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

I was just reading about Texas's so-called "Castle Doctrine" law. It seems like a real mistake to me.

In any case, even if we allow that the Castle Doctrine should apply here (which seems doubtful to me) because she believed that she was in her own home, she still would have had to have a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary to protect herself from imminent harm.
 
theprestige said:
I'm saying the concept is the same. It also seems to me that we could just as easily label conventional nullification as a crime, rather than tacitly accepting it as a safety valve. Think about it from the victim's point of view. "We recognize that the prosecution has proven a crime under the law, beyond reasonable doubt, but we're going to ignore that." Why shouldn't all twelve of those scofflaws be up on charges of contempt of court and obstruction of justice?
Click to expand...

I believe that the founders enshrined the right to trial by jury into the constitution because they considered jury nullification to be a feature, not a bug. Sometimes juries should just do the right thing, the just thing, the moral thing, the common sense thing, and not get too bogged down in technicalities and legalese and obscure points of law.
 
A question: Has there been any reporting indicating that Guyer was offered a deal and turned it down? No deal could have left her worse off than where she is now.
 
Joe Random said:
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.
Click to expand...


My point exactly. She used the weapon she'd had the most training on.


acbytesla said:
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.
Click to expand...


It would be a hard sell, especially after the federal government gave police all sorts of crazy stuff - tanks, machine guns, grenade launchers, and even bazookas. But militarizing the police has made everyone less safe, including the police themselves. Demilitarizing would have to be done carefully, but I think it can be done if people trust the right government officials - which they'll never do.
 
Loss Leader said:
My point exactly. She used the weapon she'd had the most training on.

Demilitarizing would have to be done carefully, but I think it can be done if people trust the right government officials - which they'll never do.
Click to expand...

Police getting surplus military equipment isn't the issue here. Cops will never be without sidearms, and that's what she used. Testimony said that she violated her training and established procedures when she entered the unit without calling -- and waiting -- for backup. I don't think this is the particular case to use as an example of what's wrong with law enforcement.
 
It seems to me that the prosecution team successfully managed to destroy Amber Guyger's credibility. Once the jurors believed she was lying about the sequence of events at the apartment then her going to the wrong unit is irrelevant.
 
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...
How about something like: 5) Tired after a long shift, Guyger mistakenly walked into the wrong apartment. Upon sensing someone else inside, she immediately projected the watchdog narrative of a criminal intruder onto the situation without seriously considering any alternatives. For reasons of personal ego and/or impatience she decided to take care of the situation herself without requesting back-up. When the individual didn't respond to her sudden and utterly unexpected demands to put his hands up, the adrenaline and nerves kicked in so she shot him.
 
Last edited:
Lambchops said:
Ahahahaha, enjoy rotting in a cell, you racist pig!
Click to expand...

Roland Martin pointed out that this is the second time in two years that an out-of-control Dallas cop has been convicted of murder for firing wildly on a black male minding his own business, with the first being the murder of Jordan Edwards. Seems like people in Dallas have figured out something that far too many people in the US don't seem to believe - namely, that black people are actually people, and thus deserve the same protections that white people do.
 
Mumbles said:
Roland Martin pointed out that this is the second time in two years that an out-of-control Dallas cop has been convicted of murder for firing wildly on a black male minding his own business, with the first being the murder of Jordan Edwards. Seems like people in Dallas have figured out something that far too many people in the US don't seem to believe - namely, that black people are actually people, and thus deserve the same protections that white people do.
Click to expand...

I like your avatar!
 
Thermal said:
Yea, but they have a lot of training in non lethal methods, too. Tasers, calling for backup, deescalation, and more. Guyger forgot all about those and went straight to killing a man that by her own testimony, posed no threat to her other than what was between her ears. I have a huge problem with that.
Click to expand...

And as other police have said that is standard police procedure.
 
All this post conviction information about Botham Jean is really getting me down. Jean seemed to be an unusually pleasant individual who's life came to crashing end when this idiot cop blew into his life.

Jean was literally a choir boy. I wonder how much that had to do with the successful conviction of Guyger. Their pathetic pothead smear didn't work, and that's the best they really had to try to drag the victim's character.

I have a feeling that if Guyger's victim hadn't been such a wholesome dude, it might have gone differently.
 
Lambchops said:
Ahahahaha, enjoy rotting in a cell, you racist pig!
Click to expand...

Do we even know if Guyger was able to determine the Jean's race before she opened fire? I'm glad she was convicted and hope the sentence is stiff, but I don't know if race was a deciding factor for her to open fire.
 
Shadowdweller said:
How about something like: 5) Tired after a long shift, Guyger mistakenly walked into the wrong apartment. Upon sensing someone else inside, she immediately projected the watchdog narrative of a criminal intruder onto the situation without seriously considering any alternatives. For reasons of personal ego and/or impatience she decided to take care of the situation herself without requesting back-up. When the individual didn't respond to her sudden and utterly unexpected demands to put his hands up, the adrenaline and nerves kicked in so she shot him.
Click to expand...

Nice but that is not her story, she knew someone was inside before she entered the apartment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom