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

[DevilsAdvocate]

The prosecution pretty much demolished her. He’s good.

Guyger’s responses, especially up to the point where she started crying near the end of the direct examination, seemed overly practiced. She did not come across as credible. Even after that she still seemed to repeatedly use certain key words like “threat” and “silhouette” even were they weren’t really appropriate.

The prosecutor caught her out on one of those that I think is important. Her attorney asked her when she was at the door with the door slightly ajar and heard rustling noises, what was she looking for. Her answer was that she “wanted just to find that threat.”

If the castle law does not apply, she can only use deadly force if she had a reasonable belief that she was facing a deadly threat and that deadly force was immediately necessary. But she had already decided that there was a threat before she opened the door. It seems that she even decided that it was a deadly threat, because her immediate action was to pull out her gun.

Under cross examination, she says that options like taking cover or calling for help did not occur to her. Despite her training to take cover, and despite having a direct radio to police who were just blocks away and could be there in seconds, and despite the potential danger to herself. It never even occurred to her.

The only thing that occurred to her was to pull out her gun and go into the door. To find the threat. The deadly threat that she already believed was there. She didn’t even turn on the light switch that was mere inches from her hand. She went directly for the gun. The gun was more important than the lights. To me, those actions indicate that she wasn’t going in to find a threat, but going in to shoot a threat.

She said she didn’t follow police procedures because she wasn’t responding to a call. When asked directly why she didn’t consider options like taking cover instead of going into the apartment, she said, “I was at my home.”

She went straight for her gun and opened the door. She didn’t consider any other option because “I was at home.”

Guyger surely knows Texas has the castle law. She knows the law. She’s trained in use of deadly force and when it is allowed.

From her testimony, it is starting to sound like she didn’t consider any other option because she knew under the castle law, she could just go in with her gun blazing. And it is starting to sound like that is what she did.

 

[Rolfe]

Hmm, that's an interesting take on it. Surely that feeds in to the social media posts that were highlighted earlier, where she seemed to be taking the position of a bad-ass shooter who expected to be respected and feared because she would surely shoot you if you didn't respect and fear her.

So someone with that mindset gets home (so she thinks) to find evidence of (as she thinks) an intruder already in her apartment. She knows about the castle doctrine, and her immediate thought isn't "I should retreat and call for backup" or "hey I don't have a red rug in my hall is this the right flat?" but "I've hit the jackpot I can shoot and kill someone legally!"

That could explain it.

 

[dejudge]

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.

So why would Amber Guyger enter her own supposed apartment without putting on the lights?

If a person enters what is believed to be their own apartment in the night then it would be expected that putting on the lights would be the very first action after opening the door.

There are light switches available as soon as the door is opened.


The lighting from the 50 inch TV must have been good enough for her to see that there was only one person in living room area.

It makes no sense whatsoever that Amber Guyger would enter her supposed own apartment in the dark, not able to see, claiming she thought her apartment was being burglarised.

 

[dejudge]

Hmm, that's an interesting take on it. Surely that feeds in to the social media posts that were highlighted earlier, where she seemed to be taking the position of a bad-ass shooter who expected to be respected and feared because she would surely shoot you if you didn't respect and fear her.

So someone with that mindset gets home (so she thinks) to find evidence of (as she thinks) an intruder already in her apartment. She knows about the castle doctrine, and her immediate thought isn't "I should retreat and call for backup" or "hey I don't have a red rug in my hall is this the right flat?" but "I've hit the jackpot I can shoot and kill someone legally!"

That could explain it.

But how would she know it was only one person in the apartment ? How would she know if there were multiple supposed burglars who are themselves armed?

Amber Guyger claimed she heard noises in her supposed apartment before the door was opened.

 

[Matthew Best]

So why would Amber Guyger enter her own supposed apartment without putting on the lights?

If a person enters what is believed to be their own apartment in the night then it would be expected that putting on the lights would be the very first action after opening the door.

There are light switches available as soon as the door is opened.

The lighting from the 50 inch TV must have been good enough for her to see that there was only one person in living room area.

It makes no sense whatsoever that Amber Guyger would enter her supposed own apartment in the dark, not able to see, claiming she thought her apartment was being burglarised.

Your mistake is expecting all human behaviour to make sense. It often doesn't. I'm not sure that there is much that we can glean from the fact that her behaviour didn't make sense other than the conclusion that her behaviour didn't make sense.

 

[dejudge]

Your mistake is expecting all human behaviour to make sense. It often doesn't. I'm not sure that there is much that we can glean from the fact that her behaviour didn't make sense other than the conclusion that her behaviour didn't make sense.

Her behaviour does not make sense because she is lying.

 

[jadebox]

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.

It depends on the TV. Some have backlights that are always on. Others have better control of the backlights in order to offer better contrast. Our less expensive bedroom TV glows enough to illuminate the room when showing a black screen. The more expensive one that we seldom watch in the living room just has a faint glow.

 

[Rolfe]

But how would she know it was only one person in the apartment ? How would she know if there were multiple supposed burglars who are themselves armed?

Amber Guyger claimed she heard noises in her supposed apartment before the door was opened.

Maybe she didn't care if there were several of them or if they were armed. Maybe she just got an adrenaline rush when she thought she was in a position to use the castle doctrine to kill someone legality, thought she had the drop on them, and went in to be the badass hero she dreamed of being.

 

[Matthew Best]

Her behaviour does not make sense because she is lying.

Doesn't really matter to me. Even if she's telling the entire truth and nothing but, she still deserves to go to prison. I don't need to unpick every tiny sentence she utters to figure that out.

 

[Matthew Best]

It depends on the TV. Some have backlights that are always on. Others have better control of the backlights in order to offer better contrast. Our less expensive bedroom TV glows enough to illuminate the room when showing a black screen. The more expensive one that we seldom watch in the living room just has a faint glow.

Exactly.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Her behaviour does not make sense because she is lying.

So you think she just panicked and shot him? Is that what you believe she's lying about? I've only been casually following the case, but that seems like a reasonable possibility from what I've seen so far.

Not to minimize her culpability (I think if I were on the jury I'd be inclined to vote for whichever charge is the most serious besides murder), but I believe she's someone who should have been washed out during her police training, but for whatever reason wasn't.

 

[quadraginta]

The prosecution pretty much demolished her. He’s good.

Guyger’s responses, especially up to the point where she started crying near the end of the direct examination, seemed overly practiced. She did not come across as credible. Even after that she still seemed to repeatedly use certain key words like “threat” and “silhouette” even were they weren’t really appropriate.

<snip>

I found her oddly dry-eyed (Perhaps she should have used VapoRub?) sympathy-from-the-jury pseudo-waterworks ploy to be singularly unconvincing. It looked like she was channeling her inner little girl who was in trouble for pulling the dog's tail.

 

[dejudge]

Maybe she didn't care if there were several of them or if they were armed. Maybe she just got an adrenaline rush when she thought she was in a position to use the castle doctrine to kill someone legality, thought she had the drop on them, and went in to be the badass hero she dreamed of being.

You mean Amber Guyger was a complete idiot or suicidal? The castle doctrine applies to the person/s who actually abodes in the apartment.

Botham, the legal occupant of 1478, had a right to kill or use deadly force against Amber Guyger under the castle doctrine.

Negligence and irrational behaviour by the intruder Amber Guyger or claiming to be sleepy is not included in the castle doctrine.

 

[dejudge]

So you think she just panicked and shot him? Is that what you believe she's lying about? I've only been casually following the case, but that seems like a reasonable possibility from what I've seen so far.

I don't think she panicked at all before she shot Botham.

Once you understand that there are people who hate those who are not their color and hate immigrants then you may understand that there maybe motives for some to murder or carry out hate crimes.

 

[wasapi]

Exacerbating her guilt is the fact she had options on the same belt as her gun. She had both a taser and pepper spray. But she reached for her gun, choosing to murder instead of halting the threat nonlethally.

 

[Rolfe]

You mean Amber Guyger was a complete idiot or suicidal? The castle doctrine applies to the person/s who actually abodes in the apartment.

Botham, the legal occupant of 1478, had a right to kill or use deadly force against Amber Guyger under the castle doctrine.

Negligence and irrational behaviour by the intruder Amber Guyger or claiming to be sleepy is not included in the castle doctrine.

I'm suggesting she was so excited to (as she believed) find herself in the position where she could (as she believed) kill someone legally, she didn't notice all the signs she should have noticed that would have told her she was at the wrong house.

You're not seriously suggesting she consciously knew she was in the wrong house before she pulled the trigger, are you?

 

[William Parcher]

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.

The amount of light emitted by the TV would depend on what was being displayed on the screen. It's easy to demonstrate this for yourself with a TV or other similar screen such as a computer monitor or even a smartphone. A white background with black text will emit more light (be brighter) than a black background with white text.

If he was watching a TV program which had a darkish scene it would emit less light than a program having a brightish scene.

She said that the apartment was dark (because no lights on and only the TV as illumination) but she was able to see the human silhouette (it wasn't total darkness because of that TV). What she could see was one human silhouette and not more than one.

Sometimes when people say "dark" they do not mean no light whatsoever.

 

[Darat]

Exacerbating her guilt is the fact she had options on the same belt as her gun. She had both a taser and pepper spray. But she reached for her gun, choosing to murder instead of halting the threat nonlethally.

According to reports I read - she unholstered her gun before opening the door, so regardless of what she would actually encounter she initially decided that lethal force would be an appropriate response to finding her door open. And if she did unholster her gun at the doorway then I think it shows that whilst she might have thought she was at her door, that was not a reasonable thing for her to think.

I think she's watched too many cop shows on the TV.

 

[William Parcher]

If the castle law does not apply, she can only use deadly force if she had a reasonable belief that she was facing a deadly threat and that deadly force was immediately necessary. But she had already decided that there was a threat before she opened the door. It seems that she even decided that it was a deadly threat, because her immediate action was to pull out her gun.

My understanding is that she decided that there was a threat after opening the door and hearing "shuffling" sounds. Then she draws her gun.

After drawing her gun her immediate action is not to shoot him. Her immediate action is to demand to see his hands. That didn't happen and her next immediate action was to shoot him.

 

[SpitfireIX]

She was a police officer (albeit probably an incompetent or otherwise unfit one); she probably knew that the "castle doctrine" isn't an automatic Get Out of Jail Free card (people have attempted to use that defense and still been convicted, even in Texas). Is it possible that she thought, "Oh, boy, here's my big chance to kill someone else with no consequences!"? Yes, it's possible. But it certainly can't be known beyond a reasonable doubt. And I think it's more likely that she panicked and opened fire on the chance that the "intruder" might have had a weapon.

Her attorney will undoubtedly claim this lets her off the hook, but there are two problems, in my non-expert opinion. First, her fear was not objectively reasonable, at least not to the extent that justified using deadly force against a perceived potential threat when there was no sign of a weapon. Second, the fact that she failed to follow proper procedure meant that she missed opportunities to a) realize her mistake before it was too late, or b) call for enough back-up to make the "intruder" surrender peacefully.