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

Reports say that the prosecution requested a sentence of 28 years.

NBC News said:
Prosecutors had asked jurors to sentence Guyger to at least 28 years — symbolic because Jean would have turned 28 last Sunday.
Click to expand...
 
As I said, I'd hoped for more, but it could have been much worse. They could have given her as little as two years if they'd allowed the "sudden passion" (which includes fear) defense. Also, the good news is she'll have to serve at least five years, and ex-cops always have it rough in prison. Also she'll never be able to be a cop or touch a gun again.
 
That's very short indeed for murder from where I'm sitting. Here, it's a life sentence with a tariff of usually around 20 years and they actually serve the tariff, it doesn't come with time off.

Does this lenient sentence suggest the jury thought it wasn't "murder" as many lay people would understand it?
 
Not happy, but not really surprised. I was sort of thinking that if it was murder instead of manslaughter for the verdict we'd see the sentence be on the lower end.

Still better then 180 days for "Oops I killed them LOL silly me I'm so scatterbrained."
 
Also is this a hard and fast "10 years" or one of those "You'll probably be out in 5" kind of things?
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Is there some citation for this? Not that I'm doubting, but would love to have it as reference. As far as I'm concerned, that's the whole case decided right there.



Mistake of fact and all that is DOA if she had a moment outside the apartment to pull her head out of her ass and still decided to barge in and force a confrontation.
Click to expand...
I thought I'd read that was in her testimony?
 
Simple Justice Blog

Rolfe said:
That's very short indeed for murder from where I'm sitting. Here, it's a life sentence with a tariff of usually around 20 years and they actually serve the tariff, it doesn't come with time off.

Does this lenient sentence suggest the jury thought it wasn't "murder" as many lay people would understand it?
Click to expand...

I am not sure, but I found defense attorney Scott Greenfield's essay worth reading. "The minimum sentence should be imposed, but only because the crime was murder, as it had to be. Otherwise, even the minimum sentence is more than necessary to serve any legitimate purpose. But law is a blunt weapon, sentencing is voodoo and each of us holds our own idiosyncratic view of what constitutes “justice.”"

BTW I responded to one of your comments upthread.
 
It's a short sentence, but I'm just glad she didn't walk. It's important that now Guyger can never be a cop again or legally own a gun. It's disgusting to see someone so careless about human life. I feel sorry for the Jean family most of all.
 
SpitfireIX said:
As I said, I'd hoped for more, but it could have been much worse. They could have given her as little as two years if they'd allowed the "sudden passion" (which includes fear) defense. Also, the good news is she'll have to serve at least five years, and ex-cops always have it rough in prison. Also she'll never be able to be a cop or touch a gun again.
Click to expand...

Did the jury know when she would be eligible for parole? Were they allowed to consider it? It's possible that they expected 10 years to mean 10 years.
 
Rolfe said:
That's very short indeed for murder from where I'm sitting. Here, it's a life sentence with a tariff of usually around 20 years and they actually serve the tariff, it doesn't come with time off.
Click to expand...


In Indiana a 30-year sentence for murder used to be fairly standard, but one could get out in 15 years with "good behavior", and even more time off was possible for completion of college degrees while incarcerated. I remember 20 or 30 years ago there was a case where a teacher who got a stiff sentence for having sex with a young student (IIRC) ended up only serving a few years because he earned several additional degrees in prison.

About five years ago the law was changed so that serious felonies now require offenders to serve at least 75% of their sentences, and credit for earning degrees and time off for good behavior is significantly reduced. The penalties for murder have also been increased; 40 years is more common now.

Indiana also has the death penalty, but it's been rarely used. There have only been 20 executions since 1977, and eight men are currently on death row, though there's some question about whether any of them will actually be executed.

Rolfe said:
Does this lenient sentence suggest the jury thought it wasn't "murder" as many lay people would understand it?
Click to expand...


I'd say they thought there were mitigating factors, which there were. But I still think she should have gotten a longer sentence.
 
Last edited:
chrispy said:
I worked 36 hours straight one time, I **** you not. Granted I was bartending, and it's a different country, but my money was on point and, despite being armed with a large knife, I didn't go to the wrong apartment, let alone kill anyone on the way home.
Click to expand...

Good for you.
 
SpitfireIX said:
In Indiana a 30-year sentence for murder used to be fairly standard, but one could get out in 15 years with "good behavior", and even more time off was possible for completion of college degrees while incarcerated. I remember 20 or 30 years ago there was a case where a teacher who got a stiff sentence for having sex with a young student (IIRC) ended up only serving a few years because he earned several additional degrees in prison.

About five years ago the law was changed so that serious felonies now require offenders to serve at least 75% of their sentences, and credit for earning degrees and time off for good behavior is significantly reduced. The penalties for murder have also been increased; 40 years is more common now.

Indiana also has the death penalty, but it's been rarely used. There have only been 20 executions since 1977, and eight men are currently on death row, though there's some question about whether any of them will actually be executed.

I'd say they thought there were mitigating factors, which there were. But I still think she should have gotten a longer sentence.
Click to expand...

I think that's wong. The public is in love with draconian sentences. I don't think it makes us safer. I'd rather a convict serve 15 years or less and become a productive citizen than 30 years and be a permanent drain on society.
 
acbytesla said:
I think that's wong. The public is in love with draconian sentences. I don't think it makes us safer. I'd rather a convict serve 15 years or less and become a productive citizen than 30 years and be a permanent drain on society.
Click to expand...

10 years for murder is "draconian" now?

Jesus is this really the thread for the "Pound of Flesh" argument?
 
JoeMorgue said:
10 years for murder is "draconian" now?

Jesus is this really the thread for the "Pound of Flesh" argument?
Click to expand...

Every situation is different.

And Spitfire was referring to Indiana and how sentences went from 30 years and potential time off for good behavior which could mean someone is out in half that time to minimum sentences of 40 years and a no more than 25 percent off...which would be 30 years. We're looking at people getting out of prison at 50 to 70 years of age.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Well, she's got some free time now. Maybe she can start a letter writing campaign from her jail cell to reform police working conditions. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Well, she can try.

More importantly, what are the odds that she's the only cop in Dallas that was working longer than 8 hour days? I'm going to guess roughly 0%. For that matter, I know volunteer firemen that are expected to be on call for longer hours, *and* hold down a regular job aside from that. Exactly 0 of them have ever made a mistake close to this, even when after being called out for actual fires and other emergencies.

Rolfe said:
That's very short indeed for murder from where I'm sitting. Here, it's a life sentence with a tariff of usually around 20 years and they actually serve the tariff, it doesn't come with time off.

Does this lenient sentence suggest the jury thought it wasn't "murder" as many lay people would understand it?
Click to expand...

Hahaha, no.

Let's get one thing clear. The jury is mostly black and Hispanic people. The judge is a black woman. They have nowhere near the leeway that white people, and straight white men in particular, do when it comes to using their discretion. I've already seen quite a few people (all white) stating that they're "glad" that the jury didn't go the way of "racial revenge", and I'll offer this jackass as an example.

Let's say they give her 99 years, the maximum. I guarantee that the appeal would say that the jurors/judge were racially biased towards the murderer - and there's a very high chance it'd work.

Is 10 years fair? Absolutely not, considering how many drug addicts are in prison with longer sentences. Will it hold up on appeal? Most likely.
 
Mumbles said:
Well, she can try.

More importantly, what are the odds that she's the only cop in Dallas that was working longer than 8 hour days? I'm going to guess roughly 0%. For that matter, I know volunteer firemen that are expected to be on call for longer hours, *and* hold down a regular job aside from that. Exactly 0 of them have ever made a mistake close to this, even when after being called out for actual fires and other emergencies.

Hahaha, no.

Let's get one thing clear. The jury is mostly black and Hispanic people. The judge is a black woman. They have nowhere near the leeway that white people, and straight white men in particular, do when it comes to using their discretion. I've already seen quite a few people (all white) stating that they're "glad" that the jury didn't go the way of "racial revenge", and I'll offer this jackass as an example.

Let's say they give her 99 years, the maximum. I guarantee that the appeal would say that the jurors/judge were racially biased towards the murderer - and there's a very high chance it'd work.

Is 10 years fair? Absolutely not, considering how many drug addicts are in prison with longer sentences. Will it hold up on appeal? Most likely.
Click to expand...

I don't think there could be a sentence that is "fair". And the problem isn't her getting 10 years, the problem are the absurd ridiculous sentences handed out over drugs. America incarcerates far too many of its citizens. And far too many of them are people of color. It's not that she should serve more time. It's that a lot of people should serve less.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom