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

[William Parcher]

Have either of the Babbs sisters testified?

I suggested earlier in the thread that Bunny didn't really help because she essentially made her video and testimony something that the prosecution wouldn't want to touch.

I don't think that either of the two sisters were called as witnesses. Though I have not watched all of the trial their names are nowhere in the daily news about the trial. Their testimony would have been bombshell (loud knocking and then "Let me in!") and certainly the news would have reported on a witness who said that on the stand.

It looks like we were right that Bunny and her sister were deemed not credible. They didn't hear what they say they heard.

It will be interesting to see if they are called as witnesses in a civil lawsuit trial.

 

[AnimalFriendly]

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

Did she turn on the lights the switch for which was mere inches from her hand? - if not, it's no wonder "that" didn't happen.

 

[Rolfe]

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.

That's a very fair point and you may be right. It's just that I'm struggling to understand how she didn't realise she was in the wrong apartment in that situation.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

That's a very fair point and you may be right. It's just that I'm struggling to understand how she didn't realise she was in the wrong apartment in that situation.

I can not see how she can be fairly convicted of murder. And yet I can not see how she can be fairly found not guilty of at least negligent homicide.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I can not see how she can be fairly convicted of murder. And yet I can not see how she can be fairly found not guilty of at least negligent homicide.

Why in the world would it be "fair" to not convict her of the crime she committed and then turn around and convict her of a crime she didn't commit?

 

[Rolfe]

 

[William Parcher]

Why in the world would it be "fair" to not convict her of the crime she committed and then turn around and convict her of a crime she didn't commit?

Would you approve of any charges for less than murder to be completely eliminated and not be available as an option for the jury?


IOW, would you want Murder to be the only charge available to the jury?

 

[Darat]

...snip...

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.

According to her testimony she was "scared to death" before she opened the door. That simply doesn't make sense; if she was scared to death why would she open the door rather than call for help? That is not a panic reaction if she felt that before opening the door.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Would you approve of any charges for less than murder to be completely eliminated and not be available as an option for the jury?

IOW, would you want Murder to be the only charge available to the jury?

No, but my reason isn't fairness. My reason is that I expect the members of the jury to have the same misunderstandings and biases I see in this thread.

Now, care to answer my question? Why is it fair to convict her of a crime she didn't commit rather convict her for the one she did commit?

 

[dejudge]

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?

I am suggesting that she knew she was attempting to kill a person who did not pose any threat to her, that she realised she was in the wrong apartment before shooting Botham and that she lied about the sequence of events.



1. The claim that she was at the front door area and fired the two shots at Botham when he was about 12 feet in front of her is false.

The bullet that missed Botham pierced the extreme right side of the apartment which means Botham was not in front of her if she was at the front door.

Secondly she could not have been at the front door area when she fired the shots at Botham since it virtually impossible to hit the extreme right side of apartment from that location.

In addition the bullet that struck Botham had a downward trajectory. Amber Guyger is about 5 feet 3 inches so in order to shoot the tall Botham in the chest the bullet must travel upwards if he was standing in front of her.

 

[William Parcher]

The bullet that missed Botham pierced the extreme right side of the apartment which means Botham was not in front of her if she was at the front door.

Secondly she could not have been at the front door area when she fired the shots at Botham since it virtually impossible to hit the extreme right side of apartment from that location.

Here is the floor plan. His couch is in the same place as is shown in this plan. It looks like she can shoot almost anywhere once she is inside the door. The entire living room is available for shooting.

 

[Rolfe]

I am suggesting that she knew she was attempting to kill a person who did not pose any threat to her, that she realised she was in the wrong apartment before shooting Botham...

OK. Why did she shoot him if she knew she was in the wrong apartment and she knew he wasn't a threat?

 

[William Parcher]

The bullet that missed Botham pierced the extreme right side of the apartment which means Botham was not in front of her if she was at the front door.

Secondly she could not have been at the front door area when she fired the shots at Botham since it virtually impossible to hit the extreme right side of apartment from that location.

This video shows that bullet hole. It's at 0:28. The hole is located high on the right side of the end wall (exterior wall).

It looks like she can hit that location even if she is only just inside the door. But you say, "virtually impossible".

 

[JoeMorgue]

I can not see how she can be fairly convicted of murder. And yet I can not see how she can be fairly found not guilty of at least negligent homicide.

This is answer is going to be moral then legal, as in my answer is more to what moral wrong has occurred and needs to be addressed then to what "X law in Y jurisdiction says defines exactly as this and that" if that makes any sense.

We as a society maintain separate concepts for murder (as in Bill is going kill Ted to collect his life insurance) and lesser (or distinct since I'm not sure if lesser is really the best way to put it) concepts like manslaughter / negligence homicide / reckless endangerment / etc (Bill runs a red light because he's checking his cell phone and t-bones Ted in the intersection, killing him) because we recognize a moral difference between intentionally deciding/planning to kill someone and making a mistake that leads to the death of someone else. And that's a fine, necessary, and noble distinction.

The problem is the "In mens rea" and "Mistake of fact" fetishists over-extended the concept to absurd situations like this where someone makes mistakes piled on mistakes.

My main point throughout this whole discussions is many people in this debate have pretty much argued that "mistake of fact" or "in mens rea" means we are legally (or morally) obligated to let Amber Guyger go back through the sequences of events of that night with a "Yes/No" checklist on every variable and tell us if she is reasonable for knowing them or not.

We're being told that "In mens rea" and "Mistake of fact" mean we have to just ask if Amber Guyger if she wants to be guilty or not, turning the criminal justice system in an honor system. They just think if they go through the entire sequence of events and ask her "Do you want to be guilty?" at every single step instead of just overall it makes a difference.

At a certain point if you keep making mistakes upon mistakes the distinction between maliciousness and incompetence starts to get real thin for me, so the distinction between murder and various kinds of "unlawful killing" get equally thin.

 

[acbytesla]

Why in the world would it be "fair" to not convict her of the crime she committed and then turn around and convict her of a crime she didn't commit?

I don't understand your point. If she genuinely thought she was protecting herself killing an intruder in her home, I don't believe you can say it was murder. OTOH, her actions were so reckless and indifferent that you can't say it isn't an act of extreme negligence.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

bears and tents

I am a very casual observer of this case and am not overly sympathetic to the defendant. However, I recalled something that I read a while back and found a mention of it elsewhere. It seems pertinent in that it deals with how one's expectations affect one's perceptions. "Elizabeth Loftus tells the true story of two bear hunters at dusk, walking along a train in the woods. Tired and frustrated, they had seen no bear. As they rounded a bend in the train, they spotted a large object about 25 yards away, shaking and grunting. Simultaneously, they raised their rifles and fired. But the "bear" turned out to be a yellow tent with a man and woman making love inside. The woman was killed.[48]"

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I don't understand your point.

My point is she should be tried on the crime she comitted.

If she genuinely thought she was protecting herself killing an intruder in her home, I don't believe you can say it was murder.

You also can't say it's negligent homicide because she wasn't negligent (and at this point, we actually have her own testimony under oath to this fact). If you believe her defense then you let her go.

OTOH, her actions were so reckless and indifferent that you can't say it isn't an act of extreme negligence.

You can say that, she just said it under oath herself. This appears to be a fact that is simply not in dispute by either side at this point.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I don't understand your point. If she genuinely thought she was protecting herself killing an intruder in her home, I don't believe you can say it was murder. OTOH, her actions were so reckless and indifferent that you can't say it isn't an act of extreme negligence.

Can't edit my prior post.

If you are accepting her claim of self defense then why would you want her convicted of anything at all?

 

[Bob001]

I don't understand your point. If she genuinely thought she was protecting herself killing an intruder in her home, I don't believe you can say it was murder. OTOH, her actions were so reckless and indifferent that you can't say it isn't an act of extreme negligence.

The elements of the various possible charges under Texas law have been discussed here. This is not like her gun went off while she was cleaning it. She deliberately entered the apartment, she deliberately drew her gun, she deliberately pointed it at what she herself claimed she only saw as a "silhouette" in a dark room without actually identifying her target, and she opened fire. Jean's death was the result of multiple deliberate acts, any one of which could have gone a different way. Way more than negligence.

 

[Bob001]

I am suggesting that she knew she was attempting to kill a person who did not pose any threat to her, that she realised she was in the wrong apartment before shooting Botham and that she lied about the sequence of events.
....

She might be lying about some stuff, but nobody's claimed she's crazy. Why would she shoot the guy if she recognized she was in the wrong place and he posed no threat? To avoid the embarrassment of saying "Whoopsy! I'm sorry?" That's a little far-fetched.