• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

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

DevilsAdvocate

Philosopher
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
7,686
Have they brought up the ice cream bowl?

But I'm curious where the bowl ended up. If it was on the ottoman, I think it was more likely that Jean stood and placed it there before he was shot.

I've just got into the Day 2 testimony. The bowl was brought up. It was on the bodycam.

The bowl was on a table immediately in front of the couch. So it doesn't provide any information about Jean's movement.

This is different from the video we saw before the trial that showed the bowl on an ottoman to the left of the couch, toward the door. The bodycam video does not appear to show the ottoman we saw in the earlier video at all--anywhere.


Thread continued from here.
You can quote or reply to any on-topic post from that thread here.
Posted By: KMortis
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Since Jean's body movement doesn't matter, why does it matter?

You didn't get to shoot people sitting in their own homes eating ice cream regardless of their "body movement."

This is yet another red herring. I don't care if Jean was advancing on Guyger. It was his house. He had every right to "advance" on the stupid chick who just waltzed in without getting gunned down because of her "mistake of fact whenever it's convenient for me to be mistaken about something."
 
Judge blocks testimony that Dallas cop acted reasonably in shooting neighbor

CBS News said:
A judge has blocked testimony in the trial of a former Dallas cop who claims she mistakenly shot her neighbor last September thinking that the apartment she entered was her own. That blocked testimony was from the lead investigator who explained just to the judge why he thought Amber Guyger's actions were reasonable.

Lead investigator David Armstrong said the layout of Guyger's apartment complex could be confusing. "There were no clear obvious visual signs showing what level you were on," he said.

Guyger was off-duty when she shot and killed Botham Jean last September. Armstrong testified that Guyger lived directly below Jean and going to the wrong apartment was not uncommon, according to other residents.

The only part of Armstrong's testimony the judge blocked was his view that Guyger acted reasonably and did not commit a crime. That's because that's an opinion.

"How many of all floors have walked to the wrong apartment on the wrong floor and put their key in the wrong door?" the defense asked Armstrong, who replied, "That would be 15%"

The jurors will hear from more experts, including a lighting expert to talk about what Guyger might have seen entering Jean's dark apartment and a medical examiner who testified that because of the way the bullet entered his body, Jean would have to have been leaning forward when he was shot. The prosecutors suggested Jean might have been getting off of the couch. The defense says he could have been coming towards Guyger...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amber-...officer-acted-reasonably-in-shooting-neighbor
 
I've just got into the Day 2 testimony. The bowl was brought up. It was on the bodycam.

The bowl was on a table immediately in front of the couch. So it doesn't provide any information about Jean's movement.

This is different from the video we saw before the trial that showed the bowl on an ottoman to the left of the couch, toward the door. The bodycam video does not appear to show the ottoman we saw in the earlier video at all--anywhere.
I believe that this screenshot is from bodycam. It shows the ottoman right in front of the couch where it would be expected, and the bowl is right there. We also see other differences from the pre-trial videos from Inside Edition and CNN. The pre-trial press footage also shows a huge pile of clothes on the couch which must have been put there by investigators or family after the incident.

I got this screenshot from the CBS video here: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amber-...officer-acted-reasonably-in-shooting-neighbor
 

Attachments

  • JeanBodyCam.jpg
    JeanBodyCam.jpg
    62.5 KB · Views: 15
Looking at the photo and the position of the ottoman in relation to the couch... I don't understand how the downward trajectory of the fatal bullet would be explained by him setting down the ice cream bowl. From the couch he could set down the bowl before rising at all from the seat. But if he did rise and then bend over to place the bowl I would expect him to fall right there between the ottoman and the couch or even to fall backwards onto the couch.

A possible alternative explanation for the trajectory is that he was standing upright and then ducked after the first shot missed him and was then bending/bent over when the second shot came and hit him.
 
