition, but maybe someone can give me an outline of the consensus thought.)

Presumably she had no quarrel with the victim. She didn't actually think, hey if I pretend I've mistaken my apartment I can shoot that bastard and say I thought he was a burglar in my own flat. She actually did go to the wrong door by accident. But then we have all these clues. Something about the door lock. The different furniture. The larger TV. The rug in the hall for goodness sake. And someone said it wasn't unheard-of for people to go to the wrong door in that block, which makes it even more reasonable to think she should have realised.

But by the same token as earlier, she still didn't want to kill Mr Jeans. She must have managed to ignore all these clues. I can't imagine she was thinking, well this is a bit odd, possibly it's not my house, but then she went ahead and shot anyway. She must still have thought it was her house when she shot. The lies are mainly an attempt to deny that this misapprehension was unreasonable. Which of course it was.

Given the catastrophic consequences for her life of what she did, I can't imagine she somehow consciously suppressed a suspicion that she was in the wrong place and blasted away anyway. The argument seems to be all about whether her mistake was a reasonable one, which it seems quite clear that it wasn't.

But she had no motive to make that unreasonable mistake. So what was going on?

I'm remembering the finding of "scenario fulfilment" in the US inquiry into the shooting down of the Iran Air passenger flight IR655. It was a scheduled passenger flight taking off on the normal flight path from Bander Abbas airport (albeit 20 minutes late). Somehow the captain and crew of the USS Vincennes became convinced it was a fighter jet which was diving to attack the ship. They challenged the flight on military channels and got no response, because the flight crew were on civilian channels. They shot it down and killed 290 people.

There was a documentary crew on board filming at the time and a lot of information was available to the inquiry. There was clear evidence on the radar that the plane was climbing, not diving. I can't remember the details, but there was evidence on film of crew members actively ignoring readouts that were showing the true state of affairs and simply carrying on with the drill they'd learned to attack an attacking aircraft.

The inquiry blamed the training. The crew had been trained (by a very aggressive captain) to go into the routine and carry out these actions, and when they tought they were in that scenario that's what they did. "Scenario fulfilment".

Is that part of what was going on here? But someone mentioned police being trained in situational awareness, which seems the opposite of this. Could somene summarise the feeling of the meeting on this one?
 
Last edited:
dejudge said:
A flat screen tv emits light once it is on. A 50 inch tv will emit light even on a blank channel once it is on and that may be the reason why she did not have to put on the lights.
Click to expand...

I have a flat screen TV and it doesn't emit light when it's on except when there's a channel playing. If it's tuned to a blank channel it's actually pretty hard to tell whether it's on or off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom