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

[crescent]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...mber-Guygers-case-speak-10-year-sentence.html

The jury thought it was a mistake. This is different than many on this forum have said - so many here said it isn't and can't be a mistake because it was intentional. She said she intended to kill him so it can't be a mistake.

I had always maintained that it was a tragic mistake. Guyger never intended to kill a man in his own home.

Mistakes and accidents are not the same thing. Many person has said something along the lines of "getting married to (Person) was the biggest mistake of my life". That is to say, a clear, voluntary decision that was later strongly regretted is often referred to as a "mistake", especially if that decision was made without full information.

Which seems reasonable to me. She thought she was in her apartment and shot what she thought was an intruder. She shot the "intruder" with intent to kill, so she did it on purpose. But she was wrong about which apartment she was in.

She did it on purpose, but it was a mistake. That seems reasonable to me. I don't quite get how that concept seems challenging to many people.

So it was murder, because she did it on purpose. But she was acting on erroneous information, which mitigates the seriousness of the crime - it does not eliminate the seriousness of the crime, but it does show that this was a lesser offence than many (but not all) other murders. Saying that this mitigates the seriousness of the offence does not mean that she didn't do anything wrong, that she should not have just back out of the apartment, or called for backup sooner, or any of a bunch of other things she did or didn't do.

She didn't kill Jean because she hated him, or to rob him, or because he was of a different race - she just killed him because she was not where she thought she was. Which still makes her action a serious crime.


ETA: We have a similar instance in this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=339371 The difference being that this fellow was shooting into his own back yard. Still, he shot a person, on purpose, with intent to kill. He succeeded. He's apparently not getting charged.

 

[William Parcher]

So why call it murder if it was a mistake?

I thought that Manslaughter was the proper charge because it was a mistake.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I thought that Manslaughter was the proper charge because it was a mistake.

Yeah but that doesn't work in the context of the "Mistake of fact" fetishist's world.

If she's not morally culpable because she was mistaken, what did she do wrong on any level?

That's my issue with how "Mistake of Fact / In Mens Rea" has been presented in this thread. If it's as powerful as I'm being told shouldn't it remove all guilt, not just mitigate it?

 

[William Parcher]

If it was just a "Horrible mistake" why punish her at all?

Because those things can have legal consequences that result in punishment.

I never wanted her to get out of this without being put into the slammer. I wanted a Manslaughter conviction with time behind bars.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Because those things can have legal consequences that result in punishment.

But... why? You didn't answer the question you just responded with a truism.

Under the "Mistake of Fact / In Mens Rea" arguments put forth in this thread, what did Amber Guyger do wrong and why should she be punished for it?

If Amber Guyger has the moral responsibility of a bolt of lightning out of the sky, what are we punishing her for? Punishing her for "being wrong?" Well that undoes the whole goddamn argument them because that's exactly what we've been told we can't do.

 

[acbytesla]

I almost don't want to hear what the jurors thought. In that quote, J34 sounds like they are interpreting this as a racial issue, which is not the case. J21 sounds like they are interpreting it religiously. I would be much more reassured that they deliberated based on law.

The law allows them wide discretion on punishment. But since you asked about that, they quickly decided on guilty of the murder charge based on her statements that she intended to kill the threat. Within the first hour of deliberations.

 

[Thermal]

But... why? You didn't answer the question you just responded with a truism.

Under the "Mistake of Fact / In Mens Rea" arguments put forth in this thread, what did Amber Guyger do wrong and why should she be punished for it?

If Amber Guyger has the moral responsibility of a bolt of lightning out of the sky, what are we punishing her for? Punishing her for "being wrong?" Well that undoes the whole goddamn argument them because that's exactly what we've been told we can't do.

Murder with your head up your ass is still murder.

But in Texas, it might not have been, if the jury bought the Mistake

 

[Belz...]

I asked you what you meant by what was to me an ambiguous comment. Your answer immediately clarified that it wasn't that (not caring about the brother). From my perspective, as a practical matter, I did ask you that and got an answer that was both germane and explanatory.

Not only that, but now that I know what you meant by the ambiguous comment, it's no longer ambiguous to me. I understand your position and am happy to move on to some other point. From my perspective, this exchange has been hugely successful and productive.

It wasn't ambiguous. The only choices were "I don't hug her" and "I don't forgive her." I think the actual answer was obvious right off the bat.

 

[Thermal]

The law allows them wide discretion on punishment. But since you asked about that, they quickly decided on guilty of the murder charge based on her statements that she intended to kill the threat. Within the first hour of deliberations.

What I am wondering is how much they allowed their personal baggage to effect deliberations. They seem pretty open about advertising them. Prob not a live issue though.

 

[theprestige]

So why call it murder if it was a mistake?

Depends who you're talking about.

The prosecutor is calling it murder either because they don't think it's a mistake, or because they think that regardless of whether it's a mistake, calling it murder is a better strategy for them.

The jury is calling it murder, but there could be complicated reasons for that. For example, the charge is murder, so they can't very well call it something else. They might think it's something else, but still be conflicted about wanting to impose consequences, and wanting to be clear about what it should be called.

I think the right thing to do, if you're a juror and you think it's manslaughter and should have consequences, is to return a verdict of Not Guilty, accept that there will be no consequences in this case, and hope that the prosecutor learns a valuable life lesson about prosecutorial reach sometimes exceeding prosecutorial grasp.

But I don't expect all jurors to see it that way, or think through the conundrum the same way I do.

ETA: See our recent discussion about "jury nullification". A juror might think, "she should go to jail for manslaughter, but if we return Not Guilty (of murder), she doesn't go to jail at all. So... Guilty it is!"

 

[Dr. Keith]

Presumably all the ones he feels sufficient compassion for. What's your problem, exactly?

I don't think there is a problem with judges having empathy for the convicted in their courtroom. Actually, quite the opposite, I think that empathy should always be there. I think the question was getting at that point: does the judge always show empathy or is she only empathetic with cops?

Maybe, just maybe, the judge will learn from this that showing empathy throughout her career will be a positive. Or maybe she'll learn to never show empathy again, but I hope not.

 

[Dr. Keith]

So why call it murder if it was a mistake?

Because the mistake was not reasonable. Unreasonable mistakes do not get the defense of mistake of fact.

I thought that Manslaughter was the proper charge because it was a mistake.

Because manslaughter is for unintentional killing. Like running a red light. She intentionally killed him and her mistake that lead to that killing was unreasonable. So, she had no defense for what she intentionally did.

Murder and manslaughter may mean different things in jurisdictions where you have a better understanding of the law. Here, I think they correctly found murder and then reflected the special circumstances of that murder in their sentencing. That is why murder has such broad sentencing ranges. It allows the jury to do what they feel is appropriate.

 

[theprestige]

On the subject of prosecuting a "mistake": As a kid, I'd sometimes have this kind of exchange with my mom:

"I didn't mean to!"

"I need you to mean NOT to."

And then I'd get consequences. Not so much for the mistake as such, but for not doing my due diligence and avoiding the mistake.

It makes a lot of sense to me that even though Guyger never intended to kill Jean in his home, and even though doing so was a horrible mistake, she was criminally negligent in allowing circumstances to progress to the point where the mistake was made.

 

[acbytesla]

What I am wondering is how much they allowed their personal baggage to effect deliberations. They seem pretty open about advertising them. Prob not a live issue though.

These are human beings. It's only natural that their own life experiences and personal perspectives might influence their decision. That said, they convicted the officer on the most serious criminal option available to them. As for punishment, the law isn't specific.

 

[theprestige]

What I am wondering is how much they allowed their personal baggage to effect deliberations.

The way I see it, the whole point of having a right to trial by jury is that it benefits citizens and society for these questions to be decided by a sampling of fellow citizens, along with all their personal baggage.

How these twelve people each personally feel about the issues, and how well they make their personal cases to each other to arrive at consensus about the verdict, is pretty much central to our idea of a fair trial.

 

[Thermal]

On the subject of prosecuting a "mistake": As a kid, I'd sometimes have this kind of exchange with my mom:

"I didn't mean to!"

"I need you to mean NOT to."

And then I'd get consequences. Not so much for the mistake as such, but for not doing my due diligence and avoiding the mistake.

It makes a lot of sense to me that even though Guyger never intended to kill Jean in his home, and even though doing so was a horrible mistake, she was criminally negligent in allowing circumstances to progress to the point where the mistake was made.

But every mistake was fully excusable, and not criminally negligent at all. Till she drew a gun to kill a person that she did not want or expect to be where she found him.

That is not a matter of negligence. She simply chose to murder when given the opportunity

 

[theprestige]

But every mistake was fully excusable, and not criminally negligent at all. Till she drew a gun to kill a person that she did not want or expect to be where she found him.

That is not a matter of negligence. She simply chose to murder when given the opportunity

I think we've probably reached the point where all we can do is recognize that we disagree, and leave it at that. "Agree to disagree", I think, is the term.

 

[Thermal]

I don't agree, and probably never will agree. Hopefully we don't have to keep going around on this point.

This one has the makings of a new Knox thread at this point

Eta: your edit: same answer, I think

 

[theprestige]

This one has the makings of a new Knox thread at this point

Thanks for convincing me it's definitely time to get out.

Eta: your edit: same answer, I think

Done and done!

 

[Elagabalus]

The way I see it, the whole point of having a right to trial by jury is that it benefits citizens and society for these questions to be decided by a sampling of fellow citizens, along with all their personal baggage.

How these twelve people each personally feel about the issues, and how well they make their personal cases to each other to arrive at consensus about the verdict, is pretty much central to our idea of a fair trial.

I think that they convicted her according to the "If my own (white) grandmother was sitting in front of the TV eating ice cream would Guyger shoot her" litmus test.