It's also possible that the bowl was already sitting on the ottoman when she entered. He doesn't have to hold the bowl in his hands for the entire time he is eating, or he could have decided he was done eating and set it down with ice cream still in it before Guyger entered.
 
Looking at the photo and the position of the ottoman in relation to the couch... I don't understand how the downward trajectory of the fatal bullet would be explained by him setting down the ice cream bowl. From the couch he could set down the bowl before rising at all from the seat. But if he did rise and then bend over to place the bowl I would expect him to fall right there between the ottoman and the couch or even to fall backwards onto the couch.

I don't think anyone has made that claim.

He more than likely set the bowl down before standing up, when he saw the light coming in from her opening the door. Then as he started standing up to get off of the couch that's when he got shot. I don't know why he'd stand up with the bowl of ice cream in his hand. Doesn't make much sense to me.

A possible alternative explanation for the trajectory is that he was standing upright and then ducked after the first shot missed him and was then bending/bent over when the second shot came and hit him.

When you get shot, according to all of the experts in this case, you don't always collapse immediately on impact. He was still awake, but unresponsive, when first responders arrived.

Generally, when you duck you don't bend at the waist you bend at the knees, not straightforward but straight down. The ME pointed out that Jean was bent at the waist.
 
Last edited:
Whether Jean was retreating, or ducking, or charging at her in legitimate self defense against an armed intruder, I really don't see how it makes the slightest bit of difference.

What he did was to quietly watch some tv at home. What she did was to blunder into his home and execute him.
 
Whether Jean was retreating, or ducking, or charging at her in legitimate self defense against an armed intruder, I really don't see how it makes the slightest bit of difference.

What he did was to quietly watch some tv at home. What she did was to blunder into his home and execute him.

I think what the prosecution is trying to do is completely close the door on any implication that Jean was a threat. There is scientifically no way he could have been charging or coming for her at the time, according to what I've seen.

He was bent over, and if he had forward motion his body would have had entirely too much momentum to fall backwards, which is how he was found. We know that she didn't administer any kind of first aid at all, so the body was not moved.
 
Because that's what people who are wrong always do, demand we argue about every non-important, inconsequential detail.

Nothing that matters in this case has ever been in dispute.
 
I think what the prosecution is trying to do is completely close the door on any implication that Jean was a threat. There is scientifically no way he could have been charging or coming for her at the time, according to what I've seen.

He was bent over, and if he had forward motion his body would have had entirely too much momentum to fall backwards, which is how he was found. We know that she didn't administer any kind of first aid at all, so the body was not moved.

Yeah, and they like to make everyone think that 'this is a complicated case, full of subtle intricities'. But seriously, just no. Nothing that man did (or didn't do) has anything todo with the actual crime. Means dead zero if he was rushing to protect himself or running away. He was a sitting duck for officer Reaper, who is the accused murderer on trial.

All this 'did he look like an attacker' is functionally like asking about what a rape victim was wearing.

eta: I get that the prosecution wants to close every possible weaseling way out, but that whole line of defense should be dismissed as irrelevant. In a sane world, anyway. Doesn't matter if Jean was juggling chainsaws. Sergeant Slaughter murdered him. She's the one who's actions need justification.
 
Last edited:
It is nice to see the Judge put down a "No, you're not writing pro-innocence fan fiction in my court room, stick to the events that actually happened in this reality" decree. Biggest cut out from under the legs of the "But she thhhhoooooooououuuuuuughhhhhtttttttttt it was her apartment how can you be so mean to the scawed whittle girl?" argument yet.
 
I think what the prosecution is trying to do is completely close the door on any implication that Jean was a threat. There is scientifically no way he could have been charging or coming for her at the time, according to what I've seen.

He was bent over, and if he had forward motion his body would have had entirely too much momentum to fall backwards, which is how he was found. We know that she didn't administer any kind of first aid at all, so the body was not moved.

This really is just layers of bad behavior. Even if he was a burglar in Guyger's apartment, it is becoming increasingly more likely that she gunned him down while sitting harmlessly on the couch. I guess expecting that our trained police can apprehend a sitting, unarmed man alive is too much to ask for. Too risky, he might stand up. Better grease him.
 
This really is just layers of bad behavior. Even if he was a burglar in Guyger's apartment, it is becoming increasingly more likely that she gunned him down while sitting harmlessly on the couch. I guess expecting that our trained police can apprehend a sitting, unarmed man alive is too much to ask for. Too risky, he might stand up. Better grease him.

They are still just gonna argue that was in a constant quantum state of scared victim and ice in the veins cop, not just throughout the sequence of events but even within the same actions.

Her actions either as a cop or as alternative universe home invasion victim don't actually make sense, so the only thing the defense has to sell is "She was somehow both at the same time."
 
This really is just layers of bad behavior. Even if he was a burglar in Guyger's apartment, it is becoming increasingly more likely that she gunned him down while sitting harmlessly on the couch. I guess expecting that our trained police can apprehend a sitting, unarmed man alive is too much to ask for. Too risky, he might stand up. Better grease him.

This second Texas Ranger isn't quite as on board with her being let off, I don't think.

They showed videos of the previous witness recording the act of walking down the hallway of both the third and the fourth floor. They aren't really as similar is people seem to be saying. At the time there were a few different indicators up and down the hallways that should have at least set off a bell.

The prosecution is, imo, much more focused on what happened once they got to the apartment rather than getting there. They've said a few things, but the defense is really putting most of their eggs in the "getting there" basket. Which is expected.
 
Defense, addressing the different items on the officers belt, kept asking "Which one would you use if you were encountering a deadly threat?" To which the officer obviously said the gun. So that's neat. They're just saying Jean was a deadly threat from across the room, sitting on his couch.
 
"Which one would you use if you encounter a man eating ice cream?"

"uh...whipped cream and chocolate syrup? No wait, that's for my boy toy I was texting when I murdered that...wait, can I do this over?"
 
It is simply highly improbable that Amber Guyger did not realise that she was not in her apartment before she shot Botham. Based on the videos of the layout of furniture and other equipment in her apartment and Botham's and that his 50 inch TV was on she would have to see that she was in the wrong apartment.

As soon as she opened the door, with the 50 inch tv on, there would be sufficient lighting to recognise the living room area was not hers.
 
It is simply highly improbable that Amber Guyger did not realise that she was not in her apartment before she shot Botham. Based on the videos of the layout of furniture and other equipment in her apartment and Botham's and that his 50 inch TV was on she would have to see that she was in the wrong apartment.

As soon as she opened the door, with the 50 inch tv on, there would be sufficient lighting to recognise the living room area was not hers.

Maybe the man was an anti-thief, and brought entirely new furniture to her appartment. The bastard!
 
It is simply highly improbable that Amber Guyger did not realise that she was not in her apartment before she shot Botham. Based on the videos of the layout of furniture and other equipment in her apartment and Botham's and that his 50 inch TV was on she would have to see that she was in the wrong apartment.

As soon as she opened the door, with the 50 inch tv on, there would be sufficient lighting to recognise the living room area was not hers.


Forget the lighting. Did she even have a 50-inch TV at that spot in her unit?
 
It is simply highly improbable that Amber Guyger did not realise that she was not in her apartment before she shot Botham. Based on the videos of the layout of furniture and other equipment in her apartment and Botham's and that his 50 inch TV was on she would have to see that she was in the wrong apartment.

As soon as she opened the door, with the 50 inch tv on, there would be sufficient lighting to recognise the living room area was not hers.

A question popped into my mind as I read this. Does she own a 50 inch, or similar size, tv? And is her tv located in the same relative position as the one of the guy she shot? If not, the tv size or location should have been an early clue.
 
It is simply highly improbable that Amber Guyger did not realise that she was not in her apartment before she shot Botham. Based on the videos of the layout of furniture and other equipment in her apartment and Botham's and that his 50 inch TV was on she would have to see that she was in the wrong apartment.

As soon as she opened the door, with the 50 inch tv on, there would be sufficient lighting to recognise the living room area was not hers.

I really do think she thought she was at her apartment, but I think it is an unreasonable belief by the time she drew her gun. It can not be reasonable to take a life without even verifying where you are and who the person is, especially if the entire shooting depends on where you are and who the person is. Except maybe it will be in Texas, I don't know.
 
I really do think she thought she was at her apartment, but I think it is an unreasonable belief by the time she drew her gun. It can not be reasonable to take a life without even verifying where you are and who the person is, especially if the entire shooting depends on where you are and who the person is. Except maybe it will be in Texas, I don't know.

I hope the prosecution will pound the fact that she was not acting as a police officer, and ask the jury whether it would be reasonable and lawful for a civilian to enter someone else's home and kill him, even if she was tired.
 
Link to the reporters twitter account. You don't need a twitter account to see it, but if you scroll down a bit he has a picture of Amber's apartment from the same exact view.

Not only is there a table with extremely bright flowers on it, but the counter is way cleaner than Jeans.

She has a TV in that location, but it's a 32" by my guess, and it's up much higher.
 
I hope the prosecution will pound the fact that she was not acting as a police officer, and ask the jury whether it would be reasonable and lawful for a civilian to enter someone else's home and kill him, even if she was tired.

Which has also pretty much been blown out of the water. She was making plans on her phone for later in the evening, and I assure you they weren't to go to bed. Though the bed would be in use.
 
I really do think she thought she was at her apartment, but I think it is an unreasonable belief by the time she drew her gun. It can not be reasonable to take a life without even verifying where you are and who the person is, especially if the entire shooting depends on where you are and who the person is. Except maybe it will be in Texas, I don't know.

Seconded.
 
Belz... in last part of thread. said:
Is there some reason the jury can't find for a lesser offense?

Not sure why you asked, since I said I think they should get her for a lesser offense than murder. :)


My mistake, I suppose. The way your post was worded it gave me the impression that you considered lesser offences to be excluded.

No biggy.

I was just wondering if, indeed, they were in this case.
 
Last edited:
My mistake, I suppose. The way your post was worded it gave me the impression that you considered lesser offences to be excluded.

No biggy.

I was just wondering if, indeed, they were in this case.

Depends on the judge's instructions, based on prosecution and defense arguments. Not automatic either way.
 
Link to the reporters twitter account. You don't need a twitter account to see it, but if you scroll down a bit he has a picture of Amber's apartment from the same exact view.

Not only is there a table with extremely bright flowers on it, but the counter is way cleaner than Jeans.

She has a TV in that location, but it's a 32" by my guess, and it's up much higher.

Thanks. The tv size/location is probably not at the top of the list of things she should have noticed.
 
Thanks. The tv size/location is probably not at the top of the list of things she should have noticed.

To me, in no order of importance, the things she should have noticed:

  • The key fob she put in the door flashing red and not making the audible noise
  • The door being ajar when hers doesn't (or at least has never been mentioned) to have the same issue
  • The bright ass flowers sitting immediately in front of the door in Amber's apartment, not in Jean's
  • The bright ass red mat in front of Jean's door
  • The carpet\rug on the floor that Jean had and Amber didn't

All of those are previous to, or at the same time of, her pulling her gun and shooting Jean. None of that is after the fact.
 
Someone mentioned the pic of Jean in the court room. It's day 4 and the picture is still there, and the news station is zooming in on it. I don't think the courts have any issue with it.
 
If there are any Mom's on the jury, who have children that they've told to clean up their mess, and they saw the pile of clothes on the chair. Then she is getting acquitted.
 
If there are any Mom's on the jury, who have children that they've told to clean up their mess, and they saw the pile of clothes on the chair. Then she is getting acquitted.

Not after those mothers found out that Guyger was such a slut.
 
Back
Top Bottom