Jump to content

TXSooner518

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    2446
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by TXSooner518

  1. 1 minute ago, Skipper said:

    I don't think the duty lies with the fact she zoned out. I think the duty lies with the fact that she's an LEO and should be better trained to assess a threat before firing.    That's why I disagree with the person that posted a few pages back that thinks she will get off because she's a cop and not a normal CHL owner.   I think it's the opposite.   If I'm in the jury and there is a normal petite female CHL owner that has never been in a situation where there has been a threat before, I MIGHT be able to get there that firing was a panic response.    As a cop, she's TRAINED to assess the risk before firing a weapon.  It's going to be very hard to convince me she acted reasonable as a trained law enforcement officer.   I agree it will help if they show she didn't follow procedures, but I don't think I would even need that.  She should be held to a higher standard because of her experience and training compared to someone that has never faced a threat or trained for that scenario. 

    I agree also that the fact that she's an LEO does also impose a higher duty. Reasonableness is based from the actor's perspective, and her experience and training should be considered in her response. I was just saying in a general sense if you know "hey I walk around in an oblivious haze", definitely re-establish yourself before killing someone.

  2. 1 minute ago, hookem17 said:

    Ranger agrees it was reasonable for her to conclude Jean was an intruder and threat. Very bad for the State. 

    I was out of the stream for a bit. Is this testimony before the jury, or is this still opinion testimony that the Judge wasn't going to allow before the jury, offered for record only?

    EDIT: Yeah, this testimony isn't in front of the jury.

  3. 1 minute ago, pops said:

    I don't disagree, but if it actually had been her apartment we aren't talking about a cop showing up at a burglary scene. We are talking about a tired chick with a gun showing up at her house and someone is in there. If she actually had been in her apartment, she would have been completely within her rights to kill the dude. No questions asked. Not required to retreat. Not required to call for backup. 

    It's a fucked up situation. An innocent man is dead. I completely think she needs to pay. I don't know if the law as written in Texas covers this situation adequately. Therefore I predict a shitstorm. 

    Not necessarily completely within her rights to kill the dude. Even in her own apartment, she can only use deadly force if she reasonably is in fear of imminent serious bodily injury or death. Sitting on a couch, unarmed, eating ice cream might not meet that standard.

    • Like 1
  4. Just now, Skipper said:

    Considering the constant arguing in this thread between people that can't fathom missing all of the cues she missed to go to the wrong apt. vs. the people that zone out and could absolutely see themselves making the same mistake, I can only imagine the jury deliberations.  Neither side is going to convince the other one is right because neither side is right.   My wife would likely never make the mistake Amber did.  I absolutely could.   People are wired differently.  It's really that fucking simple.   So the jury is going to have the same mix of people.   That's why I continue to think it's going to be all about whether her actions were reasonable the second she opened the door.

    Agree in general with this. I also think if you're a person who zones out and is capable of being oblivious to all of those things, you would have a bit more duty to ascertain what the fuck is actually happening before taking fire. 

  5. 11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    One thing I didn't realize is that she had only lived there two months, since July.

    Perhaps if you had been there longer, you'd realize that knowing where you are is a bigger issue.

    That's still a minimum of 40 times she's come home from work, not counting other times she has come and gone. Either it isn't that confusing, or she should have realized it's confusing by now.

    • Like 1
  6. I still just don't understand this concept - if the floors are THAT indistinguishable, why the hell do people not actually pay attention and check?  I mean, you know how many ramps you go up if you pay attention. 

    I drive a crimson two door Mazda. I do understand the idea of going up to the wrong crimson two door Mazda and opening it, thinking it's my car (also if a person is in the car, maybe evaluate further before executing them immediately).  However, if I went to an event for owners of crimson two door Mazdas, such that every car in the lot was a crimson two door Mazda, I would, hmm, verify it's my car before getting into it. The sameness means I have to check closer.

    I honestly think her "zombie out" claim is a bit better if they did have big giant floor numbers, because I think it's more reasonable to zone out and miss something that you are aware of vs. knowing that every single floor looks the same and still just assuming you're on your own floor. If you did that, you would be on the wrong floor 67% of the time, assuming even a zombie knows the 1st floor isn't right when you live on 3.

    Also, the defense argued oh she just saw an empty parking space by the entrance and grabbed it. She had already passed her floor when she saw that space. It would make more sense if she lived on 4, and saw the space on 3 and the greatness of the space made her temporarily forget she was one floor off.

  7. 1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

    And, for the criminal law types -- if it is determined that her failure to fully ascertain her surroundings, and/or her failure to identify herself/order the suspect to freeze etc., and/or her failure to retreat instead of instantly shooting, was reckless or negligent....can she be convicted of manslaughter or CNH?  We know the act of firing was intentional, but the collective actions - firing without adequately ascertaining the situation etc. - were reckless/negligent.

    And yes, I know we've discussed this broadly before.  I'm wondering if we've maybe refined it a bit so that it might fit?

    Under PC 6.02(e), by definition, she can be convicted of manslaughter or CNH if it is shown she intentionally caused the death of another, because the only element different from those is the culpable mental state. 6.02(e) says proof of a higher mental state than required constitutes proof of the required mental state.

  8. Is DFD policy that a single officer that enters into a residence through the only point of egress to immediately confront and shoot the suspect? Or could the policy include something about de escalation, or possibly retreating through the only point of egress and waiting for backup?

    It seems to me that the defense shouldn’t get to use the “acting in official capacity” as both a reason and an excuse.

     

    Correct. My post wasn’t clear. Her argument is she thought he was an intruder. The argument about policy was being made by the prosecutor, saying that she should have been following protocol, which involves backup, cover/concealment, maintain perimeter rather than blam blam.

     

    The defense was objecting, trying to keep the protocols out of evidence.

    • Like 1
  9. 57 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

    Negative, sir. 

    
    Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:

    (1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and

    (2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

    Isn't this what he basically said, and it comes down to whether the actor's belief regarding the circumstances was "reasonable" given all facts?

  10. 7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    That there is so much disagreement right on this thread about floormats, apartment numbers, and card keys, etc. just shows it's a jury question and a really close one at that.

    And then, if you are the sort that wants the jury to apply reasonable doubt strictly, even if most of the jurors don't believe it was reasonable according to their own perceptions, if they think it's reasonably possible that someone else could have missed it, they must acquit.

    I don't agree with this characterization. You can miss the doormat and still find either that 1) her thought that she was in her own apartment was unreasonable; or 2) her actions, even if her thought that she was in her own apartment was reasonable, were unreasonable. 

    1 minute ago, bigup2dahorns said:

    It was mentioned/previewed in the opening statements that the door was not locked and likely ajar, did not fully close.

     

    Ajar is misleading. There were no comments that it was open, more that it was resting against the jamb, but just not quite to the point of latching. We will see what she says, but there has never been a comment that she noticed the door was open. In fact, the story is the opposite, she didn't realize it was open, put her keyfob in the opening to unlock "her" door, but it pushed open because it was resting against the jamb.



  11. This is why I don’t understand how she is considered to be on duty or even acting in an official capacity. She wasn’t investigating any crime, if anything SHE was committing the crime by uninvitedly entering Jean’s residence. Am I looking at it too black and white here or am I too simple to understand?


    Her argument is she thought she was encountering a burglary in progress. DPD policy indicates she should be following agency protocols in that event.
  12. 7 minutes ago, hopkinsnhorns said:

    Judge not allowing questioning about the irregularities in how Guyger was treated by police after the shooting (DPA president directing the in-car video recording to be halted, her being removed from the squad vehicle, etc.).

    Doesn't on its face seem to be relevant to the act, but I think it is relevant since defense is clearly arguing that Guyger shouldn't be held to a "police standard", but she was sure held to it in how she was treated in the aftermath.

    Flip the roles, Botham walks into her apartment and shoots her where she stands. 0.00000% he isn't immediately booked on murder charges.

  13. 2 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

    i don't think the doormat is that big of an issue to reconcile-  she saw the door ajar a ways off and focused on it.  her adrenaline was pumping and she had tunnel vision.  i could see myself missing the doormat too.

    I don't think anyone says the door was visibly ajar. The door appears to have been resting against the doorjamb just not quiiiiiiite latched. If the door was sitting open, even more idiotic for her to just go in guns blazing when she has the advantage of knowing something is up, a gun, and a police radio.

×
×
  • Create New...