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

[acbytesla]

ac, I'm not following you. If you acknowledge that she intended to kill then surely the standard I'll quote here:
Sec. 19.02. MURDER.

(b) A person commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;

has been met. The question of whether Guyger was justified by acting in self-defense is a separate. What brought her to the door is also a separate question. She may have gotten to the door by accident, but once there her actions were intentional and deliberate. If it a lesser charge is available to them the jury may compromise on a lesser verdict but I believe that would be contrary to the law and the facts of the case. Guyger intended to kill Jean. She either legitimately did it in self-defense or not. I believe she did not legitimately act in self-defense.

I think that's the question. Ddid she believe it was self defense? This really is a tough one in my mind. Maybe I would be more confident if I was more familiar with the case than I am.

I think for a police officer to say they didn't intend to kill when they pulled the trigger would almost be disingenuous. According to the statute, I would be wrong and there is no question the outcome. But, I also don't believe the statute had this situation in mind. I can't ignore her recklessness but I also believe it would be a mistake to not recognize a genuine extenuating circumstance.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I think that's the question, did she believe it was self defense.

And this is the disagreement we've been having for 3 threads now.

I don't care if Amber Guyger truly and honestly believed in her heart of hearts that she was in her apartment and Botham Jean was running at her brandishing a machete in one hand and a notarized form saying "I hereby declare my intent to murder you, yes you Amber Guyger." If we could wrap Amber Guyger in Wonder Woman's Lasso of Truth and prove beyond all metaphysical doubt that she did honestly and truly believe in that moment that she was acting in pure and noble self defense my opinion of her guilt would not change one iota.

Because I don't find the belief that she was in her apartment reasonable. I don't think she's lying, I just think she's so wrong she's achieved the same level of guilt. I'm sorry there's no readily available concise Latin phrase for it to throw around but there is, or at the very least should be, a legal limit on how "wrong" you're just allowed to be and point at as an circumstance to justify your actions.

That's really the true irony of this. I've thought Amber Guyger was telling the truth from day one... and I still think she's guilty. I'm throwing her into same category as someone who actually makes an honest mistake seems wrong to me somehow.

 

[acbytesla]

And this is the disagreement we've been having for 3 threads now.

I don't care if Amber Guyger truly and honestly believed in her heart of hearts that she was in her apartment and Botham Jean was running at her brandishing a machete in one hand and a notarized form saying "I hereby declare my intent to murder you, yes you Amber Guyger." If we could wrap Amber Guyger in Wonder Woman's Lasso of Truth and prove beyond all metaphysical doubt that she did honestly and truly believe in that moment that she was acting in pure and noble self defense my opinion of her guilt would not change one iota.

Because I don't find the belief that she was in her apartment reasonable. I don't think she's lying, I just think she's so wrong she's achieved the same level of guilt. I'm sorry there's no readily available concise Latin phrase for it to throw around but there is, or at the very least should be, a legal limit on how "wrong" you're just allowed to be and point at as an circumstance to justify your actions.

That's really the true irony of this. I've thought Amber Guyger was telling the truth from day one... and I still think she's guilty. I'm throwing her into same category as someone who actually makes an honest mistake seems wrong to me somehow.

And I disagree with the idea that her state of mind doesn't matter when considering her penalty. I absolutely agree that this woman was so reckless that whether she believed that she was in the right and that she was acting in self defense doesn't equal a Get out of Jail card.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

And I disagree with the idea that her state of mind doesn't matter when considering her penalty.

Who said anything like that? You've been saying things like you can't see her being charged or convicted of murder and that's what most people are disagreeing with you on. You've been disagreeing with the charge not the penalty. There is a LOT of discretion at sentencing, everything from 5 to 99 years. I would think most people here are expecting and desiring something near 5 (which could have her out in 2.5 years I think).

 

[acbytesla]

Who said anything like that? You've been saying things like you can't see her being charged or convicted of murder and that's what most people are disagreeing with you on. You've been disagreeing with the charge not the penalty. There is a LOT of discretion at sentencing, everything from 5 to 99 years. I would think most people here are expecting and desiring something near 5 (which could have her out in 2.5 years I think).

The problem in my mind is leaving that wide range of discretion up to someone else.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

What do you mean "someone else"? It's up to the judge (and jury maybe?).


And when I said "discretion" that probably over simplifies. I'd expect there are guidelines for sentencing and the judge can also exercise some discretion. It's not all "discretion".

 

[acbytesla]

What do you mean "someone else"? It's up to the judge (and jury maybe?).


And when I said "discretion" that probably over simplifies. I'd expect there are guidelines for sentencing and the judge can also exercise some discretion. It's not all "discretion".

To the judge. Sometimes the jury has something of a say regarding sentencing, but outside of the death penalty doesn't their responsibilities end with the verdict?

 

[whoanellie]

And I disagree with the idea that her state of mind doesn't matter when considering her penalty. I absolutely agree that this woman was so reckless that whether she believed that she was in the right and that she was acting in self defense doesn't equal a Get out of Jail card.

Have you listened to her testimony. Did you find her credible as to Jean's actions and movements that caused her to pull the trigger?

 

[acbytesla]

Have you listened to her testimony. Did you find her credible as to Jean's actions and movements that caused her to pull the trigger?

I've only heard a few excerpts. She didn't sound evasive in any way. But then again I've only listened to a portion of her testimony.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

To the judge.

I don't know what this sentence means.

Sometimes the jury has something of a say regarding sentencing, but outside of the death penalty doesn't their responsibilities end with the verdict?

I think most trials in Texas are jury sentenced, but I'm not sure.

 

[Bob001]

I don't know what this sentence means.

I think most trials in Texas are jury sentenced, but I'm not sure.

Apparently the defendant gets to decide who sentences him/her.

In Texas, we do have jury sentencing in non-capital cases. The accused can elect before trial to have the jury set punishment in the event of a conviction (and we get jury trials for everything). If the accused doesn’t elect jury punishment the judge sets punishment. In almost all felony cases the accused chooses jury punishment.

https://blog.bennettandbennett.com/2007/06/jury-sentencing-in-texas/

That strikes me as truly bizarre. It practically guarantees inequities in sentencing, beyond the problems built in to the system.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Apparently the defendant gets to decide who sentences him/her.
https://blog.bennettandbennett.com/2007/06/jury-sentencing-in-texas/

That strikes me as truly bizarre. It practically guarantees inequities in sentencing, beyond the problems built in to the system.

I agree that the defendant gets to decide who sentences them in Texas, but they only have two choices: judge or jury. Unless either of those two choices is demonstrably wrong I don't have a major problem with that.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

I think most trials in Texas are jury sentenced, but I'm not sure.

In Texas, the jury decides the sentence, unless the defendant waives that right (in which case it would be the judge, but apparently waiving that right is rare.)

 

[Bob001]

I agree that the defendant gets to decide who sentences them in Texas, but they only have two choices: judge or jury. Unless either of those two choices is demonstrably wrong I don't have a major problem with that.

We pay judges to judge. They see hundreds, maybe thousands, of cases over their careers, and develop a philosophy of what constitutes a proper sentence for a particular crime. They also compare notes with other judges, and work out common sentencing guidelines for all defendants in their circuit. But for a jury, the case is unique. They have no frame of reference. I suspect that the result could be especially harsh or lenient sentencing based more on the history and personality of the defendant, rather than the specific crimes for which he was convicted.

I think Guyger, as a young, petite white woman and ex-police officer who says she felt threatened by a large black man in the dark, will be a much more sympathetic figure to the jury than some others might be in similar circumstances.

 

[Darat]

It totally makes sense but like all the options, it has a flaw. It doesn't explain her not noticing the 4th floor parking was open to air (in some way) and not noticing the door rug which would have occurred before she had time to imagine a burglar in her apartment.

We see what we expect to see. Look at the classic experiment with watching basket ball and a gorilla walks across the screen and most of us do not notice the gorilla until we are told it is there.

I do accept that she went to the wrong apartment without realising but her subsequent actions only make sense if we consider she went into "hero cop" mode, once she had decided to be a hero that is all she focused on. And that isn't a mistake, that was a deliberate choice.

 

[whoanellie]

I've only heard a few excerpts. She didn't sound evasive in any way. But then again I've only listened to a portion of her testimony.

If you have a chance to listen to the whole thing I'd be very interested in your opinion.

 

[William Parcher]

Could Amber Guyger be convicted of a charge other than murder?

A lesser charge could be included in the jury instructions after all evidence and testimony has been presented.

Amber Guyger is on trial for a murder charge, but there’s a chance she could be convicted of a lesser criminal charge in the September 2018 shooting of Botham Jean. Guyger, 31, was off duty but still in uniform when she mistakenly went into Jean's apartment and shot him. She is claiming self-defense because she thought she was in her own apartment and believed Jean was going to attack her.

The former officer was initially taken into custody on a manslaughter charge but was later indicted on a murder charge. The murder indictment says Guyger intentionally shot Jean, causing his death.

A manslaughter charge would mean Guyger acted recklessly. A charge of criminally negligent homicide could also be considered.

After prosecutors rested their case Thursday, defense attorney Robert Rogers asked State District Judge Tammy Kemp to give a directed verdict of not guilty of murder.

Rogers said prosecutors had not proved the murder case, nor a manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide case. Kemp denied Rogers' motion, but the question shows the possibility that jurors could choose to convict Guyger of something other than murder.

During jury selection, prospective jurors were told about manslaughter. Prosecutor Jason Fine said that they have to offer a lesser charge if there is a "scintilla" of evidence to support that charge.

It won’t be clear whether prosecutors will ask to include a lesser charge in the jury instructions until all evidence and testimony has been presented. It will be up to the judge to decide whether the evidence supports including a lesser criminal charge for the jury to consider during deliberations.

There is a precedent in police shootings to include a lesser charge of manslaughter.

In the case of fired Balch Springs officer Roy Oliver, the jury was given the option to find him guilty of murder or of manslaughter in the death of Jordan Edwards. The charge given to the jury explained that if they believed Oliver was guilty of either of the charges but had reasonable doubt about which charge they should choose, “they should resolve that doubt in the defendant's favor and find the defendant guilty of the lesser-included offense of manslaughter,” court records show. The jury ultimately convicted Oliver of murder.

Murder carries a sentence of up to life in prison. Manslaughter, which is a second-degree felony, carries a sentencing range of two to 20 years. If Guyger is convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to less than 10 years in prison, she could receive probation.

Criminally negligent homicide is a state-jail felony, which carries a sentence of 180 days to two years in jail...

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/s...rder/287-1fd0a582-addb-4cd7-b1b7-31a63c332bdd

 

[JoeMorgue]

180 whole days for killing someone sitting in their house doing nothing.

/s/ Wow I don't know if I can live in a society with that much blood on it's hands. Really going for our pound of flesh out of this poor widdle scawwed woman who made a honest mistake that any of us could have made aren't we?

 

[William Parcher]

The very first thing that has happened today at trial is that the defense has rested. Judge is now giving jury instructions.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The murder indictment says Guyger intentionally shot Jean, causing his death.

Because that's what happened and neither side is disputing that fact.

A manslaughter charge would mean Guyger acted recklessly.

Bull ****. Bull ******* ****. Looking down for a minute to check your phone and hitting a pedestrian in a crosswork is "acting recklessly." Driving over someone because you're horny and have been awake for 16 hours and you "honestly mistook mistake of fact in mens rea e pluriubus unum ipso facto with sprinkles" the local go-kart track for your drive way and drove through little Timmy's birthday party is not.

There is a precedent in police shootings to include a lesser charge of manslaughter.

Further bull ****. The "precedent" on police shootings has long been "They can do it whenever they feel like it for whatever reason they make up" and that needs to change.

And again is this lady a cop or a scawwed little victim? She can't be both in the same instant to make counter excuses for the same action.