Dallas officer kills man after mistaking apartment for her own, police say

[4th and 5 4914]

It is murder if you do it intentionally or knowingly. 
 

But it may be justified under Ch 9 of the Penal Code. Not likely but possible. 
 

Use of force, or deadly force, does not require you to be right, just reasonable. 

Edited August 8, 2020 by 4th and 5

[Sawbonz 27526]

1 hour ago, 4th and 5 said:

It is murder if you do it intentionally or knowingly. 
 

But it may be justified under Ch 9 of the Penal Code. Not likely but possible. 
 

Use of force, or deadly force, does not require you to be right, just reasonable. 

Doesn’t the jury make the decision on if your action is reasonable?

[drt 638]

I hate that word in this context. Reasonable is such a low bar for deadly force. 

[Helobious 9457]

It sounds harsh, but there’s some mistakes you just can’t make. This is one of those types of mistakes. Bitch should just sit in her cell for the 1.5 years or whatever and be done with it instead of appealing. 

[Huckleberry 32839]

21 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Doesn’t the jury make the decision on if your action is reasonable?

That's my question. Their appeal sounds like it's arguing to a jury. 

[4th and 5 4914]

22 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Doesn’t the jury make the decision on if your action is reasonable?

It decides whether the state has disproved beyond a reasonable doubt that the use of force was justified. 

[naija 2854]

It's a problem that this reasoning is arguable in the first place

[Pato del Muerto 52484]

Am I wrong to think that if you kill someone on purpose and claim self defense, that the burden should shift to you to make your case?

[TwiceHorn 31434]

On 8/8/2020 at 6:13 PM, Sawbonz said:

Doesn’t the jury make the decision on if your action is reasonable?

 

2 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

That's my question. Their appeal sounds like it's arguing to a jury. 

The appeal is one of the biggest longshots in the law.  It is based on "sufficiency of the evidence," meaning that the jury could not have properly reached a guilty verdict on the evidence.

I skimmed the brief, but it also seems to contend that the jury was not instructed correctly on the mistake of fact/self defense issue, but it really soft pedals this issue.

The usual appeal is based on an error of law committed by the trial judge.  This one is based on an error by the jury.  So they have to argue the evidence and what it properly means in the context of the law of homicide, mistake of fact, and self-defense.  So this brief is very fact-intensive, unlike the usual brief.

But the basic argument is the defense limned out much earlier in this thread, which is:  she was reasonably mistaken as to whether she was in her own apartment; that mistake permitted her to act in self defense; the self-defense provisions justify the death.  The way it shook out at trial, I don't think the jury would have bought that defense and its hard to put forward in a trial context.  So they're giving it a go in the appeals court.

There's a fallback position that even if the mistake of fact/self defense doesn't work, the jury should have been instructed on criminally negligent homicide and she should have been convicted of that.

Edited August 9, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[4th and 5 4914]

2 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Am I wrong to think that if you kill someone on purpose and claim self defense, that the burden should shift to you to make your case?

Yes. There are very few affirmative defenses in Texas. Insanity, duress and mistake of law come to mind. 
 

I think judging Texas law, which in many cases mirrors that of the other 49 states, based on the facts of an amazingly extraordinary set of facts is foolhardy. 

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

The appeal is one of the biggest longshots in the law.  It is based on "sufficiency of the evidence," meaning that the jury could not have properly reached a guilty verdict on the evidence.

I skimmed the brief, but it also seems to contend that the jury was not instructed correctly on the mistake of fact/self defense issue, but it really soft pedals this issue.

The usual appeal is based on an error of law committed by the trial judge.  This one is based on an error by the jury.  So they have to argue the evidence and what it properly means in the context of the law of homicide, mistake of fact, and self-defense.  So this brief is very fact-intensive, unlike the usual brief.

But the basic argument is the defense limned out much earlier in this thread, which is:  she was reasonably mistaken as to whether she was in her own apartment; that mistake permitted her to act in self defense; the self-defense provisions justify the death.  The way it shook out at trial, I don't think the jury would have bought that defense and its hard to put forward in a trial context.  So they're giving it a go in the appeals court.

There's a fallback position that even if the mistake of fact/self defense doesn't work, the jury should have been instructed on criminally negligent homicide and she should have been convicted of that.

That’s a loser on appeal. 
 

Mistake of fact does not negate the culpability required for the defense as required by law. The mistake of fact in this case does not negate “intentionally or knowingly cause the death of an individual” but rather it is encompassed within the law of self defense, I.e., was it a reasonable belief, not necessarily a correct one. 
 

i’m sure this is difficult for a lay person to understand. But imagine in the case of a theft. That means the actor appropriated property with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property. Imagine a theft by check case. You wrote a check with the assumption that your wife hadn’t spent all of your money. There was an appropriation of property but it wasn’t done with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property. The mistake of fact, to wit: the amount of money in the account, negates the culpability required in the theft statute. 

in the Guyger case her mistake of fact (sorry, wrong apartment) does not negate the culpable mental state for murder. 

[SquishMitten 10403]

Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly and it was only discussed in the thread rather than in court, but I really thought her defense team already argued this same shit at trial. 

[Brisketexan 105043]

12 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly and it was only discussed in the thread rather than in court, but I really thought her defense team already argued this same shit at trial. 

They did.  And it was a jury question, answered by the jury.  So overcoming the hurdle of the jury's verdict is a bitch.  Twice's stuff above is on target.  This is a longshot appeal.

[wildcat09 29338]

17 hours ago, 4th and 5 said:

Yes. There are very few affirmative defenses in Texas. Insanity, duress and mistake of law come to mind. 
 

I think judging Texas law, which in many cases mirrors that of the other 49 states, based on the facts of an amazingly extraordinary set of facts is foolhardy. 

That’s a loser on appeal. 
 

Mistake of fact does not negate the culpability required for the defense as required by law. The mistake of fact in this case does not negate “intentionally or knowingly cause the death of an individual” but rather it is encompassed within the law of self defense, I.e., was it a reasonable belief, not necessarily a correct one. 
 

i’m sure this is difficult for a lay person to understand. But imagine in the case of a theft. That means the actor appropriated property with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property. Imagine a theft by check case. You wrote a check with the assumption that your wife hadn’t spent all of your money. There was an appropriation of property but it wasn’t done with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property. The mistake of fact, to wit: the amount of money in the account, negates the culpability required in the theft statute. 

in the Guyger case her mistake of fact (sorry, wrong apartment) does not negate the culpable mental state for murder. 

It's been a long time since I took criminal law and I know most statutes differ today, but wasn't self defense originally an affirmative defense?

['stache 21789]

She just wants a group hug en banc from the appeals court.

[JBJ 3654]

I'm not clear on this:

The appeal has to argue that the jury was unreasonable in their judgement of Mistake - not whether Mistake was reasonable.  (i.e. jury instructions were tainted in a way that prevented this or that jurors ignored the standard given.)

Correct or no?

Edited August 14, 2020 by JBJ

[4th and 5 4914]

Posted now, will analyze later

 

http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=6580e603-ffdc-49c9-8e12-d13e63e9a155&coa=coa05&DT=Brief&MediaID=d2bb9d91-650c-47eb-9cc7-6feb82667186

[TwiceHorn 31434]

4 hours ago, JBJ said:

I'm not clear on this:

The appeal has to argue that the jury was unreasonable in their judgement of Mistake - not whether Mistake was reasonable.  (i.e. jury instructions were tainted in a way that prevented this or that jurors ignored the standard given.)

Correct or no?

Well not "unreasonable," but against the great weight and sufficiency of the evidence.

They don't say the jury was instructed incorrectly, but they offer an "optimal" jury instruction.

They're basically saying that in view of the evidence, the only correct verdict on murder was not guilty.

They concede that the evidence would support guilty on criminally negligent homicide on a tortured reading of the state of mind (that she recklessly created the situation where she intentionally fired on Jean), but the jury was not instructed on that "lesser included offense," only manslaughter.

[4th and 5 4914]

On 8/14/2020 at 8:16 PM, 4th and 5 said:

Posted now, will analyze later

 

http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=6580e603-ffdc-49c9-8e12-d13e63e9a155&coa=coa05&DT=Brief&MediaID=d2bb9d91-650c-47eb-9cc7-6feb82667186

That brief is a loser. Factual sufficiency is a loser. Charge error is a loser. That's not the way mistake of fact works. Her mistake(s) of fact are embodied in the defense of self defense (or defense of property).

I've already explained how mistake of fact works above.

Self defense law contemplates that a person may not be right about the facts, they just have to be reasonable in their belief.

Example:

Husband comes home from trip two days early to surprise his wife, plane is late, gets home late, he enters home, she freaks out not expecting him and she blows him away. Mistaken but reasonable belief. Good shoot.

It works the same way for defense of others. Two knuckleheads are staging a fake aggravated robbery to post on Youtube. CHL holder approaches and blows robber away. Mistaken but reasonable belief. Good shoot.

I hear a noise in my garage at 200am, I enter the garage and shoot a shadowy figure. It is my neighbor who just wanted to borrow a screwdriver. Mistaken but reasonable belief. Good shoot.

Actually I came about 2 pounds of trigger pull from killing my neighbor once, he got so fucked up he almost got his ticket punched. I posted the story on TOS.

['stache 21789]

On 8/14/2020 at 8:16 PM, 4th and 5 said:

Posted now, will analyze later

 

http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=6580e603-ffdc-49c9-8e12-d13e63e9a155&coa=coa05&DT=Brief&MediaID=d2bb9d91-650c-47eb-9cc7-6feb82667186

Holy shit, does Texas not have page limits?

[High Plains Drifter 11024]

2 hours ago, 4th and 5 said:

That brief is a loser. Factual sufficiency is a loser. Charge error is a loser. That's not the way mistake of fact works. Her mistake(s) of fact are embodied in the defense of self defense (or defense of property).

I've already explained how mistake of fact works above.

Self defense law contemplates that a person may not be right about the facts, they just have to be reasonable in their belief.

Example:

Husband comes home from trip two days early to surprise his wife, plane is late, gets home late, he enters home, she freaks out not expecting him and she blows him away. Mistaken but reasonable belief. Good shoot.

It works the same way for defense of others. Two knuckleheads are staging a fake aggravated robbery to post on Youtube. CHL holder approaches and blows robber away. Mistaken but reasonable belief. Good shoot.

I hear a noise in my garage at 200am, I enter the garage and shoot a shadowy figure. It is my neighbor who just wanted to borrow a screwdriver. Mistaken but reasonable belief. Good shoot.

Actually I came about 2 pounds of trigger pull from killing my neighbor once, he got so fucked up he almost got his ticket punched. I posted the story on TOS.

 

 

I think all three of those scenarios have been plots of made for tv movies. If i recall correctly, the surprise twist a the end after shooter is found not guilty in each scenario is:

a) wife knew husband was coming home early, deliberately killed him, collects insurance money, moves to Monaco with cop/prosecuter/whomever.

b) Shooter and knuckle head who was playing the victim are in on it together. Both hated the fake robber because he is the only one who can beat them at an upcoming fortnite championship.

c) Turns out, victim's wife hid her husband's favorite router in neighbor's garage, took a picture, and showed picture to drunk, angry husband, then taunted him that he wasn't man enough to go get it back. Also, wife knows neighbor is a gun nut, who always prefers to soften up a room before turning on the lights.

 

 

['stache 21789]

Isn't the neighbor scenario not mistake of fact but castle doctrine? Who cares if their friends, if he didn't call and ask if he could enter the garage to borrow the screwdriver, he's a trespasser. I guess if they had a standing agreement that they could enter each others' garages to borrow stuff it might be necessary, but then it would seem to weigh against a mistake of fact if you didn't consider that it was the neighbor who you gave advanced permission to enter at will. Reminds me of my thought on this case that she didn't even for a second think that maybe perhaps she was on the wrong floor even though they presented evidence that it happens quite often since they look the same.

[XYZ 2154]

1 hour ago, High Plains Drifter said:

neighbor is a gun nut, who always prefers to soften up a room before turning on the lights.

Don't know what that means but it sounds badass.

[RPM 26315]

Short, fake blonde, cray... how have our paths not crossed?

 

[4th and 5 4914]

2 hours ago, 'stache said:

Isn't the neighbor scenario not mistake of fact but castle doctrine? Who cares if their friends, if he didn't call and ask if he could enter the garage to borrow the screwdriver, he's a trespasser. I guess if they had a standing agreement that they could enter each others' garages to borrow stuff it might be necessary, but then it would seem to weigh against a mistake of fact if you didn't consider that it was the neighbor who you gave advanced permission to enter at will. Reminds me of my thought on this case that she didn't even for a second think that maybe perhaps she was on the wrong floor even though they presented evidence that it happens quite often since they look the same.

neighbor scenario is self defense, of which castle doctrine is a part that may or may not apply 

[Reagan1k 3024]

17 hours ago, XYZ said:

Don't know what that means but it sounds badass.

Never hurts to toss a couple of flash bangs in the house as you arrive home after a long day of work, just to settle shit down and help you ease into a relaxing evening at home.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19100]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/04/27/amber-guyger-appeal/

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/27/us/amber-guyger-appeal-botham-jean-murder/index.html

Arguments today.  No announcement on when a ruling can be expected.

[TwiceHorn 31434]

26 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/04/27/amber-guyger-appeal/

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/27/us/amber-guyger-appeal-botham-jean-murder/index.html

Arguments today.  No announcement on when a ruling can be expected.

Thought I had seen that the arguments had already occurred.  Probably have an opinion in a month or so.  Maybe two.

[Brothahorn 10087]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/04/27/amber-guyger-appeal/
https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/27/us/amber-guyger-appeal-botham-jean-murder/index.html
Arguments today.  No announcement on when a ruling can be expected.

This is why that bitch didn't deserve forgiveness or a hug.

[TwiceHorn 31434]

Conviction affirmed.  https://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=2609f9f9-f341-45d7-a9b3-450d5a3c2eaf&coa=coa05&DT=Opinion&MediaID=f8b5a622-b5c6-4e75-be18-e18c6293f915

Despite the kind of muddle of an appellant's brief, the Dallas Court of Appeals took up the mistake of fact argument.  That is, the possibly legitimate fact that she believed herself to be in her own apartment (the mistake of fact) gave her the justification (self defense) to shoot Jean.

As I think 4th and Five pointed out, the problem here is that the mistake of fact defense must negate the criminal state of mind of the defendant, here the intention to kill or to do serious bodily injury (from the murder statute).  The mistake of fact in this case does not do that.

The court analyzed separately the possible defense of justification/self defense.  There, the court held that "mistake of fact" played no role:  that under self defense, the jury properly analyzed the reasonableness of her use of deadly force.

All of this is about at pp. 12-16.

Good, clear reasoning.  Solid opinion.

[4th and 5 4914]

On 8/7/2021 at 8:17 AM, TwiceHorn said:

Conviction affirmed.  https://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=2609f9f9-f341-45d7-a9b3-450d5a3c2eaf&coa=coa05&DT=Opinion&MediaID=f8b5a622-b5c6-4e75-be18-e18c6293f915

Despite the kind of muddle of an appellant's brief, the Dallas Court of Appeals took up the mistake of fact argument.  That is, the possibly legitimate fact that she believed herself to be in her own apartment (the mistake of fact) gave her the justification (self defense) to shoot Jean.

As I think 4th and Five pointed out, the problem here is that the mistake of fact defense must negate the criminal state of mind of the defendant, here the intention to kill or to do serious bodily injury (from the murder statute).  The mistake of fact in this case does not do that.

The court analyzed separately the possible defense of justification/self defense.  There, the court held that "mistake of fact" played no role:  that under self defense, the jury properly analyzed the reasonableness of her use of deadly force.

All of this is about at pp. 12-16.

Good, clear reasoning.  Solid opinion.

Yes, the mistake of fact defense applies when the defendant’s mistaken belief, if accepted as true, negates the culpable mental state for the crime charged.

For instance, in a theft case the culpable mental state is intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property. If you took an umbrella, thinking it was your umbrella, but it in fact was not, the mistake of fact (ownership of umbrella) negates the required intent (permanently deprive the owner of the property).

The confusion (and really the blur between the two defenses) comes from the fact that one can be mistaken about facts, and use force, or deadly force, and be justified under Ch. 9 of the Penal Code. Use of force, or deadly force, does not require one to be right, just reasonable. There was clearly a mistake of fact in this case. Not one that negates the culpable mental state of the crime charged, but one that is relevant to use of force or deadly force to protect self or property. Was her belief, although mistaken, still reasonable? The jury answered that question.

Her attorneys did a bad job. This case should have been a not guilty.

['stache 21789]

If it was a mistake of fact, it was not reasonable. Know you're own goddamned apartment. The testimony that the floors look similar actually hurt her case, in my opinion, regarding reasonableness. There was evidence showing it was a different door (the floor mat, the door being slightly ajar or unlocked, something like that), these readily observable things would make a reasonable person question if they are on the right floor, including the knowledge that the floors look alike and that it makes total sense that you might just be on the wrong floor. What is totally unreasonable in that situation to just start blasting some dude in his own apartment. I don't care how tired, drunk, high, whatever you are, know you're own goddamned apartment, or at a bare minimum, don't take a person's life after several clues that maybe you're at the wrong door. There is only one way a jury could rule in her favor, and thankfully they did not concede to that horrible impulse.

Edited August 10, 2021 by 'stache

[Gene Parmesan 4002]

I don't know if I remember correctly, but I think the biggest thing that hurt her case (imo) was that she was on alert because she noticed the door was ajar, so that kind of took the reasonableness of the missed details of the door out of the equation.  It probably would have been better for her had she just sheepishly walked into the apartment and then was surprised.  

[Braff Zacklin 13552]

For me, what most hurt her case was the fact that she entered someone else's home and murdered him.

Edited August 12, 2021 by Braff Zacklin

[bernorange 8359]

Quote

Amber Guyger, the former Dallas police officer who was convicted of murdering Botham Jean in his apartment six years ago, was denied parole Thursday, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice confirms.
...
Charles-Findley shared with WFAA the email the family received from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice on Thursday.

The email said in part, "This is to notify you that the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles denied parole for this offender on 10-10-24 until the next review date scheduled for 10-10-26. Should the board receive additional information that may return the case to the review process earlier you will be notified."
...

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/special-reports/botham-jean/dallas-officer-amber-guyger-denied-parole-botham-jeans-family-confirms/287-11fdd122-35f7-4c77-b593-951bf4c34df3

[royiv 9241]

2 minutes ago, bernorange said:

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/special-reports/botham-jean/dallas-officer-amber-guyger-denied-parole-botham-jeans-family-confirms/287-11fdd122-35f7-4c77-b593-951bf4c34df3

[AUS-97HORN 11756]

she was only convicted 5 years ago. htf was she up for parole on a murder conviction?

 

 

oooo   forgot that she was given 10 years, but somehow eligible for parole after just 5.    nice to see shes got at least 2 more years behind bars.  but that original sentence was bullshit. it should have been 15+ and more like 20

[hookemATL 11700]

Still time for her to get shivved🤞

[royiv 9241]

Which small town police department in North Texas will she be working at in two years?

[UT_OB1 2213]

How the fuck was this 5 years ago…

[drt 638]

3 hours ago, royiv said:

Which small town police department in North Texas will she be working at in two years?

Wolfe City?

[Deej 76750]

3 hours ago, royiv said:

Which small town police department in North Texas will she be working at in two years?

Whichever one she chooses.

[TwiceHorn 31434]

5 hours ago, AUS-97HORN said:

she was only convicted 5 years ago. htf was she up for parole on a murder conviction?

 

 

oooo   forgot that she was given 10 years, but somehow eligible for parole after just 5.    nice to see shes got at least 2 more years behind bars.  but that original sentence was bullshit. it should have been 15+ and more like 20

Maybe, just maybe, our sentencing laws are a little draconian so that 5-10 is enough

[Zepol87 9185]

39 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Maybe, just maybe, our sentencing laws are a little draconian so that 5-10 is enough

It isn’t for this at all the minorities in for small time bullshit you probably have a point. She fucking killed someone dude 

[TwiceHorn 31434]

4 minutes ago, Zepol87 said:

It isn’t for this at all the minorities in for small time bullshit you probably have a point. She fucking killed someone dude 

Well my thoughts apply with equal or more force there.  We have normalized excessive sentencing.

[drt 638]

While I agree with you on excessive sentencing, for me to feel 5 years to be appropriate for murder I would have to believe we had a successful rehabilitation program in place. 

[Zepol87 9185]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well my thoughts apply with equal or more force there.  We have normalized excessive sentencing.

She killed an innocent person. As a cop if you do that I hope you live hell on earth in jail. They don’t deserve any sympathy of jail reform. Fuck that, her sentence is too much isn’t the hill to die on Mr lawyer 

Edited October 25 by Zepol87

[TwiceHorn 31434]

My thoughts on it apply regardless of the color of the defendant, or their occupation, for the most part.

If we have to start with a white cop to get all the cop-loving racists to rethink sentencing, then so be it.

[Zepol87 9185]

The issue is you and everyone else stops that thinking at “white” and “cop” those rules and thinking don’t exist to everyone else. I really hope you help her learn from her mistake though. That’s what white racist POS need because they have been touts way since forever and guess what has changed? 

Edited October 25 by Zepol87

[TwiceHorn 31434]

6 minutes ago, Zepol87 said:

The issue is you and everyone else stops that thinking at “white” and “cop” those rules and thinking don’t exist to everyone else. I really hope you help her learn from her mistake though. That’s what white racist POS need because they have been touts way since forever and guess what has changed? 

I came to my views about sentencing long before Amber Guyger wasted Botham Jean.

[Zepol87 9185]

I agree with your sentencing stance. Many deserve to not be fucked by system but she doesn’t