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

theprestige said:
Like I said, it may not be the strict definition, but I think the concept is applicable. If the jury believes that the person should be found guilty, but the law doesn't support that or the prosecution fails to prove it, they can ignore the law to deliver a guilty verdict, in the same way that "jury nullification" consists of ignoring the law to deliver a not guilty verdict. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think that nullification must necessarily swing both ways. Returning "guilty" in contradiction of the law is just as much a nullification of the law as returning "not guilty" in contradiction of the law.
Click to expand...

And there is absolutely no evidence that your claim is factual. Is there a reason why it just has to be a conspiracy by the jury since she's guilty? She murdered someone. Everything about this is correct.

William Parcher said:
More on the sentencing overlap...

Maybe they sentence her to 5 years for Murder. A Manslaughter conviction could have given her 20 years.

Which would you prefer?

Murder for 5.
Manslaughter for 20.
Click to expand...


LoL the ****? Why not give her 20 years for murder? Why would the duration change based on the charge? What possible point are you trying to make here because I can't follow this random ass reasoning.
 
Last edited:
Hevneren said:
I'm not sure if this is correct. In his closing argument, the prosecutor emphasized that Guyger's actions didn't qualify as self defense , because she was under no immediate threat when she chose to enter the apartment with her gun drawn. She was safe, but chose to engage. There was nothing she needed to defend herself against, and she had no reason to believe there was.
Click to expand...

I take the prosecution's argument with grain of salt. The prosecution chose to go to trial on a charge of murder, and they have a (properly) vested interest in designing an argument that appears to support that charge. The prosecutor is not a disinterested legal scholar, in these proceedings.
 
theprestige said:
There's half a million police officers in the US, in almost fifty thousand different police forces.

https://www.justlanded.com/english/United-States/Articles/Culture/The-police

Can you be a little more specific about which cops need proper training, and why?
Click to expand...


Your source doesn't appear to be based in the U.S. There are more police than it says, and fewer departments.
Law enforcement operates primarily through governmental police agencies. There are 17,985 U.S. police agencies in the United States which include County Sheriff, City and State Police Departments, and Federal Law Enforcement Agencies.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_the_United_States

In 2018, there were 686,665 full-time law enforcement officers employed in the United States.
Click to expand...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/191694/number-of-law-enforcement-officers-in-the-us/

And the answer to which cops need proper training is "All of them."
 
theprestige said:
Slow down. What claim are you talking about? And who says it has to be a conspiracy of the jury?
Click to expand...

You're repeatedly implying that there was a reverse jury nullification here, or is that not what you're saying? It's so hard to distinguish between people saying, "I was just throwing it out there for conversation" and those that say they actually believe it.

So what is your claim? Are we just batting the ball around or are you pussyfooting around the claim?
 
plague311 said:
LoL the ****? Why not give her 20 years for murder? Why would the duration change based on the charge? What possible point are you trying to make here because I can't follow this random ass reasoning.
Click to expand...
There would be people who think that a Manslaughter conviction automatically gives lesser punishment than a Murder conviction. This could be true in a way with probation and parole.

People who wish to see tough punishment... what would they prefer?...

Murder for 5.
Manslaughter for 20.
 
Thermal said:
Many posters beg to differ. 'Reasonable' does not mean perfect, or always using prudence or whatever. A perfectly reasonable person could wander up to the wrong door when their perfectly reasonable noses were trying to cop some ass on their phone. And if the door did not self close properly (as I theorized way back) just pushing the key in would swing it open. This could easily happen to an otherwise entirely reasonable person.

And yeah, baby, I want to hear the cell door clang into the general population with the other murderers. Not that that will happen, having used up our favors from god already this morning.
Click to expand...

Not entirely correct. The door was stuck on the strike plate, as they showed in the video. Just putting the key in wouldn't have swung the door open, but it would have nudged it to show it wasn't closed all the way. If she noticed that then she had to have noticed her keyfob flashing red, which then should have led her to seeing a bright red mat that isn't hers, which should have caused her to take a personal inventory as to why the door was open in the first place. The fact she did none of it made it unreasonable.

Anyway, I'm just happy she's going to prison.
 
William Parcher said:
Are you saying that witnesses testified that she said something else, or that they didn't hear her say, "Show me your hands!"?
Click to expand...

There's no reported claim that they heard her say anything else, like "Welcome to my home" or "Are you hear to fix the leak in the kitchen?" The question is how much time elapsed between entering the apartment and opening fire. The answer is not much.
 
William Parcher said:
There would be people who think that a Manslaughter conviction automatically gives lesser punishment than a Murder conviction. This could be true in a way with probation and parole.

People who wish to see tough punishment... what would they prefer?...

Murder for 5.
Manslaughter for 20.
Click to expand...

Still a false dichotomy. No reason to assume the max versus the minimum available sentence. The range exists to allow for a variety of offenses. It does not mean max manslaughter proceeds to minimum murder.
 
theprestige said:
As I understand it, this is purely a question of what the law prescribes. And as I understand what the law prescribes, if she reasonably believed she was in her apartment, then the law does not require any further due diligence, and cannot properly hold her responsible for not doing any further diligence before shooting.

And while my sense of justice does not begin nor end with the law, I think that upholding the law as written is important to getting justice, and should not be lightly set aside even in cases of life and death.


I don't have an answer for that.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that this is not correct. The castle doctrine does not allow you to shoot someone merely for being on your property.

"Although you do have the freedom to reasonably protect your property, you cannot shoot or use deadly force at will. If someone is only trespassing, you can use force to prevent the activity or stop it, but you cannot kill someone or try to kill someone who is just trespassing (Code section §9.41)."
https://gesinjuryattorneys.com/what-is-the-castle-doctrine-and-does-it-apply-in-texas/

In my opinion Guyger's testimony established that her actions were rash and she did not have a good reason to fear for her life or that her property was being taken.
 
Bob001 said:
Your source doesn't appear to be based in the U.S. There are more police than it says, and fewer departments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_the_United_States


https://www.statista.com/statistics/191694/number-of-law-enforcement-officers-in-the-us/

And the answer to which cops need proper training is "All of them."
Click to expand...

You seem to be claiming that none of the police officers, and none of the police agencies, have proper training. Is that your claim?
 
Thermal said:
Still a false dichotomy. No reason to assume the max versus the minimum available sentence. The range exists to allow for a variety of offenses. It does not mean max manslaughter proceeds to minimum murder.
Click to expand...
It's a valid hypothetical. Before today's verdict anyone could have been asked this question...

Would your prefer to see her get 5 years for Murder, or would you prefer to see her get 20 years for Manslaughter?
 
William Parcher said:
It's a valid hypothetical. Before today's verdict anyone could have been asked this question...

Would your prefer to see her get 5 years for Murder, or would you prefer to see her get 20 years for Manslaughter?
Click to expand...

Can I use my Marisa Tomei voiced and say: "That's a ******** question"?
 
William Parcher said:
It's a valid hypothetical. Before today's verdict anyone could have been asked this question...

Would your prefer to see her get 5 years for Murder, or would you prefer to see her get 20 years for Manslaughter?
Click to expand...

And they could answer, why do you restrict a preference to those two choices, as many more are available?
 
theprestige said:
You seem to be claiming that none of the police officers, and none of the police agencies, have proper training. Is that your claim?
Click to expand...

Of course not. Many do get proper training. Some likely get excellent training. The point is that all police officers should get "proper" training. You didn't ask "Who needs more training than they are getting now?" Some do, some don't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom