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

[Bob001]

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.

So not "definition," but a description of how it applies to the case at hand. But Guyger was not in the security of "her" home. She was safely outside, and she placed herself in danger by entering when she had multiple alternatives. That has to have some relevance to the validity of the castle doctrine.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Anybody have any explanations on the bullet trajectory? I don't know much about firearms.

The prosecution explains it by saying he was getting up off the couch. But then he would have had to get up and take several steps forward and then fall back. And not fall forward, the direction he would have been heading. Seems a bit unlikely, but plausible.

That would also have the issue of explaining the bullet in the wall. If her first shot was into his chest as he was sitting on the couch, why would she have a second shot way up and to the left? That seems odd to me.

What about the defense's claim that the shot into the wall was the second shot from a "double-tap"? Does that seem reasonable? They say the first shot hit him in the chest when he was standing and leaning over and the second shot was after the gun recoiled up and to the left.

But does that happen? I would think someone who has been a police officer for five years would have quite a bit of experience on the gun range. And they say officers are trained to so the "double-tap". I would think that would mean a lot of practice to make sure the shots are fired at the same place and the second shot doesn't go off target because of the recoil. That would be the whole point of training and learning and practicing that type of shot. I would think that would be drilled into muscle memory.

How about this idea: When she opened the door, Jean stood up or was already standing and came toward her. That makes sense to me. She was surprised and nervous, so her first shot went high and to the left. Jean immediately ducked, bending at his knees and waist. She immediately corrected her aim for the second quick shot and hit him in the chest. He fell backward and lay where he was found.

It seems like that could fit with all the evidence.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

So not "definition," but a description of how it applies to the case at hand.

Correct. As I said in the ETA the "definition" is a couple paragraphs up from what you quoted. But, again, that is customized for this case.

From Texas Penal Code 8.02, just the definition would simply be a "mistake" that is "a reasonable belief about a matter of fact."

But Guyger was not in the security of "her" home. She was safely outside, and she placed herself in danger by entering when she had multiple alternatives. That has to have some relevance to the validity of the castle doctrine.

We've had thousands of posts going over all the intricacies of this issue, so I'll keep it short.

She didn't have to be in her home. She only had to have a reasonable belief that she was confronting someone who had unlawfully and with force entered her home.

I don't think she deliberated at the door. I don't think she had time. She put the key in the door, the door stared swinging up. There was a guy that shouldn't be there.

But even with that aside, if she had alternatives, she could have chosen those. That would have been good. But was she was not legally required to use those alternatives. She would not be reckless unless her actions were a gross deviation of a standard of care that she knew could result in someone's death. Walking into your own home, even if you think a burglar might be in there, is not illegal. It is not criminally reckless. Not a good idea. But not a crime.

Once she had the door open and perceived a threat (which I think was a simultaneous action without deliberation), under Texas law she had no duty to retreat. Retreating might be a good idea. In this case it would have been a very good idea. But legally, the law says a person does not have to if they don't want to. They can stand their ground and defend themselves with necessary force.

 

[JoeMorgue]

We've had thousands of posts going over all the intricacies of this issue, so I'll keep it short.

No we've had thousands of posts splitting every hair to make excuses for his woman.

She didn't have to be in her home. She only had to have a reasonable belief that she was confronting someone who had unlawfully and with force entered her home.

That's insane. I mean functionally insane. We've had "thousands of posts" explaining why.

I don't think she deliberated at the door. I don't think she had time. She put the key in the door, the door stared swinging up.

"I intentionally didn't take the time to access the situation so you can't blame me for getting the situation wrong" is not the epic legal defense you think it is.

There was a guy that shouldn't be there.

Absolutely. The guy shouldn't be there in his own home sitting at his own couch doing nothing. I mean Jesus it's like he wanted to die.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I can see one line in the summing-up that would be grounds for a guilty verdict straight away:

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 addition of the words "and prudent" seems significant. While it's possible that a reasonable person could have believed that Jean must be an intruder, a prudent person should at least have considered the possibility, either that he was a maintenance worker, or that this was the wrong apartment; and a moment's doubt should have been enough to uncover the mistake of fact.

Dave

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

I intentionally didn't take the time

I don't think she had time.

I will not engage in mischaracterizations of statements beyond that.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I can see one line in the summing-up that would be grounds for a guilty verdict straight away:



The addition of the words "and prudent" seems significant. While it's possible that a reasonable person could have believed that Jean must be an intruder, a prudent person should at least have considered the possibility, either that he was a maintenance worker, or that this was the wrong apartment; and a moment's doubt should have been enough to uncover the mistake of fact.

Dave

I imagine that is what all the jury deliberation will be about. Nothing else is really in question here.

I would agree that her behavior leading up to the shooting falls outside of what most would consider prudent behavior and that murder is the appropriate conclusion, but I'm not optimistic. Manslaughter seems like the likely conclusion, and while that isn't what I'd hope for, I am glad that option exists as a stopgap to discourage outright acquittal.

To be honest, I could honestly see her "series of mistakes" defense being more useful during sentencing. She is guilty. Whether or not her series of screw-ups should reduce her culpability should be considered after the conviction.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I would agree that her behavior leading up to the shooting falls outside of what most would consider prudent behavior and that murder is the appropriate conclusion, but I'm not optimistic. Manslaughter seems like the likely conclusion, and while that isn't what I'd hope for, I am glad that option exists as a stopgap to discourage outright acquittal.

Yeah, I tend to agree, but I think it shouldn't. Manslaughter is a very specific crime that denies specific intent to cause harm or death, and ISTR from a little way upthread that Guyger specifically testified that her intent when shooting was to kill. Finding her guilty of manslaughter is pretty close to jury nullification. Given the statement of intent, it seems she should be either guilty of murder or not guilty; any nuance on level of guilt should be a matter for sentencing.

Dave

 

[plague311]

The prosecution explains it by saying he was getting up off the couch. But then he would have had to get up and take several steps forward and then fall back. And not fall forward, the direction he would have been heading. Seems a bit unlikely, but plausible.

This is actually the most fitting explanation. I don't think he took several steps forward, his shoes were found only a few feet from the couch and the couch can be seen close in the background in the cop cam footage. He stumbled a few feet forward, might have collapsed on his butt and laid down. There was no way possible he was standing when he got shot. The ME said that in definitive terms. Ducking doesn't explain the shots any better than him getting off of the couch. If it was a double-tap it makes it even more complicated since he would have had to duck in a fraction of a second before the second shot got off.

Remember, he was wearing earbuds. I don't think he heard her open the door, I don't think he realized she was coming in until the light from the door opening caught his attention. Like you said, it happened in a couple of seconds, and there's really no firm evidence Jean said anything at all. Also, she could have thought he was going to continue rising since he was getting off of the couch. Instead, when he got shot he stayed slumped over a bit.

That would also have the issue of explaining the bullet in the wall. If her first shot was into his chest as he was sitting on the couch, why would she have a second shot way up and to the left? That seems odd to me.

It is a case about someone entering the wrong apartment and shooting someone, it's an odd case. She might be a poor shot, she might have double tapped so fast that the gun didn't level on her second shot. The gun goes up, she was amped up and didn't shoot well.

What about the defense's claim that the shot into the wall was the second shot from a "double-tap"? Does that seem reasonable? They say the first shot hit him in the chest when he was standing and leaning over and the second shot was after the gun recoiled up and to the left.

I would guess so. Why would he be standing though? I don't get that part. This happened too fast for him to be already standing by the time she fires. Why you think that seems odd to me.

But does that happen? I would think someone who has been a police officer for five years would have quite a bit of experience on the gun range. And they say officers are trained to so the "double-tap". I would think that would mean a lot of practice to make sure the shots are fired at the same place and the second shot doesn't go off target because of the recoil. That would be the whole point of training and learning and practicing that type of shot. I would think that would be drilled into muscle memory.

She followed literally zero percent of her training. If this was her using any of her police training she is the absolute ********* cop we have ever heard of with absolutely no situational awareness at all. We're expected to believe she missed a dozen indicators that she was on the wrong floor, walked into an apartment, missed absolutely everything there showing she was in the wrong apartment, and then ******* shot a guy. She was high on adrenaline, and she couldn't contain it. Nothing else needs to be explained. She had only shot at someone once before, and she even sucked that time because she was the only one that shot. Just because she practices a lot doesn't mean she's good. There are plenty of people that practice things and still suck at them. (Take plague311 and Call of Duty for example)

How about this idea: When she opened the door, Jean stood up or was already standing and came toward her.

Again, why? Why would he be standing in his living room with the TV on and eating a bowl of ice cream? He wasn't coming towards her either, he was leaning over when he got shot, and if he was moving towards her he would have fell forward. He's over 6 foot and 245+ lbs. If he had forward inertia that's the direction he would have fallen in, but he didn't.

That makes sense to me.

It doesn't fit the evidence.

She was surprised and nervous, so her first shot went high and to the left.

Why would she be surprised? Nervous maybe. She has claimed the whole time that she went into the apartment expecting an intruder. I don't think she was shocked, I think she was itching to pull the trigger.

Jean immediately ducked, bending at his knees and waist. She immediately corrected her aim for the second quick shot and hit him in the chest. He fell backward and lay where he was found.

It seems like that could fit with all the evidence.

I vehemently disagree. Jean would have had to duck in an instant to practically a 90 degree angle, and she would have had to corrected her aim excessively fast after missing a layup shot to hit a smaller facing target. If he was moving forward, and immediately ducked and got shot, he would have fallen forward, not backward. Even the ME said this isn't a movie. People that get shot don't get blasted backwards in a dramatic scene.

 

[Thermal]

You understand then Gogo.

I looked at my What Would Gogo Do bracelet, and it occurs to me that she would have murdered Jean, too. Kind of says it all, really.

 

[William Parcher]

A Texas man fatally shoots intruder and then goes back to bed

A Dallas resident who fatally shot a backyard intruder and then went back to bed has been charged with murder, according to police.

The homeowner, James Michael Meyer, said he didn't know whether he struck the person, so he went back to bed and didn't call police, according to an arrest warrant released by the Dallas Police Department.

Meyer, 72, says that he was awakened around 5 a.m. Thursday by a noise outside, according to an arrest warrant affidavit filed by Dallas police. Meyer told police he looked outside and saw someone attempting to break into his storage shed, and that's when he got his handgun and went outside to confront the person. Meyer told the intruder not to come any closer or he would shoot him, the warrant reads. Meyer said the man took a few steps toward him with a pickax in his hand, the warrant says, and that's when he fired his gun. He said the unidentified man dropped the pickax and ran into the park behind his property. Meyer told police he fired another shot "into the night" in the direction of the park and then went to bed.

As the sun began to rise, Meyer looked outside and saw what he thought was a black bag in the park. He went to get a closer look, according to the warrant, and discovered a man lying facedown on the ground...

...Meyer refused to answer the 911 dispatcher's questions and repeatedly said "he was a victim of a crime and that medical assistance was needed," according to the warrant. Police officers arrived to find the deceased male lying facedown in the park behind Meyer's home with a gunshot wound to the back of his neck, Dallas police said in a post on the department website. The warrant said Dallas Fire Rescue determined the person had been dead for several hours.

Crime scene analysts called to process the scene couldn't find any spent shell casings. According to the warrant, Meyer told them that he picked them up and threw them away. Detectives also noted in the warrant that several neighbors stated hearing three gunshots, not two...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/30/us/texas-man-shoots-intruder-trnd/index.html

 

[William Parcher]

But does that happen? I would think someone who has been a police officer for five years would have quite a bit of experience on the gun range. And they say officers are trained to so the "double-tap". I would think that would mean a lot of practice to make sure the shots are fired at the same place and the second shot doesn't go off target because of the recoil. That would be the whole point of training and learning and practicing that type of shot. I would think that would be drilled into muscle memory.

Her way-off aim with that wall shot may have possibly been because she was shooting with one hand. I think that cops are mostly trained to shoot with both hands on the gun to improve accuracy and reduce recoil effect. I'm not certain.

Does anyone know how they determined the order of shots? I missed that part of the trial. There seemed to be no dispute that the first shot hit Jean and the second shot missed.

 

[Thermal]

Looking at this part of the jury's instruction:

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.”

I think jurors will be fully convinced of the Mistake, regardless of what position Jean was in when he was murdered. For all the wrangling of what we think is right or reasonable or fair, the instructions seem to say she has a mistake-of-fact out, and must be found not guilty.

This murderer is gonna walk.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I think jurors will be fully convinced of the Mistake, regardless of what position Jean was in when he was murdered. For all the wrangling of what we think is right or reasonable or fair, the instructions seem to say she has a mistake-of-fact out, and must be found not guilty.

This murderer is gonna walk.

That only follows if you believe her mistakes were reasonable. All of them.

 

[William Parcher]

Remember, he was wearing earbuds.

I read that his earbuds were found on the floor near his body. I didn't see that part of the trial so I don't know details. Were the buds wired or wireless? I presume that they were wired but possibly not because a fall to the ground could dislodge wireless buds.

Was testimony given that the (wired) buds were pulled from his ears as he got up from the couch, or what?

 

[William Parcher]

it happened in a couple of seconds, and there's really no firm evidence Jean said anything at all.

There are two witnesses who testified about Jean saying things.

1) His immediate neighbor testified that he heard two different voices. He could not tell the gender of the speakers or what was said but he testified that it was two different people. Then came two gunshots. He also said that the tone of the voices indicated that both parties were surprised with each other.

2) Amber Guyger testified that Jean aggressively shouted, "Hey! Hey! Hey!"

 

[Thermal]

That only follows if you believe her mistakes were reasonable. All of them.

Like many posters here, I think that is a shoe-in argument, that she could walk up to the wrong door and think, in a split second, that she was confronting an intruder.

My issue comes with immediately resorting to lethal force. But Texas law seems to say it does not matter, she must be found not guilty.

I think many of us are trying to see her driving up one too many floors and having her face buried in her cell phone as being so out in left field that it is unreasonable....well, as a self-defense mechanism so that we don't have to accept what that implies under Texas law. It means she walks.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I think jurors will be fully convinced of the Mistake, regardless of what position Jean was in when he was murdered. For all the wrangling of what we think is right or reasonable or fair, the instructions seem to say she has a mistake-of-fact out, and must be found not guilty.

If I were on the jury, I would consider the prosecution to have proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that the belief that the deceased was an intruder was not reasonable, by pointing out that he could have been carrying out maintenance work on behalf of the building manager.

Dave

 

[Drewbot]

Over/Under on months until the first porn offer to Amber Guyger?

 

[GlennB]

Looking at this part of the jury's instruction:



I think jurors will be fully convinced of the Mistake, regardless of what position Jean was in when he was murdered. For all the wrangling of what we think is right or reasonable or fair, the instructions seem to say she has a mistake-of-fact out, and must be found not guilty.

This murderer is gonna walk.

I'd say 2) gets her convicted.