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

SuburbanTurkey said:
I wouldnt be so sure. Texas really likes property rights, and Botham is aggrieved party here.

They have ruled in favor of citizens who shot cops executing no-knock warrants, because they respect both self-defense and property rights.

It's a toss up in Texas, could be a cop bootlicker jury, or a property rights jury.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the property rights contingent, should they buy this mistake of fact angle, would support Guyger, too. So we come down to who they identify with as the one who's rights prevail: the honest mistake cop (and right to shoot whoever, whenever, which they kind of like down yonder), or a guy sitting at home?
 
JoeMorgue said:
I love how in the comics Marvel has actually had the actual Punisher come down hard on the "No you shouldn't be using my symbol" side.
Click to expand...

I love how cops wear the symbol but ignore the fact that he literally carries around a bullet with his name on it to punish himself if he ever kills an innocent.
 
Bob001 said:
A defense attorney is telling the jury that in order to convict "Amber," the jury must decide that it was unreasonable for "Amber" to believe that an intruder was in her apartment, and that it was unreasonable for her to believe that she was in mortal danger. I think it would be easy to decide that both were unreasonable. He's going on to claim that police training and standards shouldn't be applied here because she was not responding to a "dispatched call." I'm not sure her lawyer is helping her.
Click to expand...

Ya, easy to show she could have thought she was in her apartment, really tough to show that she thought she was in mortal danger. A good defense should be sweeping that part under the rug.
 
Oh good, he brought up the marijuana and then says it's irrelevant, EXCEPT that it probably contributed to...something.

******* loser.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Any conviction is better then nothing, but anything short of actual murder is an insult to the victim.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. She is someone who murdered an innocent man because of her stupidity and her itchy trigger finger. She seemed to think of herself as a super-cop. She is, instead, a murderer. No manslaughter involved.
 
plague311 said:
Does the prosecutor get to reply to the defense? I know they started with their closing statement, but do they get to rebut this nonsense?
....
Click to expand...

Generally the prosecution gets the last word. It looks like the prosecutor is standing up to speak now.
 
Prosecutor currently hammering on the 'decision to kill made outside in the hallway' angle. I missed the bits in the trial where the covered it. If it was as the prosecutor is describing in his closing then it tips my mind into flat out murder.
 
Joe Random said:
Prosecutor currently hammering on the 'decision to kill made outside in the hallway' angle. I missed the bits in the trial where the covered it. If it was as the prosecutor is describing in his closing then it tips my mind into flat out murder.
Click to expand...

Well, the prosecutor is hammering the undisputed fact that she didn't have to enter the apartment. She was safe outside the door, and she could have moved in either direction in the hallway. If there was a dangerous intruder, she exposed herself to him when she didn't have to.
 
Look at it this way.

Can you use the fact that you didn't know something as a defense when you intentionally didn't take the time to learn it?

Amber Guyger is put in front of two doors, blindfolded. One door leads to her apartment, the other door leads to Botham Jeans. She has a gun in her hand and starts to walk forward.

If she chooses to keep the keep the blindfold on until such time as she across one of the thresholds of the door and opens fire at whatever is inside does it magically make her innocent because of "mistake of fact?"

Your ignorance is not an excuse when it's willful.
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
Well, the prosecutor is hammering the undisputed fact that she didn't have to enter the apartment. She was safe outside the door, and she could have moved in either direction in the hallway. If there was a dangerous intruder, she exposed herself to him when she didn't have to.
Click to expand...

Exactly. She supposedly came to the conclusion that there was an intruder while she was still outside, and not upon entering the apartment and seeing someone there. Prosecutor saying other LEOs called to testify said they would not have entered but would have taken cover and called for backup as SOP. Like I said I missed the actual testimony, but if that's not disputed, if she did indeed go into the apartment already having decided there was someone inside 'her' apartment then I don't see how she gets off on at least some serious charge.

Edit to add : and now he's hammering the 'anyone who lives in an apartment knows you might come home to a maintenance worker in your unit' bit I was hoping would get air time. Hopefully orange will be the new blue in this case. Disgusts me more and more as time goes on.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
Look at it this way.

Can you use the fact that you didn't know something as a defense when you intentionally didn't take the time to learn it?

Amber Guyger is put in front of two doors, blindfolded. One door leads to her apartment, the other door leads to Botham Jeans. She has a gun in her hand and starts to walk forward.

If she chooses to keep the keep the blindfold on until such time as she across one of the thresholds of the door and opens fire at whatever is inside does it magically make her innocent because of "mistake of fact?"

Your ignorance is not an excuse when it's willful.
Click to expand...

You are proposing that she made a conscious decision not to know where she was?
 
JoeMorgue said:
Look at it this way.

Can you use the fact that you didn't know something as a defense when you intentionally didn't take the time to learn it?

Amber Guyger is put in front of two doors, blindfolded. One door leads to her apartment, the other door leads to Botham Jeans. She has a gun in her hand and starts to walk forward.

If she chooses to keep the keep the blindfold on until such time as she across one of the thresholds of the door and opens fire at whatever is inside does it magically make her innocent because of "mistake of fact?"

Your ignorance is not an excuse when it's willful.
Click to expand...

The point you've made a few other times:

I find it funny that she couldn't see who was in the apartment, but that she could see his hands, where they were going, and that she thought they were going for a gun.
 
plague311 said:
The point you've made a few other times:

I find it funny that she couldn't see who was in the apartment, but that she could see his hands, where they were going, and that she thought they were going for a gun.
Click to expand...

To be fair to a cop everything looks like a gun.
 
theprestige said:
I thought the defense gets the last word. Giving the prosecution the last word seems manifestly unjust.
Click to expand...

Why would it be any more unjust one way or the other? The burden is on the prosecution in this scenario and so they should get as many opportunities to prove that burden as they can.

Coming from a guy that was acquitted by a jury of his peers, it's frustrating seeing the prosecution get the last say, but it makes sense to me. They have more responsibility.
 
theprestige said:
I thought the defense gets the last word. Giving the prosecution the last word seems manifestly unjust.
Click to expand...

Both sides had ample opportunity to lay out their cases. If the jury is swayed by the order in which they sum up, they should really not be on a jury.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom