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

plague311 said:
You're repeatedly implying that there was a reverse jury nullification here,
Click to expand...
This is a mistaken inference on your part.

or is that not what you're saying?
Click to expand...
It's not what I'm 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.
Click to expand...
It seems like that would be dead easy to distinguish. The people saying they actually believe it are trivially identifiable as those that say they actually believe it.

Since I have not said I actually believe it, you should have zero problem distinguishing between me and someone who has.

Anyway, for avoidance of doubt: I was just throwing it out there for conversation. The jury returned a verdict of murder. The way I see it - as I explained up front; did you actually read that post? - it's a fairly binary question. Either they rejected the mistake of fact and found murder as a result, or they accepted the mistake of fact but found murder anyway in a kind of "jury nullification." I don't know which it is. I'm not even entirely convinced that my binary view is correct. Mostly I'm just curious about how the jury viewed the "mistake of fact" claim, and how that view informed their decision. I'm also curious about whether the jury went into the trial more or less determined to convict, and found deliberations easy because they knew what they wanted to decide and didn't need to spend a lot of time and effort examining the prosecution's actual arguments.

Again, I'm not claiming (or even implying) that's what happened. I'm curious, though. And the truth is we'll probably never know for sure either way. Which is the main reason I'm not making any claims.

So at least you don't have to worry about challenging my claims here. Because I'm not making any (except perhaps that jury nullification, as a concept, includes both guilty and not guilty verdicts).

So what is your claim? Are we just batting the ball around or are you pussyfooting around the claim?
Click to expand...
We're just batting the ball around. Stop trying to turn this into a slapfight.
 
William Parcher said:
That depends on the amount of force used when inserting the key.
Click to expand...

There was testimony that when a resident inserts their electronic key, a light goes on. If the key is in the right lock, the light is green; otherwise the light is red. If she saw a red light at her door -- and the claim is that she did -- that should have been enough to raise big doubts in her mind.
 
whoanellie said:
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.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.
 
Bob001 said:
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.
Click to expand...
My point is that nobody on the witness stand said anything like, "She didn't yell 'Show me your hands!', instead she yelled, 'xyz'.

When people say something like "I didn't hear her yell, 'Show me your hands!', it can be because they couldn't hear any voice(s) at all, or they could hear voice(s) but what was said was not understandable. And, not hearing a yelled command can be because the witness was unable to hear such a command even if it was given. Gunshots are louder than voices and some witnesses only heard gunshots.
 
theprestige said:
The way I see it - as I explained up front; did you actually read that post? - it's a fairly binary question. Either they rejected the mistake of fact and found murder as a result, or they accepted the mistake of fact but found murder anyway in a kind of "jury nullification." I don't know which it is. I'm not even entirely convinced that my binary view is correct.
Click to expand...

I believe your binary view is incorrect. Mistake of fact gets her to the door of Botham Jean's apartment, it doesn't explain her decision to draw and fire her weapon. Even with her mistake of fact, if the jurors believed beyond a reasonable doubt that her claim of self-defense was unreasonable then according to the law they should have convicted her of murder.
 
Bob001 said:
There was testimony that when a resident inserts their electronic key, a light goes on. If the key is in the right lock, the light is green; otherwise the light is red. If she saw a red light at her door -- and the claim is that she did -- that should have been enough to raise big doubts in her mind.
Click to expand...
Plague claimed that inserting the key would push the door with enough force to show that it was actually open. Plague isn't talking about the lights here, he is talking about the force of key insertion.
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
There was testimony that when a resident inserts their electronic key, a light goes on. If the key is in the right lock, the light is green; otherwise the light is red. If she saw a red light at her door -- and the claim is that she did -- that should have been enough to raise big doubts in her mind.
Click to expand...

Or it could have raised the minor nuisance thought that something was wrong with her key/lock.

We keep treating this as a person with impeccable reasonableness and objectivity using prudent judgement and being 'on the ball'. She was just bumbling down the hallway texting about how horny she was. You miss the significance of a lot of peripheral details when composing sexy textys.

And the jury didn't care. So yee hah, I propose a toast to Amber Guyger: may she rot in prison.
 
Thermal said:
Only if she saw a gun, or had reason to believe she was in danger of being shot. She didn't. If the Lone Star State accepts 'well, ya never know, he coulda had a gun' as a defense, the whole State is screwed.
Click to expand...

This reminds me of an incident that happened to me in Arizona where an argument broke out in a parking lot because someone "stole" a parking spot and three people (not me) pulled out guns.
 
Thermal said:
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!
Click to expand...

You see, this I don't get. It's one thing to believe that justice is rightfully served, it's another to personalize it in this way.
 
acbytesla said:
This reminds me of an incident that happened to me in Arizona where an argument broke out in a parking lot because someone "stole" a parking spot and three people (not me) pulled out guns.
Click to expand...

Damn. That's what worries me most about carrying. Untrained people adrenalized and angry over nothing of consequence, and having a convenient Persuader at the hip, then staring down someone else's barrel, adrenalizing further. What could go wrong?
 
acbytesla said:
You see, this I don't get. It's one thing to believe that justice is rightfully served, it's another to personalize it in this way.
Click to expand...

Not really personalizing. Using her as the embodiment of the abstraction of being allowed to murder with impunity under this weak-ass Mistake theory. Just glad that the spray-the-hooker's-car-with-rifle-fire State did not allow it.
 
CNN said:
The jury deliberated less than 24 hours. The verdict followed a trial that has captured national attention and sparked outrage.

The jury had two questions for the court this morning before they reached the verdict, according to attorneys for the Jean family:

  • Jurors asked for a definition of manslaughter.
  • They also asked for additional information on the so-called castle doctrine — the legal notion that your home is your castle, and you have the right to use lethal force to defend your home and not retreat.
Click to expand...

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/amber-guyger-botham-jean-verdict/index.html

I read in another article that the jury deliberated for 5 hours.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
It means that the jury is convinced that the law is wrong and lets someone off despite them having actually broken the law.

"theprestige" is suggesting something similar, that they convicted despite her not having broken the law.
Click to expand...

Well it was black man season in texas, so at most this is hunting without a permit.
 
Thermal said:
As previously opined, you mean. The case has shown that all the jury needed was to accept that it was reasonable for her to get to the door, and believe that Jean was an intruder. The second follows from the first, assuming she could only see his silhouette in the dark and could not discern enough other detail with her focus on his outline.
Click to expand...

Yep, no reasonable cop would follow police protocol. That would be unreasonable!
 
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.
Click to expand...

And when they realize someone is in their apartment before they enter it, the real question is of course WWLJD?(What Would Leeroy Jenkins Do) That is the basis for all reasonable police procedures after all.
 
Joe Random said:
I think it's possible to have some small degree of sympathy for her and still think she's guilty as **** and needs to be locked away.
Click to expand...

I was talking about the victim. I can't feel sorry for him because he's dead. Personally I don't feel sorry for the cop, but I don't see why it'd be impossible to both feel sorry for her and think she's guilty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom