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

The verdict came quicker than I thought. I thought they would have more questions for the judge about the law. Or maybe they did and she just answered them quickly. The judge did keep the trial moving along at a good pace. I guess I was pretty far off in my prediction of a hung jury.

Hat's off to the prosecution. They did an excellent job. I can't think of anything they could have done better. This wasn't an easy conviction.

I thought the defense could have done quite a bit better. Rogers didn't really present a clear and understandable logical path in his arguments. It was all kind of scatter shot.

I think Shook did a particularly poor job in his direct examination of Guyger. He was rude to the prosecution after some very reasonable objections, and up to that point the prosecution had been very courteous. Even to a fault. It seemed like this was the turning point where the gloves came off.

Guyger was overprepared for direct examination and underprepared for cross. Her testimony seemed overly rehearsed. She seemed to be saying what she thought she was supposed to say.

The presentation should not have been this happened, then I thought this, and then heard that, and so on. They should have at least had Guyger demonstrate what happened, in real time. Then maybe going back step by step. Their presentation made it look like there were pauses and deliberations at each step, when there likely was not.

When Guyger had her emotional outburst, Shook should not have let it go on as long as he did. Maybe allow a little bit to show the jury some emotion. But it went on far too long and Guyger said something dumb. And the prosecution, quite reasonably, pounced.

I finally just got through listening to the closing arguments. (I just haven't been able to keep up with this trial.)

Excellent closing by the prosecutors. The defense, again, seemed scatter shot. They were reading, word for word, a bunch of stuff from the jury instructions. To the jury, that just sounds like meaningless legal mumbo jumbo. Some hocus pocus that is supposed to make it OK for a very to just walk in and shoot someone in their own home.

I'm not sure why they didn't focus on the castle law. They seemed to have favorable wording in the jury instructions. Hammer home the idea that the prosecution had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that it was unreasonable for Guyger to believe, from her viewpoint at the time, that she was facing an intruder in her home. They seemed to hang their hat on the idea that she was facing a deadly threat, which is problematic with the bullet trajectory, Guyger's testimony about wanting to go in an find the threat, and Jean not doing anything that could be clearly demonstrated to be something that would be perceived as a deadly threat. The best they had was their weird theory that he was bending way over at the waist to look at the gun (from 15 feet away) and that he was walking towards her and somehow therefore must have a weapon that he was going to kill her with. Not a strong argument.

She definitely should not have said she was going in to find the threat.
 
I disagree with the murder conviction. But not much. I don't think this is any great injustice.

I think it should have been manslaughter. I think her beliefs were reasonable, but her actions were not.

When I first heard about this case, I thought there was no way she went there by accident. There had to be something else going on. But there wasn’t anything else. It was clear she really did believe she was in her own apartment. But it seemed unbelievable that she could miss all the signs. After seeing all of the evidence from the trail, I find it much more understandable that she could have made that mistake. Everything looks pretty much the same.

The differences are small. Things like floor mats and potted plants are things a person could easily become “nose blind” to. Even the red mat; it is not visible from looking down the hallway because there is a sort of angle that come out from the wall for about a foot or so. The mat only becomes visible when a person is very near the door, and at that point I think she would have been concentrating on getting her key ready.

I ended up finding that mistake much more believable than I thought it was.

I think that she had a reasonable belief that she was facing an intruder. She came to what she thought was her apartment and found the door ajar and a person inside. Thinking that person is a burglar is not an unreasonable belief. She didn’t have to be out of her mind to believe that. It is not beyond a reasonable doubt that she could reasonably believe that.

I guess my real concern with a murder conviction is that I think murder requires criminal intent. I don’t think she had any criminal intent. I think she thought she was doing the right and lawful thing.

But I do think her actions were unreasonable.

I don’t think she had a reasonable belief that she was facing a deadly threat, even if we accept her version of what happened. If he had a gun, he wouldn’t have been walking toward her and yelling. He would have just shot. So maybe he had a knife that she couldn’t see because she could only see a silhouette. That sounds like more of a guess than a reasonable belief, but even then, it doesn’t amount to a deadly threat. He wasn’t running at her. He wasn’t walking toward her down the path next to the kitchen. He was either on the couch or across from the kitchen counter. Fifteen feet away, with a counter in between. And he was bent over. That’s not a deadly threat.

That leaves the castle law as the only defense. I think she reasonably believed that she was facing an intruder. She knew (r at least should have known) when she was going in that she was creating a risk that any innocent person could die. She did not use a standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise.

If a person is going to shoot someone that is only justified under the castle law, they better damn well make sure it is actually their home. She didn’t do that. She easily could have, but she didn’t.

And the person better be damn well sure that the person was an intruder. It could have been a maintenance worker. Maintenance workers were scheduled to be doing a moisture inspection in apartments that day. He knew that. They probably wouldn’t be there at 10 PM, but maybe. Maybe they found a problem with her toilet and were working late to make sure it was fixed. Maybe while one guy was working or went out for a part or tool, the other guy stayed there and flipped on the TV and was shuffling around waiting for the other guy. If that had happened, would that maintenance worker still be alive? Assuming only a burglar and not considering a maintenance worker is not a standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise.

For those reasons, I think manslaughter applies. But I think it is understandable that the jury could extended that to a determine that there was not a reasonable belief.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
I think it should have been manslaughter.
Click to expand...
It wasn't. I think this has been mentioned a couple of times.

Medlin law firm said:
In order to be charged with murder, the defendant must have knowingly and willingly caused the death of another person. The biggest distinguishing factor between murder and manslaughter involves the intent of the perpetrator. If the defendant intended to cause serious bodily harm or death, or intended to commit a felony other than manslaughter that resulted in death, he or she can be charged with murder.
Click to expand...
Guyger clearly stated that she intended to kill Jean, so this was no manslaughter. You may want to invent a third category of killing to cover cases like that, but according to current law, this was murder.
 
Hevneren said:
Guyger clearly stated that she intended to kill Jean, so this was no manslaughter. You may want to invent a third category of killing to cover cases like that, but according to current law, this was murder.
Click to expand...

We have been over this many times in this thread. She killed intentionally, that is murder. But it is self defense because of the castle law. But she was reckless. So it is manslaughter.

It is an indirect path.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
We have been over this many times in this thread. She killed intentionally, that is murder. But it is self defense because of the castle law. But she was reckless. So it is manslaughter.

It is an indirect path.
Click to expand...
And the jury didn't buy it. For castle law to apply, she must have reasonably believed the deadly force was immediately necessary. But nobody was attacking her. There was nothing to defend against. She freely chose to draw her gun and walk in to confront the perceived intruder.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
We have been over this many times in this thread. She killed intentionally, that is murder. But it is self defense because of the castle law. But she was reckless. So it is manslaughter.

It is an indirect path.
Click to expand...

The castle law applies only to the legal occupant. It was Botham Jean, the legal occupant of 1478, who could have shot and killed Amber Guyger and not be charged because she entered his apartment with a gun drawn.

The castle does not apply to or give any right to use deadly force by intruders or trespassers. Amber Guyger was an intruder as soon as entered apt. 1478.
 
dejudge said:
The castle law applies only to the legal occupant. It was Botham Jean, the legal occupant of 1478, who could have shot and killed Amber Guyger and not be charged because she entered his apartment with a gun drawn.

The castle does not apply to or give any right to use deadly force by intruders or trespassers. Amber Guyger was an intruder as soon as entered apt. 1478.
Click to expand...

Yep. Manslaughter would be appropriate if, say, she knew she had been unable to stay awake while at work, decided to drive home, and killed someone because she then fell asleep at the wheel.

Castle Doctrine was likely thrown in because, again, we're discussing a black woman judge and a mostly black and Hispanic jury. In order to avoid a successful appeal on "racial bias" (far too many people are convinced that white men are inherently neutral arbiters of race/gender bias and everyone else is biased by default, despite the wealth of evidence showing that they aren't neutral as a group, any more than any other group is), the judge explicitly asked them to consider it. They did, and rejected it - likely because Guyger was plainly not on her own property, but was trespassing in Jean's apartment.
 
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...

Hell firefighters work 24 on and 48 off, and can work double shifts.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
I disagree with the murder conviction. But not much. I don't think this is any great injustice.

I think it should have been manslaughter. I think her beliefs were reasonable, but her actions were not.
Click to expand...

How does that make shooting someone unintentional when she pointed the gun at a person and fired? She thought he was a bear?

Manslaughter just does not fit because this was the intentional killing of a person, not the unintentional killing. Sure the intent was based on mistakes of fact but the intent to kill was there.
 
Hevneren said:
And the jury didn't buy it. For castle law to apply, she must have reasonably believed the deadly force was immediately necessary. But nobody was attacking her. There was nothing to defend against. She freely chose to draw her gun and walk in to confront the perceived intruder.
Click to expand...

And clearly Devils Advocate is arguing that it was reasonable and unreasonable at the same time.
 
Mumbles said:
Yep. Manslaughter would be appropriate if, say, she knew she had been unable to stay awake while at work, decided to drive home, and killed someone because she then fell asleep at the wheel.

Castle Doctrine was likely thrown in because, again, we're discussing a black woman judge and a mostly black and Hispanic jury. In order to avoid a successful appeal on "racial bias" (far too many people are convinced that white men are inherently neutral arbiters of race/gender bias and everyone else is biased by default, despite the wealth of evidence showing that they aren't neutral as a group, any more than any other group is), the judge explicitly asked them to consider it. They did, and rejected it - likely because Guyger was plainly not on her own property, but was trespassing in Jean's apartment.
Click to expand...

Also even in her own apartment the violation of police procedure could have been viewed as unreasonable.
 
acbytesla said:
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.
Click to expand...

"Fair", in terms of the sentences many others have received for drug use, killing a police dog, and the like. I think I've made my overall view of the US justice system clear in many other threads - suffice it to say it needs drastic reform at every point.
 
theprestige said:
Depends on how much you you've been practicing, and how much muscle memory you've baked in.

Also depends on things like distance to the target, motion of the target, etc.
Click to expand...

No, that's movie logic. Even trained military people keep missing targets, especially when standing and using a pistol.
 
Just to reinforce the above (posts 745-7), here's the so-called castle doctrine in Texas law for reference:
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm# said:
SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Click to expand...
Guyger was clearly not in lawful possession of Botham Jean's apartment. Nor for that matter was there a reasonable belief that force was force necessary since Guyger did not know what Jean was up to and expended no effort to find out.

Regardless, Texas use of force laws are seriously ****** up.
 
Last edited:
The 10 years is certainly disappointing, but I still feel pretty upbeat about her getting convicted. For all of the reasons stated above (she can't have a gun, be a cop, etc) I think it's a great win to get someone that shouldn't be a cop out of that job.

She got less than what she deserved, but a solid message was still sent.
 
plague311 said:
The 10 years is certainly disappointing, but I still feel pretty upbeat about her getting convicted. For all of the reasons stated above (she can't have a gun, be a cop, etc) I think it's a great win to get someone that shouldn't be a cop out of that job.

She got less than what she deserved, but a solid message was still sent.
Click to expand...

I also strikes me as a bit too lenient, but that's just an instinctual response.

Whether or not this sentence falls within the average for other similar cases is probably a better metric, but I don't have that information. I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of fact pattern (mistaken self-defense killings of strangers) is not common enough to even have a sufficient data set to establish an average sentence.
 
Belz... said:
theprestige said:
Depends on how much you you've been practicing, and how much muscle memory you've baked in.

Also depends on things like distance to the target, motion of the target, etc.
Click to expand...

No, that's movie logic. Even trained military people keep missing targets, especially when standing and using a pistol.
Click to expand...


From the stats I've seen on firearms accuracy among LEOs, she was doing pretty well to hit him once out of two shots fired. Even at that range.
 
quadraginta said:
From the stats I've seen on firearms accuracy among LEOs, she was doing pretty well to hit him once out of two shots fired. Even at that range.
Click to expand...

I admit that I haven't seen any stats on LEO firearms accuracy. It seems like some actual stats would probably resolve this dispute pretty quick. Which sources do you like? Maybe we can use those.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom