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

[ponderingturtle]

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.

Also the prosecution is the one with an actual burden to prove something.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You are proposing that she made a conscious decision not to know where she was?

Not literally, but it's same point I made about her just deciding to shot Jean and making up the entire story after the fact... what would be functionally different to any external observer if that is what she had done?

Again my entire mindset throughout this entire process is cluelessness becomes functionally equivalent to just deciding to be wrong at a certain point, and this woman crossed that line, then went back and shot the line because she thought it was a snake.

You can be; logically, morally, and in my opinion legally just be so wrong that you've waived your right to invoke your lack of knowledge as functionally any different then just choosing the wrong answer.

She put so little mental effort into judging the "Is this valid scenario to shoot in or not?" question it has become functionally the same in my book as intentionally being wrong.

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.

Well the entire thread has proven the fact that Amber Guyger was capable of seeing details in situations where she couldn't see the situation.

She missed the forest but still managed to shoot the tree.

 

[plague311]

Well the entire thread has proven the fact that Amber Guyger was capable of seeing details in situations where she couldn't see the situation.

She missed the forest but still managed to shoot the tree.

To be fair, as she was walking forward, it was coming right for her.

 

[JoeMorgue]

To be fair, as she was walking forward, it was coming right for her.

"He's coming right at me! And he's getting bigger!"
"That's how perspective works!"

 

[Thermal]

She put so little mental effort into judging the "Is this valid scenario to shoot in or not?" question it has become functionally the same in my book as intentionally being wrong.

That's what it comes down to for me, not mistake of fact or sleepy-byes or anything else. Challenging Quick Draw McRaw theory should be the only issue in this murder. And I think Texas likes the whole shoot-first-acquit-later angle.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

I've walked into the wrong bathroom at least 4 times in my life and twice even into the stall. They were all clearly marked. Should I have noticed? Yes. Did I? No.

At least I didn't shoot anyone.

 

[plague311]

I've walked into the wrong bathroom at least 4 times in my life and twice even into the stall. They were all clearly marked. Should I have noticed? Yes. Did I? No.

At least I didn't shoot anyone.

Did you have about 20 indicators that you were going into the wrong bathroom?

This isn't just an extremely simplistic comparison, it's also not even close to the same thing. Why must ridiculous comparisons always be used in these scenarios? Just use the one we have. She almost went out of her way in every step taken to do the wrong thing. She's guilty, send her to prison.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again she didn't glance at her phone and accidentally hit a pedestrian.

She drove down the road the wrong way for 10 miles and hit a pedestrian.

She didn't make an "honest mistake." See made a series of unreasonable ones.

 

[Thermal]

All excusable till she thought that the first sign of an unexpected human necessitated execution

 

[acbytesla]

Did you have about 20 indicators that you were going into the wrong bathroom?

This isn't just an extremely simplistic comparison, it's also not even close to the same thing. Why must ridiculous comparisons always be used in these scenarios? Just use the one we have. She almost went out of her way in every step taken to do the wrong thing. She's guilty, send her to prison.

The point is there were indicators including a sign on the door and missing a urinal and for whatever reason I was oblivious. It was embarrassing as hell. Especially when your doing your business and hearing women outside of the stall talking.

 

[acbytesla]

All excusable till she thought that the first sign of an unexpected human necessitated execution

You understand then Gogo.

 

[plague311]

The point is there were indicators including a sign on the door and missing a urinal and for whatever reason I was oblivious. It was embarrassing as hell. Especially when your doing your business and hearing women outside of the stall talking.

I get it, you made a harmless mistake. One that I bet most people have made.

This was completely and entirely different. Like I said, she almost had to go out of her way to make the wrong choice whenever one was presented. It should result in a significant amount of prison time.

 

[Dr. Keith]

The point is there were indicators including a sign on the door and missing a urinal and for whatever reason I was oblivious. It was embarrassing as hell. Especially when your doing your business and hearing women outside of the stall talking.

If, instead of being embarrassed, you stood up and yelled at them to get the **** out of the men's room, then it may come close to being comparable.

Well, assuming you shot them when they failed to comply. Which I think is legal in Texas.

 

[Bob001]

Procedural question: If the jury determines the sentence, will there be an additional proceeding for that purpose? Or do they come back with a guilty verdict and a sentence at the same time?

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Procedural question: If the jury determines the sentence, will there be an additional proceeding for that purpose? Or do they come back with a guilty verdict and a sentence at the same time?

Separate proceeding. Assuming the defendant elected sentencing by jury, the same jury would determine the sentence. The defense can provide evidence and arguments for mitigating factor, and the prosecution and rebut those arguments. This would happen right after the verdict. Maybe the next day.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

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.

I did not mean to imply that she has some blood lust and that she has always wanted to kill someone and this was finally her chance. But based on her testimony that she was going in to find the threat and didn't call for backup because she was at home, my conclusion would be that she felt like she could go in a and apprehend the bad guy on her own and if anything went slightly wrong the castle law would allow her to just shoot.

That is, if we believe her testimony is truthful and accurate. I do not.

I don't think she was going in to find the threat. That's ridiculous. I don't think she thought she didn't need to call for backup because she was at home. that makes no sense.

I think she said those things because she was thinking about what her lawyers told her and the key points they wanted to get across to the jury. She was saying what she thought she was supposed to say.

I think this happened very fast. From the time she took out her key to the time she shot was probably about 3 seconds.

I think when she put the key in the door, the door started to open and she just continued that motion. While the door was opening, she saw it was cracked and her some noise, but by then the door was already open. There was a man standing in her apartment who didn't belong there. So she kept the door open with the left hand and drew her gun. Yelled, "Let me see your hands!" Jean came at her yelling "Hey, hey, hey!" which a very reasonable response. He kept coming, so she shot him.

I don't think she had time for deliberation before opening the door. It all happened too fast.

If that is what happened, she should have stuck with telling it like that instead of trying to interject all kinds of buzzwords and justifications into the narrative. That hurt her far more than it helped.

 

[whoanellie]

I did not mean to imply that she has some blood lust and that she has always wanted to kill someone and this was finally her chance. But based on her testimony that she was going in to find the threat and didn't call for backup because she was at home, my conclusion would be that she felt like she could go in a and apprehend the bad guy on her own and if anything went slightly wrong the castle law would allow her to just shoot.



That is, if we believe her testimony is truthful and accurate. I do not.



I don't think she was going in to find the threat. That's ridiculous. I don't think she thought she didn't need to call for backup because she was at home. that makes no sense.



I think she said those things because she was thinking about what her lawyers told her and the key points they wanted to get across to the jury. She was saying what she thought she was supposed to say.



I think this happened very fast. From the time she took out her key to the time she shot was probably about 3 seconds.



I think when she put the key in the door, the door started to open and she just continued that motion. While the door was opening, she saw it was cracked and her some noise, but by then the door was already open. There was a man standing in her apartment who didn't belong there. So she kept the door open with the left hand and drew her gun. Yelled, "Let me see your hands!" Jean came at her yelling "Hey, hey, hey!" which a very reasonable response. He kept coming, so she shot him.



I don't think she had time for deliberation before opening the door. It all happened too fast.



If that is what happened, she should have stuck with telling it like that instead of trying to interject all kinds of buzzwords and justifications into the narrative. That hurt her far more than it helped.

I largely agree, particularly about the very short amount of time between her placing the key in the lock and firing her gun. Given that short time I found her testimony about hearing and seeing Jean moving around to be not credible. That testimony seemed to me to be intended to bolster her claim of self defense.
I could be wrong but I thought Guyger testified that after the door opened slightly she heard sounds, drew her gun, then pushed the door fully open to see Jean. Even more damning in my mind.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Here's a quickly cleaned up transcript of the jury instructions from the automated closed captions. This just goes to the point where it gets to the generic boiler-plate stuff. No real surprises here. Pretty standard stuff.

Jury Instructions

Members of the jury, the defendant, Amber Guyger, stands charged by indictment with the offense of murder, alleged to have been committed on or about September 6, 2018, in Dallas County, Texas. To this charge the defendant has entered her plea of not guilty.

A person commits the offense of murder if the person 1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual, or 2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.

A person acts intentionally or with intent with respect to a result of her conduct when it is her conscious objective or desire to cause the result. A person acts knowingly or with knowledge with respect to a result of her conduct when she is aware that her conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.

“Individual” means human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.

“Person” means an individual, corporation, or association.

“Act” means a bodily movement, whether voluntary or involuntary, and includes speech.

“Bodily injury” means physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical condition.

“Serious bodily injury” means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.

“Deadly weapon” means, A) a firearm or anything manifestly designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting death or serious bodily injury, or B) anything that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.

Now considering all the law contained in the court’s charge, if you unanimously find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about September 6, 2018, in Dallas County, Texas, the defendant, Amber Guyger, did intentionally or knowingly caused the death of Botham Jean, an individual, hereinafter called deceased, by shooting the deceased with the firearm, a deadly weapon, or if you unanimously find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about September 6, 2018, in Dallas County, Texas, the defendant, Amber Guyger, did intend to cause serious bodily injury to Botham Jean, an individual, hereinafter called deceased, and did commit an act clearly dangerous to human life by shooting the deceased with a firearm, a deadly weapon, thereby causing the death of Botham Jean, then you will find the defendant guilty of murder, as alleged in the indictment.

If you do not so believe, or if you have a reasonable doubt thereof, or if you are unable to agree, you will next consider whether the defendant is guilty of the included offense of manslaughter. Our law provides that a person commits the offense of manslaughter if she recklessly causes the death of an individual. A person acts recklessly or is reckless with respect to the result of her conduct when she is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint. Now, therefore, considering all the law contained in the courts charge, if you unanimously find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about September 6, 2018, in Dallas County, Texas, the defendant, Amber Guyger, did recklessly cause the death of Botham Jean, an individual, hereinafter called deceased, by shooting the deceased with a firearm, a deadly weapon, then you will find the defendant guilty of manslaughter, as included in the indictment.

If you should find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is either guilty of murder or manslaughter, but you have a reasonable doubt as to which office she is guilty of, then you should resolve that doubt in the defendant’s favor and find the defendant guilty of the included offense of manslaughter. If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant is guilty of any offense defined in this charge, you will acquit the defendant and say by your verdict “not guilty”.

It is the defense to prosecution that the conduct in question is justified under our law. You are to consider the statutory defense of self-defense in determining if the defendant is guilty of the offenses alleged or included in the indictment. Under our law, a person is justified in using force against another in self-defense when and to the degree she reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect herself against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The use of force against another is not justified in response to verbal provocation alone. A person is justified in using deadly force against another if she would be justified in using force against the other as set out above and when she reasonably believes that such deadly force is immediately necessary to protect herself against the other person's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force or to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

The term “reasonable belief” as used herein means a belief that would be held by an ordinary and prudent person in the same circumstances as the defendant.

The term “deadly force” as used herein means force that is intended or known by the person using it to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.

“Habitation” means a structure that is adapted for the overnight accommodation of persons and includes A) each separately secured or occupied portion of the structure, and B) each structure appurtenant to or connected with the structure.

The defendant’s belief that deadly force was immediately necessary is presumed to be reasonable if the defendant:

1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom deadly force was used unlawfully and with forced entered the actor’s occupied habitation, or
2) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom deadly force was used was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force the actor from the actor’s habitation, or
3) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom deadly force was used was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated murder, AND
4) the defendant did not provoke the person against whom the deadly force was used, AND
5) the defendant was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of the law or ordinance regulating traffic, at the time the deadly force was used.

This presumption applies unless the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts giving rise to the presumption do not exist. If the state fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts giving rise to the presumption do not exist, you must find that the presumption exists. Even though you may find that the presumption does not exist, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the offense charged.

A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly forces used, and who was not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly forces used, is not required to retreat before using deadly force to defend herself.

If you find from the evidence that the defendant was such a person, or if you have a reasonable doubt thereof, you may not consider whether the defendant failed to retreat in determining whether the defendant reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary.

When a person is attacked with unlawful deadly force, or if she reasonably believes she is under attack or attempted attack with unlawful deadly force, by one or more persons, and there is created in the mind of such person a reasonable expectation or fear of death or serious bodily injury to herself at the hands of such attacker or attackers, then the law excuses or justifies such person in resorting to deadly force by any means at her command to the to the degree that she reasonably believes immediately necessary, viewed from her standpoint at the time, to protect herself from such attack or attempted attack.

In making your determination, you should consider all the facts and circumstances in evidence before you, all the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding the use of force or deadly force, the previous relationship existing between the defendant and the injured party, together with all relevant facts and circumstances going to show the condition of the mind of the defendant at the time of the alleged offense. In considering such circumstances, you should place yourselves in the defendant’s position at the time and viewed them from her standpoint alone.

Now if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about the sixth day of September, 2018, in Dallas County, Texas, the defendant, Amber Guyger, did intentionally or knowingly cause the death of Botham Jean, hereinafter called deceased, by shooting the deceased with a firearm, or did intend to cause serious bodily injury to Botham Jean, and did commit an act clearly dangerous to human life by shooting the deceased with a firearm, a deadly weapon, thereby causing the death of Botham Jean, or did recklessly cause the death of Botham Jean by shooting Botham Jean with a firearm but you further find from the evidence, or you have a reasonable doubt thereof, that at the time of the alleged offense the defendant recently believed that she was under attack or attempted attack with unlawful deadly force from Botham Jean, and that the defendant reasonably believed, as viewed from her standpoint, that such deadly force as she used was immediately necessary to protect herself against such attack or attempted attack, or to prevent the imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery by Botham Jean, and so believing she shot Botham Jean with a firearm, a deadly weapon, then you shall acquit the defendant and say by your verdict “not guilty”.

A person's conduct that would otherwise constitute the crime of murder or manslaughter is not a criminal offense if the person through mistake formed a reasonable belief about a matter of fact and the mistaken belief negated the kind of culpability required for the condition of the offense. The defendant is not required to prove that she made a mistake of fact. Rather, the state must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did not make a mistake of fact constituting a defense. “Reasonable belief” means a belief than an ordinary and prudent person would have held in the same circumstances as the defendant.

If you have found that the state has proved the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, you must next decide whether the state has proved the defendant did not make a mistake of fact constituting a defense.

To decide the issue a mistake of fact, you must determine whether the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, one of the following:

1) the defendant did not believe that she was entering her own apartment or did not believe that the deceased was an intruder in her apartment, or
2) the defendant’s belief that she was entering her own apartment or her belief that the deceased was an intruder in her apartment was not reasonable.

You must all agree that the same has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, either 1 or 2 listed above. You need not agree on which of these elements the state has proved.

If you find that the state has failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, either element 1 or 2 listed above, you must find the defendant “not guilty.”

If you all agree that the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the elements of murder or manslaughter, and you unanimously agree that the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, either element 1 that the defendant did not believe that she was entering her own apartment or did not believe that the deceased was an intruder in her apartment, or element 2 that the defendant’s belief that she was entering her own apartment or that her belief that the deceased was an intruder in her apartment was not reasonable, then you shall find the defendant “guilty” as alleged or included in the indictment.

 

[Bob001]

......
To decide the issue a mistake of fact, you must determine whether the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, one of the following:

1) the defendant did not believe that she was entering her own apartment or did not believe that the deceased was an intruder in her apartment, or
2) the defendant’s belief that she was entering her own apartment or her belief that the deceased was an intruder in her apartment was not reasonable......

[Emphasis added.] So this is the official definition of "mistake of fact." She doesn't even have to believe the intruder was a deadly threat, just that there was an intruder in her place. Good chance she's gonna walk.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

[Emphasis added.] So this is the official definition of "mistake of fact." She doesn't even have to believe the intruder was a deadly threat, just that there was an intruder in her place. Good chance she's gonna walk.

That is correct. The whole concept of the castle law is that an intruder in someone's home is automatically presumed to be a deadly threat.

(Just to be clear, that means the person must a have reasonable belief that the other person unlawfully and with force entered their home.)

The idea is that if a person in the security of their own home and someone unlawfully breaks in, they don't have to wait and hesitate until they can be sure that the person has gun or deadly weapon and has an intent to kill them before using deadly force to protect themselves. The bad guy sure isn't going to hesitate. So someone in their home should not be forced to choose between going to prison for years on a murder charge because they did wait to see the gun, or hesitating and getting shot by the bad guy.

It is obviously controversial. On one hand it makes sense, but on the other it is problematic.

ETA: What you quoted isn't actually the definition. The definition is a couple paragraphs above. What you quoted is the court's instruction to the jury on how mistake of fact is to be considered in this case.

ETA: Note that in Texas mistake of fact and self-defense are ordinary defenses, not affirmative defenses. That means the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that there was not a mistake of fact or that there was not a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary or that there was not a reasonable belief that someone entered their home unlawfully and with force.