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

theprestige said:
Okay, but seriously: Texas law says intentional killing is murder. But nobody gets put on trial for murder after administering the death penalty in Texas. So obviously someone is missing something about Texas law, and it's not me.

Based on how Texas law treats people who administer the death penalty, I'm arguing that it does not actually follow from Guyger intentionally killing Jean that she committed murder. There must be some other criteria that's being elided by you and others. I'd like to know what that criteria is. Perhaps this is boring to you, but it's interesting to me.
Click to expand...


I'm sure, Texas lawmakers (as dumb as state legislators are) carved out an exception. Give me a minute to find it:
 
Dr. Keith said:
Have fun. This has been cited so often in this thread and its predecessors that I lost count.
Click to expand...

Yep. I've seen the citations. According to this, anyone administering the death penalty in Texas is committing murder. Specifically: "intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual" (19.02(b)(1)).

Yet nobody administering the death penalty in Texas is ever brought up on charges of murder. Indeed, such an outcome is absurd on its face. Obviously this citation is not the whole story of murder in Texas law. It's very likely that it doesn't tell us everything we need to know about whether Guyger committed murder under Texas law.

In fact, it seems to leave out a lot of obvious scenarios where "intentionally or knowingly causing the death of an individual" isn't murder. Though, oddly, it does bother to spell out exceptions for the death of an unborn infant.

Appealing to this one document alone seems to be an oversimplification. The document itself seems to have some pretty serious gaps in its coverage of the question.
 
theprestige said:
Yep. I've seen the citations. According to this, anyone administering the death penalty in Texas is committing murder. Specifically: "intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual" (19.02(b)(1)).

Yet nobody administering the death penalty in Texas is ever brought up on charges of murder. Indeed, such an outcome is absurd on its face. Obviously this citation is not the whole story of murder in Texas law. It's very likely that it doesn't tell us everything we need to know about whether Guyger committed murder under Texas law.

In fact, it seems to leave out a lot of obvious scenarios where "intentionally or knowingly causing the death of an individual" isn't murder. Though, oddly, it does bother to spell out exceptions for the death of an unborn infant.

Appealing to this one document alone seems to be an oversimplification. The document itself seems to have some pretty serious gaps in its coverage of the question.
Click to expand...

Imagine a lawyer came in and lectured your team on developing software. That feeling is probably similar to the feeling I'm having right now and I don't even do criminal law.
 
Dr. Keith said:
Imagine a lawyer came in and lectured your team on developing software. That feeling is probably similar to the feeling I'm having right now and I don't even do criminal law.
Click to expand...
Okay.

Is he lecturing us on the legal implications or constraints of the software we're developing? Because that would be appreciated.

Is he lecturing us on all the shortcomings of our software, and what features it needs to actually solve his problems? Because that would also be appreciated.

Is he lecturing us on the gaps in our software documentation, and how it seems to omit some obvious and very important use cases? Because that too would also be appreciated.
 
theprestige said:
Okay.

Is he lecturing us on the legal implications or constraints of the software we're developing? Because that would be appreciated.

Is he lecturing us on all the shortcomings of our software, and what features it needs to actually solve his problems? Because that would also be appreciated.

Is he lecturing us on the gaps in our software documentation, and how it seems to omit some obvious and very important use cases? Because that too would also be appreciated.
Click to expand...

No, he is trying to explain the c: prompt to you.
 
Loss Leader said:
I'm sure, Texas lawmakers (as dumb as state legislators are) carved out an exception. Give me a minute to find it:
Click to expand...


Yeah, here's part of it. It's spread all over the penal code and probably the government code as well.

Listen, theprestige, I agree with you. I think the death penalty is the ultimate in hypocrisy. Just because someone is a murderer, the government (and the people it represents) don't have to become murderers themselves. Also, one study showed that most death sentences come from a single county (Harris) and that over a hundred counties have never sent a person to his death. One guess what's at play here - institutionalized racism.

However, it is legal to kill a convict in Texas. It shouldn't be, because they've killed innocent people and a wildly disproportionate number of African Americans. But for now, it's legal.
 
Loss Leader said:
Also, one study showed that most death sentences come from a single county (Harris) and that over a hundred counties have never sent a person to his death. One guess what's at play here - institutionalized racism.
Click to expand...
That doesn't necessarily mean what you think or claim it does, however. (Although, yeah, Texas has a terrible problem with racism). Counties in the US can be HIGHLY variable in terms of population and area. Harris county is the most populous in Texas, with about 4.6 million residents - about double that of the next most populous county. Many other counties in Texas have only a couple hundred residents; a drop in the bucket by comparison.

https://www.texas-demographics.com/counties_by_population
 
Last edited:
If I remember correctly the defense had a "running objection" to something. I'll see if I can track it down.

ETA: Oh, while I was looking the thought of the Texas Ranger, mentioned recently, comes to mind as an objection that they'll want to put pressure on.
 
Last edited:
I admit to not having followed this story, and the news accounts that I've read have not had enough detail for me to decide what most likely happened. There seem to be 4 possibilities:


1) She had a grudge against him and decided to go to his apartment to kill him;
2) She was angry about something, perhaps playing his TV too loud, and went up to confront him. He reacted hostilely, perhaps saying that she trespassed into his apartment while in full uniform so he was going to report her. She got mad and shot him.
3) She mistakenly went into his apartment thinking that it was her own. She got enraged that someone had broken into her apartment so rather than arresting him she shot him.
4) She mistakenly went into his apartment thinking that it was her own. When she challenged him, he came at her so she shot him in self-defense (her story).


I'm dismissing 2) because AFAIK it never was proposed during the trial. 4) seems sketchy, because: a) it contradicts the medical examiners report, which found that she shot downward; b) she claimed that he "walked" toward her and anyone who wants to attack someone who has a gun is going to run full speed at them, not walk; c) it would seem to take a poorly trained police officer to encounter someone who was seated and some distance away and not be able to either arrest them or retreat. That leaves 1) and 3). Any thoughts?
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
I admit to not having followed this story, and the news accounts that I've read have not had enough detail for me to decide what most likely happened. There seem to be 4 possibilities:


1) She had a grudge against him and decided to go to his apartment to kill him;
2) She was angry about something, perhaps playing his TV too loud, and went up to confront him. He reacted hostilely, perhaps saying that she trespassed into his apartment while in full uniform so he was going to report her. She got mad and shot him.
3) She mistakenly went into his apartment thinking that it was her own. She got enraged that someone had broken into her apartment so rather than arresting him she shot him.
4) She mistakenly went into his apartment thinking that it was her own. When she challenged him, he came at her so she shot him in self-defense (her story).


I'm dismissing 2) because AFAIK it never was proposed during the trial. 4) seems sketchy, because: a) it contradicts the medical examiners report, which found that she shot downward; b) she claimed that he "walked" toward her and anyone who wants to attack someone who has a gun is going to run full speed at them, not walk; c) it would seem to take a poorly trained police officer to encounter someone who was seated and some distance away and not be able to either arrest them or retreat. That leaves 1) and 3). Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

Guyger went to the wrong apartment and realized that someone was there. Guyger claimed it was 4 though no one in the building heard her challenge him. It's not clear to what extent Jean moved either away from or toward her. No one has argued 3. Guyger reacted very quickly once she realized some one was in the apartment. I believe she reacted rashly/imprudently but there is no evidence she was enraged.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
1) She had a grudge against him and decided to go to his apartment to kill him;
2) She was angry about something, perhaps playing his TV too loud, and went up to confront him. He reacted hostilely, perhaps saying that she trespassed into his apartment while in full uniform so he was going to report her. She got mad and shot him.

I'm dismissing 2) because AFAIK it never was proposed during the trial.
Click to expand...
#2 is off the table because she wasn't at home before going to his apartment.

#1 should be removed from the table because nobody was able to produce any evidence that Guyger and Jean had ever met, had ever spoken to each other, or had ever even seen each other before this incident. Guyger lived on a different floor and had only been a resident in the building for 2 months.
 
I believe the verdict is correct. She had no right to shoot him. Technically he would have had the right to shoot her, as she was in his apartment. Police officers get away with murder far too often.

As to the sentence? I suppose that still remains to be decided? Could be as little as 5 years?

There will be appeals, but will she remain free during the appeals or have to begin serving her sentence immediately even as the appeals are being made?
 
whoanellie said:
I believe she reacted rashly/imprudently but there is no evidence she was enraged.
Click to expand...


You know, the thing I can't get over is that she used deadly force because she had a weapon of deadly force. If she had non-lethals instead - pepper spray, taser, etc. - the victim would probably be alive now. She could have used her radio to call for help, or dialed in to the police line from her cell phone. Radios are the police's best weapon. You can call on help and know it'll arrive quickly. And in that time, she might have figured out she was at the wrong apartment.

But the weapon she was most heavily trained to use was one that kills people. It doesn't have to be, it shouldn't be, and the victim would be alive if police were trained to use non-lethals first.
 
Loss Leader said:
You know, the thing I can't get over is that she used deadly force because she had a weapon of deadly force. If she had non-lethals instead - pepper spray, taser, etc. - the victim would probably be alive now. She could have used her radio to call for help, or dialed in to the police line from her cell phone. Radios are the police's best weapon. You can call on help and know it'll arrive quickly. And in that time, she might have figured out she was at the wrong apartment.

But the weapon she was most heavily trained to use was one that kills people. It doesn't have to be, it shouldn't be, and the victim would be alive if police were trained to use non-lethals first.
Click to expand...

I believe it was demonstrated in the trial that she had both a tazer and pepper spray on her belt, and chose to draw her firearm rather than either of the less than lethals. That was one of the themes the prosecutor hammered during his closing : that she formed the intent to kill while still outside. She did not withdraw to cover and call for the backup which was two blocks away. She did not draw either the spray or the tazer. Before entering the apartment she had her firearm out and went looking for the target inside.
 
Loss Leader said:
You know, the thing I can't get over is that she used deadly force because she had a weapon of deadly force. If she had non-lethals instead - pepper spray, taser, etc. - the victim would probably be alive now. She could have used her radio to call for help, or dialed in to the police line from her cell phone. Radios are the police's best weapon. You can call on help and know it'll arrive quickly. And in that time, she might have figured out she was at the wrong apartment.
.....
Click to expand...

Where have you been? The prosecution demonstrated that she was equipped with a Taser, pepper spray, her police-issue radio and a cell phone. She almost certainly had a baton, too, although I don't recall that being mentioned. And of course, she didn't have to enter the unit at all. Police headquarters was two blocks away. How long does it take to drive two blocks in a patrol car with lights and sirens on? Of all her many options, she made the worst possible choice, and the jury knew it.
 
Bob001 said:
Where have you been? The prosecution demonstrated that she was equipped with a Taser, pepper spray, her police-issue radio and a cell phone. She almost certainly had a baton, too, although I don't recall that being mentioned. And of course, she didn't have to enter the unit at all. Police headquarters was two blocks away. How long does it take to drive two blocks in a patrol car with lights and sirens on? Of all her many options, she made the worst possible choice, and the jury knew it.
Click to expand...

I think the non-lethal weapons is a non-starter. Cops would never go to them being alone and particularly not a female officer. The unforgivable sin was not calling for help and waiting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom