• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...

To me, if you are going to carry a gun then it is your responsibility to be pretty damn sure about when and where you use it. In other words, I would put a higher level of due diligence on someone who carries a gun, especially if they do it every day.
 
Dr. Keith said:
To me, if you are going to carry a gun then it is your responsibility to be pretty damn sure about when and where you use it. In other words, I would put a higher level of due diligence on someone who carries a gun, especially if they do it every day.
Click to expand...


And this touches on the main reason why I, despite having grown up with firearms and having been shooting since I was nine, have never owned a firearm for the purpose of self defense, and have never even considered getting a permit to carry. I don't think my judgement is sharp enough in the "is it legal and moral to kill this person in front of me" area, and if the person in front of me does intend me harm then my hesitation would most likely end up with them taking my gun and shooting me with it.

I simply do not want to have to make such grave calculations in such critical circumstances. Then again I've also never felt the need to broadcast what a thin blue line badass I am on social media.
 
Thermal said:
This one has the makings of a new Knox thread at this point

Eta: your edit: same answer, I think
Click to expand...

Not even close. The Knox thread has been going on for a decade and is still going. Much to my chagrin.
 
Joe Random said:
And this touches on the main reason why I, despite having grown up with firearms and having been shooting since I was nine, have never owned a firearm for the purpose of self defense, and have never even considered getting a permit to carry. I don't think my judgement is sharp enough in the "is it legal and moral to kill this person in front of me" area, and if the person in front of me does intend me harm then my hesitation would most likely end up with them taking my gun and shooting me with it.

I simply do not want to have to make such grave calculations in such critical circumstances. Then again I've also never felt the need to broadcast what a thin blue line badass I am on social media.
Click to expand...

Sounds like my reasoning for the same.

Teaching my kids gun safety and the rules of hunting was enough stress that I really don't have much need to be around guns anymore. But, I still like to eat venison, so I will likely shoot another few deer before I give up completely.
 
Belz... said:
Could still be manslaughter, no?
Click to expand...

I think it could've been manslaughter, but I don't pretend to understand Texas law.

Overall, I think it was an acceptable result because the Jean family seemed okay with it. I care only about them, really.
 
Dr. Keith said:
Sounds like my reasoning for the same.

Teaching my kids gun safety and the rules of hunting was enough stress that I really don't have much need to be around guns anymore. But, I still like to eat venison, so I will likely shoot another few deer before I give up completely.
Click to expand...

But you will make reasonable efforts to be sure that it really is a deer, not grandma in her shabby brown coat, right?
 
theprestige said:
Talk about what? It's not too early to make a prediction.
Click to expand...

I don't think so.

There were 3 trials and three separate appeals and 3 separate rulings from Italy's highest court each overturning the previous ruling. The European Court of human rights even got involved and said Italy violated Knox's civil rights. The legal wrangling went on for a dozen years and still isn't done. There was talk of orgies, seduction, rape and more. Laws from three different countries, and subjects of different races so race became a factor. Then there were questions about whether the US would extradite her. And people took sides to an absurd degree.

People say you can't predict the future. That is nonsense. We do it all the time. We're not always right but if I could I'd bet the farm that this thread peters out long before it is broken up into ten parts let alone making it to 30.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
....
People say you can't predict the future. That is nonsense. We do it all the time. We're not always right but if I could I'd bet the farm that this thread peters out long before it is broken up into ten parts let alone making it to 30.
Click to expand...

Not much can be compared to the Knox case. But it's a safe bet that Guyger's lawyers will pursue appeals, and every step will be treated as newsworthy. There will also be news about the pending civil suit. Plenty to debate.
 
Bob001 said:
Not much can be compared to the Knox case. But it's a safe bet that Guyger's lawyers will pursue appeals, and every step will be treated as newsworthy. There will also be news about the pending civil suit. Plenty to debate.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think that there really isn't that much to debate, but that won't stop people from debating it anyway.
 
Bob001 said:
Not much can be compared to the Knox case. But it's a safe bet that Guyger's lawyers will pursue appeals, and every step will be treated as newsworthy. There will also be news about the pending civil suit. Plenty to debate.
Click to expand...

It just doesn't have the variety of elements. Hell, it doesn't even have any real question of fact. For me, I see legitimate discussions about race and how we sentence suspects not to forget the issues regarding police. But beyond that, there is nothing to keep people passionately arguing.
 
When I turned on the TV to watch the news, I saw the last few minutes of a Dr. Phil show. He had been interviewing the Jury members from this case. I did hear them speak for a moment about this being a "landmark case". I brought this up early on in this discussion, and as I recall, there were some who questioned if that was correct, others I believe, agreed, or didn't comment. But I do see this has a type of harbinger that will effect Law Enforcement and help protect future victims in a positive way.

I believe the show with the jury will air again Monday a.m., and I would like to see it in its entirety.
 
wasapi said:
When I turned on the TV to watch the news, I saw the last few minutes of a Dr. Phil show. He had been interviewing the Jury members from this case. I did hear them speak for a moment about this being a "landmark case". I brought this up early on in this discussion, and as I recall, there were some who questioned if that was correct, others I believe, agreed, or didn't comment. But I do see this has a type of harbinger that will effect Law Enforcement and help protect future victims in a positive way.
Click to expand...

No chance, and here's why: If Guyger had been on duty, gone to the wrong apartment while serving warrants, and shot an innocent, unarmed black man, it would never have gone to trial. The only reason she lost out on the standard cop benefit of doubt is that she wasn't on duty.
 
Dr. Keith said:
To me, if you are going to carry a gun then it is your responsibility to be pretty damn sure about when and where you use it. In other words, I would put a higher level of due diligence on someone who carries a gun, especially if they do it every day.
Click to expand...

This. When you strap on a gun, you assume responsibility for the safety of everyone in the max kinetic range of that bullet and none of them get a say in that. So yes everyone else has a right to expect more from you than the average person.
 
Craig4 said:
This. When you strap on a gun, you assume responsibility for the safety of everyone in the max kinetic range of that bullet and none of them get a say in that. So yes everyone else has a right to expect more from you than the average person.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup: Very well said.

But a person carrying a firearm is still human and humans make mistakes.
 
acbytesla said:
:thumbsup: Very well said.

But a person carrying a firearm is still human and humans make mistakes.
Click to expand...

Indeed. But when deciding to toss a life ending tool around, there is no margin for error. They should be treated essentially the same as someone who murders with intent.

No innocent should be viewed as an inevitable whoopsie, when that gun did not need to be fired AT ALL FOR ANY REASON. This was not a battlefield where collateral damage must be expected. This was an elective shooting. You play with the lives of others, you pay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom