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

[DevilsAdvocate]

I'm just getting through the Day 6 testimony.

No pockets in his pants? Ohhhh, snap!

The defense keeps trying to overshoot and just digs themselves in deeper.

 

[whoanellie]

Thanks, I know what premeditation is and I still don't see evidence of it.

Accident? No. Understandable mistake? Possibly.

Amber Guyger testified under oath that she intended to kill Jean. That's all the evidence of premeditation that one should need.
In my opinion her testimony hurt her defense. Her testimony that she was in fear for her life and she acted in self-defense was not credible. If she didn't act in self-defense and she intended to kill Jean then it's murder. The jury may compromise and find her guilty of a lesser offense but they will not be following the law.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

I don't for a second entertain the idea that Amber Guyger intentionally went to Botham Jean's apartment for the express purpose of killing him.

However if we're being honest if Amber Guyger had went Botham Jean's apartment for the express purpose of killing him... what about the sequence of events would be any different to an outside observer? The only difference is what Guyger tells us.

That's been one of my major arguments this whole debate. If Guyger had shot Jean intentionally in a pre-planned fashion... how would we, the outside observers, know the difference? The actual events of what happened are not in question and the only thing in question is Guyger's mental state. If "In mens rea" and "Mistake of fact" mean what so many people seem to think it means, that whatever mental state this woman claims to be in is sacrosanct and unquestionable, how on Earth is premeditated murder even a crime we can convict anyone of ever?

Literally every murder could be committed and then after the fact the murderer could just go "LOL no I thought it was situation X and therefore I'm innocent" and we'd have to accept that.

That's why we have the standard of reasonableness.

 

[JoeMorgue]

That's why we have the standard of reasonableness.

Apparently we don't given how many cheerleaders this woman has.

 

[Darat]

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.

I said it earlier in a tongue-in cheek-way but my point was actually serious - I said she has watched too many cop shows on TV. She thought she was going be a "hero" cop bravely defending herself, she created that scenario in her mind and went on with it, ignoring all her police training and the common sense any "reasonable" person would have shown.

 

[Darat]

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

See above, she created a scenario in her head and acted as if it was real. It is really the only explanation that makes sense.

 

[theprestige]

Amber Guyger testified under oath that she intended to kill Jean. That's all the evidence of premeditation that one should need.

That's way less evidence of premeditation than I need. I'm pretty sure it's way less than the law requires, as well.

Can you explain your reasoning here?

 

[whoanellie]

That's way less evidence of premeditation than I need. I'm pretty sure it's way less than the law requires, as well.

Can you explain your reasoning here?

acbytesla posted "I still don't see evidence of it [premeditation]." My argument is that Guyger's testimony was evidence of premeditation and was sufficient to convict her of murder if you don't believe that she reasonably acted in self-defense.

 

[Darat]

That's way less evidence of premeditation than I need. I'm pretty sure it's way less than the law requires, as well.

Can you explain your reasoning here?

Nope - that would fall under most uses of premeditation. She intended to kill him prior to the act of killing him. For example:

https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/premeditated/
The term ‘premeditated’ means done with willful deliberation and planning. It refers to the intention of an act. For example, a premeditated murder.

A premeditated act can be an act that is carefully and consciously considered beforehand.

The following is an example of a case law defining the term:

The word "premeditated" means considered beforehand. [Musladin v. Lamarque, 555 F.3d 830, 843 (9th Cir. 2009)].

Premeditation is planning, plotting or deliberating before doing something. For example, murder by poisoning automatically includes an element of premeditation. Premeditation is an element in first degree murder and shows the element of intent necessary to convict of the crime.

The amount of time necessary between the planning and the act to prove premeditation is judged on a case by case basis. Murder in the first degree consists of an intentional, deliberate and premeditated killing, which means that the killing is done after a period of time for prior consideration. The duration of that period cannot be arbitrarily fixed. The time in which to form a deliberate and premeditated design varies as the minds and temperaments of people differ, and according to the circumstances in which they may be placed.

By her own testimony she intentionally acted to kill him.

 

[JoeMorgue]

We're talking around each other as in:

- Did Amber Guyger, prior to the events in question (say prior to opening the door to Jean's apartment give or take a step in sequence of events or so) have any intention of killing Botham Jean. No, probably not. I don't think anyone here is seriously advancing the notion that this murder was premeditated or planned out on a long time frame.

- Did Amber Guyger have enough time during the sequence of events to go, on some level or in some context, "I now have to decide to or not to kill this human being in front of me." Many here would argue yes.

- Does this moment of decision making count as "premeditation." This is debatable, with points to be made either way.

 

[whoanellie]

That's way less evidence of premeditation than I need. I'm pretty sure it's way less than the law requires, as well.

Can you explain your reasoning here?

If I understand you correctly, I agree that Guyger's testimony of her intention to kill Jean was (more than sufficient) but not necessary to prove premeditation.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Elizabeth Loftus and Katherine Ketcham

This is what I want to know. If she did realise she was at the wrong house, then why on earth would she have proceeded to kill the occupant? It makes no sense, unless it was all a complicated plot to murder an annoying neighbour.

Hi Rolfe,

The only thing I can think of is that she ignored the cues that it was the wrong house because of her expectation. See my comment #176, which is essentially the same as what is below. By the way, your in-box is full.

"Two men in their mid-twenties were hunting for bears in a rural area of Montana. They had been out all day and were exhausted, hungry, and ready to go home. Walking along a dirt trail in the middle of the woods, with the night falling fast, they were talking about bears and thinking about bears. They rounded a bend in the trail and approximately twenty-five yards ahead of them, just off the trail in the woods, was a large object that was moving and making noise. Both men thought it was a bear, and they lifted their rifles and fired. But the "bear" turned out to be a yellow tent, with a man and a woman making love inside. One of the bullets hit the woman and killed her. When the case was tried before a jury, the jurors had difficulty understanding the perceptual problems inherent in the event; they simply couldn't imagine how someone would look at a yellow tent and see a growling bear. The young man whose bullet killed the woman was convicted of negligent homicide. Two years later he committed suicide."

 

[SpitfireIX]

I said it earlier in a tongue-in cheek-way but my point was actually serious - I said she has watched too many cop shows on TV. She thought she was going be a "hero" cop bravely defending herself, she created that scenario in her mind and went on with it, ignoring all her police training and the common sense any "reasonable" person would have shown.

As I said, she should have washed out of the police academy. Whether she just "fell through the cracks," or there was a systemic problem with her department's training is a question that should be examined, but probably won't.

 

[Darat]

We're talking around each other as in:

- Did Amber Guyger, prior to the events in question (say prior to opening the door to Jean's apartment give or take a step in sequence of events or so) have any intention of killing Botham Jean. No, probably not. I don't think anyone here is seriously advancing the notion that this murder was premeditated or planned out on a long time frame.

- Did Amber Guyger have enough time during the sequence of events to go, on some level or in some context, "I now have to decide to or not to kill this human being in front of me." Many here would argue yes.

- Does this moment of decision making count as "premeditation." This is debatable, with points to be made either way.

I think she decided she was going to play being a TV cop, wanting to be the hero and once she started playing that role nothing else entered her head. That's when the terrible sequence of events started that she could have avoided. This is why I've always said her mistake only gets her to the wrong door.
everything else was a deliberate decision.

 

[pgwenthold]

Let's talk about application of the castle doctrine. To Botham.

He was sitting in his apartment keeping to himself. An intruder pushes open his door and starts screaming at him.

1) Her claim is that she yelled to "Show me your hands" and when he didn't, she shot him. Then again, he had no obligation to show her anything. He was peacefully sitting in his apartment, and an intruder burst in and started shouting commands. If the "castle doctrine" has any meaning, it has to mean that someone in their home does not have to follow the commands of an intruder.

2) I don't know about whether she claims he was coming at him or not (can't keep up with it), but even if he did, so what? He had the right to defend his home, yes? If we can't put her in jail for defending what she thought was her home, why is it ok for him to be killed for defending his actual home?

 

[acbytesla]

She stated under oath in court that she intended to kill him.

How long it took her to make that decision is irrelevant. When she made it is. She made that decision before she shot him. Hence intended.

That's not premeditation, that's training. If she walked into the room intending to kill that's premeditation.

 

[acbytesla]

We're talking around each other as in:

- Did Amber Guyger, prior to the events in question (say prior to opening the door to Jean's apartment give or take a step in sequence of events or so) have any intention of killing Botham Jean. No, probably not. I don't think anyone here is seriously advancing the notion that this murder was premeditated or planned out on a long time frame.

- Did Amber Guyger have enough time during the sequence of events to go, on some level or in some context, "I now have to decide to or not to kill this human being in front of me." Many here would argue yes.

- Does this moment of decision making count as "premeditation." This is debatable, with points to be made either way.

My argument is you can't know beyond a reasonable doubt so you can not convict her of premeditation.

 

[Bob001]

My argument is you can't know beyond a reasonable doubt so you can not convict her of premeditation.

She's not charged with "premeditation." Let's try this once again.

The Penal Code defines criminal homicide as intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence, causing the death of an individual. This definition includes the four offenses of capital murder, murder, manslaughter, and criminally negligent homicide.

Criminal homicide in Texas is a definition and a category of offenses. Criminal homicide is not on its own a defined offense. It is also worth noting that terms used to describe offenses in other jurisdictions may carry no legal meaning in Texas. Terms not used in Texas include murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, premeditated murder, voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter. While these are common phrases in movies and TV shows, remember that most movies and TV shows are not made in Texas.

Another big difference between what we see on television and the actual law is the concept of premeditation. In layman’s terms, premeditation is the act of planning out and committing a crime, as opposed to committing it spur of the moment. How long you thought about killing someone isn’t central to criminal homicide offenses in Texas. What’s more important is the outcome of the conduct and the culpable mental state. For instance, whether you plan for weeks to murder another person, or whether or not you did it after you got into an unexpected argument and did it on spur of the moment, you will likely still be charged with the same offense in Texas. In other states, the charges might be different based on your premeditation.

https://www.versustexas.com/criminal/homicide/

She intended to kill him. She said so herself. Then she did. That's enough.

 

[acbytesla]

She's not charged with "premeditation." Let's try this once again.

https://www.versustexas.com/criminal/homicide/

She intended to kill him. She said so herself. Then she did. That's enough.

It's enough for what?

 

[Bob001]

It's enough for what?

A murder conviction in Texas.