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

William Parcher said:
Look again at my post which you quoted. That neighbor is a he, not a she.
Click to expand...

There were multiple witnesses that testified to hearing voices, one of them was a she that was on the phone with her boyfriend. (She lived in the apartment that shared a wall with him)

I apologize, but next time maybe use a name in a court case with multiple testifying witnesses. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
Probably, but maybe not the best choice in a dark room where you can't see the subject's hands. And witnesses dispute that she ever said that. And if he was wearing earbuds he would only have seen a silhouette barging into his house without hearing anything.
Click to expand...

More to that point, she said she thought he could have been reaching for a gun, and he had a bowl of ice cream in his hands. Obviously she picked and chose what she could and couldn't see.

Oh well, bitch is going to prison for a good while.
 
Dave Rogers said:
That's a relief. The precedent a Not Guilty verdict would have set is terrifying.

Dave
Click to expand...

I'd like to think that crossed the jury's mind. No matter how Mistake of Fact is interpreted, she murdered that man. Not sure if a bench trial would've had the same result.

Ding, dong, the bitch goes down!

The mistaken bitch,

The murdering bitch!

Ding, dong, the murdering bitch goes down!
 
Bob001 said:
Probably, but maybe not the best choice in a dark room where you can't see the subject's hands. And witnesses dispute that she ever said that.
Click to expand...
Hands could possibly be seen if Jean was in silhouette, which is what she claimed.

I'm unaware of witnesses who testified that she didn't say those words.
 
Given how quickly the jury came back with a verdict they must have been solidly convinced about guilt. Would hazard a guess that that would mean a sentence on the harsher side of things.
 
Joe Random said:
Given how quickly the jury came back with a verdict they must have been solidly convinced about guilt. Would hazard a guess that that would mean a sentence on the harsher side of things.
Click to expand...

Why should sentence relate at all to that?
 
JoeMorgue said:
Sentence Predictions?

15 years, give or take 5 years is mine.
Click to expand...

I'd say on the low end. 10 years.

I think the defense was pretty effective in showing that Guyger was a hapless idiot who made a series of big mistakes that lead to her committing murder. That didn't help her avoid conviction, fortunately, but it might reduce her culpability.
 
Bob001 said:
MSNBC reports "Amber" guilty of murder.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...trial-fatal-shooting-neighbor-botham-n1060506

Question: Max is life. Is there a mandatory minimum?
Click to expand...


Without quibbling over details of wording (I am not a lawyer) the minimum could be probation. Murder is 5 years to 99 years/life in Texas. I'm not sure about what the actual meaning of the upper bound is but I'm pretty sure the upper bound isn't going to be relevant in this case. Any sentence under 10 years I believe can result in probation. Parole is usually an option at 2 and half years for a five year sentence.
 
For me, it came down to a fairly binary question of due process:

If she reasonably believed she was at/in her own apartment (regardless of the provenance of this belief - fatigue, distraction, etc.), then murder could not possibly follow from that belief. That verdict would need some other modifying circumstance, like stopping to identify Jean, and then making an informed decision to shoot him anyway. But stopping to identify an intruder is not required, for defense of one's own home. And since in law the reasonable belief trumps the actual fact, a determination of mistake of fact by the jury must necessarily rule out a verdict of murder.

On the other hand, if it can be established that her belief that she was at/in her own apartment was not reasonable, then a murder verdict becomes pretty much the only option.

Based on the evidence and the arguments at trial, it seemed to me that the legitimacy of her belief was upheld, and a murder verdict should probably be off the table, as a basic matter of rule of law.

So I'm curious if the jury rejected the legitimacy of her belief, or if they accepted the mistake of fact at face value, but decided to call it murder anyway in a form of jury nullification.

And I'm pondering how I'd feel about this outcome, if it turns out that the jury did opt for "nullification" in this case.
 
William Parcher said:
Hands could possibly be seen if Jean was in silhouette, which is what she claimed.

I'm unaware of witnesses who testified that she didn't say those words.
Click to expand...


I don't know if they testified, but they were interviewed by the police.

Hermus noted that witnesses who were across the hall during the episode testified that they didn’t hear her demand that Jean show his hands.
Click to expand...
https://ktla.com/2019/09/27/ex-dall...-leading-up-to-fatal-shooting-of-unarmed-man/
 
Joe Random said:
Given how quickly the jury came back with a verdict they must have been solidly convinced about guilt. Would hazard a guess that that would mean a sentence on the harsher side of things.
Click to expand...


Not sure how that follows. I would have walked in to the deliberations convinced of her guilt of murder but also convinced she deserved a light-ish sentence. And that is still true despite the fact that I heard things during the trial, her narcissistic worries after the shooting, that made me favor a "less light" sentence.
 
theprestige said:
For me, it came down to a fairly binary question of due process:

If she reasonably believed she was at/in her own apartment (regardless of the provenance of this belief - fatigue, distraction, etc.), then murder could not possibly follow from that belief. That verdict would need some other modifying circumstance, like stopping to identify Jean, and then making an informed decision to shoot him anyway. But stopping to identify an intruder is not required, for defense of one's own home. And since in law the reasonable belief trumps the actual fact, a determination of mistake of fact by the jury must necessarily rule out a verdict of murder.

On the other hand, if it can be established that her belief that she was at/in her own apartment was not reasonable, then a murder verdict becomes pretty much the only option.

Based on the evidence and the arguments at trial, it seemed to me that the legitimacy of her belief was upheld, and a murder verdict should probably be off the table, as a basic matter of rule of law.

So I'm curious if the jury rejected the legitimacy of her belief, or if they accepted the mistake of fact at face value, but decided to call it murder anyway in a form of jury nullification.
And I'm pondering how I'd feel about this outcome, if it turns out that the jury did opt for "nullification" in this case.
Click to expand...

Betcha a dollar that's what happened.
 
theprestige said:
For me, it came down to a fairly binary question of due process:

If she reasonably believed she was at/in her own apartment (regardless of the provenance of this belief - fatigue, distraction, etc.), then murder could not possibly follow from that belief. That verdict would need some other modifying circumstance, like stopping to identify Jean, and then making an informed decision to shoot him anyway. But stopping to identify an intruder is not required, for defense of one's own home. And since in law the reasonable belief trumps the actual fact, a determination of mistake of fact by the jury must necessarily rule out a verdict of murder.

On the other hand, if it can be established that her belief that she was at/in her own apartment was not reasonable, then a murder verdict becomes pretty much the only option.

Based on the evidence and the arguments at trial, it seemed to me that the legitimacy of her belief was upheld, and a murder verdict should probably be off the table, as a basic matter of rule of law.

So I'm curious if the jury rejected the legitimacy of her belief, or if they accepted the mistake of fact at face value, but decided to call it murder anyway in a form of jury nullification.

And I'm pondering how I'd feel about this outcome, if it turns out that the jury did opt for "nullification" in this case.
Click to expand...

The bit that's stuck with me from the beginning of this case is that even if she actually had gone to her apartment and came upon someone inside there are legitimate possibilities other than intruder (emergency maintenance being the main one). If she'd taken the time to properly assess the circumstances and threat level she should have seen a) not a threat and b) she's in the wrong place. So for me even if the belief that she'd gone to her apartment was a reasonable one, the shooting which followed wasn't justified.

On the highlighted above, if the belief that she was at her apartment had been found to have been reasonable would you say that all charges should have been off the table, or just the murder 1 ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom