• 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

whoanellie said:
You can listen to the hearing of the appeal here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-X_37kTSxk

It doesn't seem like the 3 appellate judges thought much of the Guyger's attorney's arguments. They spend much of the time discussing why the 'mistake of fact' issue.
Click to expand...

I haven't listened to it. For once I'm actually doing some work. In the CNN article they had referenced this, however:

CNN said:
Guyger's lawyer, Michael Mowla, argued before the three-judge appeals court that Guyger's mistaken belief she was in her own apartment negates "evil intent" to kill. A conviction of criminally negligent homicide, he argued, would be more appropriate.

"Mr. Mowla, you're overlooking the fact that Miss Guyger testified that she intentionally shot Mr Jean," Chief Justice Robert D. Burns III told the attorney. Burns at one point suggested that Guyger's conviction was in fact supported by the legal precedent raised by the defense.
Click to expand...

Just to support the claim I quoted, it does appear that the appellate court isn't all that impressed at all with her arguments.
 
Last edited:
Then she should get another 5 years for wasting the court's time.

And her lawyer should be shot out of a cannon into a brick wall for even trying to play the "I intentionally the killed the person, but it wasn't with EVIL INTENT" card.
 
plague311 said:
Just saying what? What does this have to do with anything at all?
Click to expand...


Samson said:
It is an episode that is driven by paranoia and fear in a country of gun nuts, where everyone might be one, a young woman after a long day. It could not happen anywhere else, this woman could be anyone's daughter.
Click to expand...


This is what it was referring to. Samson thinks we should cut this woman some slack because "she could be anyone's daughter". She is most certainly someone's daughter, every woman is somebody's daughter, even the women who are crazy paranoid gun nuts.
 
Rolfe said:
This is what it was referring to. Samson thinks we should cut this woman some slack because "she could be anyone's daughter". She is most certainly someone's daughter, every woman is somebody's daughter, even the women who are crazy paranoid gun nuts.
Click to expand...

And to be clear, when he said she could be anyone's daughter, that is actually not true.

I checked. Her mother and I have never lived close to each other an I have a pretty good account of where I was and who I slept with in the relevant time frame. I contend that she absolutely could not be my daughter and I'll take a DNA test if it comes to that.
 
Dr. Keith said:
And to be clear, when he said she could be anyone's daughter, that is actually not true.

I checked. Her mother and I have never lived close to each other an I have a pretty good account of where I was and who I slept with in the relevant time frame. I contend that she absolutely could not be my daughter and I'll take a DNA test if it comes to that.
Click to expand...

I am fairly sure she is a descendant of Leeroy Jenkins.
 
Dr. Keith said:
And to be clear, when he said she could be anyone's daughter, that is actually not true.

I checked. Her mother and I have never lived close to each other an I have a pretty good account of where I was and who I slept with in the relevant time frame. I contend that she absolutely could not be my daughter and I'll take a DNA test if it comes to that.
Click to expand...


:D
 
Rolfe said:
This is what it was referring to. Samson thinks we should cut this woman some slack because "she could be anyone's daughter". She is most certainly someone's daughter, every woman is somebody's daughter, even the women who are crazy paranoid gun nuts.
Click to expand...

Ok, I missed the previous statement.

It certainly is one of those "always true" statements. In this case, it doesn't justify anything at all.

I have the benefit of hindsight, but even if I had a gun and I thought someone was in my house, I certainly wouldn't enter it. ESPECIALLY if I saw the person doing it. I would retreat and call for help.

I feel this way because of 2 reasons: 1) Nothing in my house is worth my life. 2) Nothing in my house that someone steals is worth taking theirs. I'm not saying this as some saintly person I just don't have anything that's worth a life. Take my TV, I have 7 of them and 2 people in my house. Take my media player, PS5, computer, furniture, and all the rest. I'm insured, I'll get it back. Unless they started hacking up my dogs, I don't think I'd even stick around. I'd drive off and let someone else (the cops) deal with it.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Keith said:
And Botham Jean was someone's son. Eating ice cream on his couch in the safety of his own home.
One thing this appeal has done is completely trash the olive branch that some of the Jean family had extended to Guyger. They have been on the local news and they are not at all happy about this appeal, routine or not.
Click to expand...

The what's this now?
 
plague311 said:
Ok, I missed the previous statement.

It certainly is one of those "always true" statements. In this case, it doesn't justify anything at all.

I have the benefit of hindsight, but even if I had a gun and I thought someone was in my house, I certainly wouldn't enter it. ESPECIALLY if I saw the person doing it. I would retreat and call for help.

I feel this way because of 2 reasons: 1) Nothing in my house is worth my life. 2) Nothing in my house that someone steals is worth taking theirs. I'm not saying this as some saintly person I just don't have anything that's worth a life. Take my TV, I have 7 of them and 2 people in my house. Take my media player, PS5, computer, furniture, and all the rest. I'm insured, I'll get it back. Unless they started hacking up my dogs, I don't think I'd even stick around. I'd drive off and let someone else (the cops) deal with it.
Click to expand...

To add to this, it was also an apartment setting. As noted months back in this thread, I've had cases where maintenance had to enter my apartment for an emergency (water heater leaking on the downstairs neighbor) where I happened to be home when they needed to enter, but the situation was dire enough to where they'd have gone in even if I wasn't there to let them in. Even if she had been in her own apartment the simple fact of seeing someone inside doesn't immediately translate to "intruder".
 
Joe Random said:
To add to this, it was also an apartment setting. As noted months back in this thread, I've had cases where maintenance had to enter my apartment for an emergency (water heater leaking on the downstairs neighbor) where I happened to be home when they needed to enter, but the situation was dire enough to where they'd have gone in even if I wasn't there to let them in. Even if she had been in her own apartment the simple fact of seeing someone inside doesn't immediately translate to "intruder".
Click to expand...

Plus I don't think the castle doctrine should apply when you're entering your home and someone else is already there, as it's trivially easy to leave the premises.
 
Also I don't think Castle doctrine applies when it's NOT YOUR HOME.

This is why "Castle Doctrine" and "Mistake of Fact" had to create this weird baby that should have been thrown over the cliff at birth to keep the defense's argument going.

Same thing with the Zimmerman case. We kept arguing about Zimmerman's right to "stand his ground" when HE WAS THE ONE CHALLENGING MARTIN'S "GROUND."

Again my wife just walked in catching me banging the babysitter, my defense can't be an argument about how scared I was that she was having an affair.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Also I don't think Castle doctrine applies when it's NOT YOUR HOME.
Click to expand...

Also that, but even IF it were her home the fact that she shot without verifying what was going on is reckless at best. And IF she had reasonable reason to believe it WAS her home, which she didn't, it still wouldn't help her.
 
Belz... said:
Also that, but even IF it were her home the fact that she shot without verifying what was going on is reckless at best. And IF she had reasonable reason to believe it WAS her home, which she didn't, it still wouldn't help her.
Click to expand...

What's the one of the post-fact world's favorite arguments.

"I'm wrong either way, but if you can't tell me which kind of wrong I was, I'm still right."
 
And I mean that seriously. The defense literally gave us a couple of different scenarios, didn't really put a lot of effort into arguing that Guyver wasn't wrong in any of them, but basically went "Well if you can't tell us if it's manslaughter or murder, she should just get to go free."

And this "If you can't define the kind of wrong I am, that means I'm right" thing is something we're seeing more and more among the Proudly Wrong.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Also I don't think Castle doctrine applies when it's NOT YOUR HOME.

This is why "Castle Doctrine" and "Mistake of Fact" had to create this weird baby that should have been thrown over the cliff at birth to keep the defense's argument going.

Same thing with the Zimmerman case. We kept arguing about Zimmerman's right to "stand his ground" when HE WAS THE ONE CHALLENGING MARTIN'S "GROUND."

Again my wife just walked in catching me banging the babysitter, my defense can't be an argument about how scared I was that she was having an affair.
Click to expand...

I like that this argument is being fully litigated and appealed because it makes precedent so that the next time some idiot shoots someone in their own home they can't easily pull these same shenanigans.

This case is laying this bad argument down in its grave gently and then filling the hole with dirt so that others will see not to rely on such shoddy logic in the future. If it was dismissed by the judge in pre-trial motions then others may have followed down the same path with impunity. And the prosecution may not have fully developed all the facts that the appeals court is referring to.
 
Belz... said:
Plus I don't think the castle doctrine should apply when you're entering your home and someone else is already there, as it's trivially easy to leave the premises.
Click to expand...

Maybe she was so tired she didn't realize the hallway was not in her apartment? She had no idea where she was or what was going on hence killing him was legal. Like killing someone when you are really drunk.
 
Samson said:
It is an episode that is driven by paranoia and fear in a country of gun nuts, where everyone might be one, a young woman after a long day. It could not happen anywhere else, this woman could be anyone's daughter.
Click to expand...

What's your point? She burst into a stranger's home and killed him on the spot. You think that's not a crime? Suppose a civilian had done the same thing? Suppose Botham Jean had invaded her home and done the same thing? Still not a crime?
 
Bob001 said:
What's your point? She burst into a stranger's home and killed him on the spot. You think that's not a crime? Suppose a civilian had done the same thing? Suppose Botham Jean had invaded her home and done the same thing? Still not a crime?
Click to expand...

He point is the same point as the point of all anti-intellectual post-fact trolls.

"Destroy all intellectual means of proving a point, so the argument belongs to however is the loudest and most stubborn."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom