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

['stache 21,770]

3) Confirm your target

This to me is what makes this criminal. I would add “know your surroundings” before you start shooting. It’s been pointed out repeatedly that firing upon someone is intentional, but even if you go with accidental (i.e. negligence) the level of negligence to not know where you are and to not know who you’re shooting is the level of negligence the law considers criminal.

[bernorange 8,348]

12 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

... I'm not convinced any kind of jail time serves any real purpose here. ...

I'm not a psychologist or privy to an expert level assessment of the defendent, but from what I have seen about her social media history and wardrobe, I consider it highly likely that if she walks without jail time, she will consider herself teflon - that she killed someone and got away with it.  And she won't be the only one taking note of that lesson.  The badge - and the fraternity that supports it - shouldn't be a license to kill carte blanche.  She has already received preferential treatment to prepare a defense.  LEOs should be held to a higher level of account than Joe Public for the privileges they enjoy.  Short of exposing their pension funds to liability, jail time is about the only check left to balance the thin blue line.

[Pam Cummings 9,576]

14 hours ago, TornACL said:

But you're arguing what exactly? That there are lots of other cases that don't go to criminal court that are bad, too?

I mean, there's a reason things become national news stories. There's also a reason why some cases go down the path of civil charges vs. criminal. I don't get the equivalency argument, and I definitely don't agree that if you're mad about this one thing, you're a hypocrite if you weren't also mad about these other 100 things. Every individual story moves people differently, sometimes for personal reasons.

We've been a bloodthirsty society forever. Fortunately, you know, we're at least more civil today. And we don't form pitchfork and torch mobs to hunt down suspected criminals, anymore. At least not usually. Now we just type about it on the internet. 

Are you serious? This isnt about blood thirst. This is about not setting a precedent where some fuckwit cop can barge into your house and shoot you to death for no good reason and get away with it.

 

That would be bad. Really, really bad.

Edited May 3, 2019 by Pam Cummings

[Uncle Nate 2,097]

25 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

Are you serious? This isnt about blood thirst. This is about not setting a precedent where some fuckwit cop can barge into your house and shoot you to death for no good reason and get away with it.

 

That would be bad. Really, really bad.

Actually, it's even bigger than that. Replace "fuckwit cop" above with the word "anyone".

I forgot who posted it earlier in this thread, but the "I was really tired and thought I was in my own home" excuse is not a precedent we want to be setting, whether it be a cop or anyone else for that matter.

[4th and 5 4,914]

 

5 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Did someone really just ask if she was sure the victim was black???

The lighting in the apartment was good enough for her to shoot him twice in the chest without missing so I’m going to assume the lighting was good enough to determine this man was indeed, black.



Also, this is sickening and doesn’t make me feel any more charitable to her like it did for some of y’all.
 

 

She frets about her job NINETEEN TIMES in a six minute call while the man she shot is laying on the floor dying and moaning in agony.

And seriously, stop calling this an accident.

The only accident she made was going in the wrong apartment.

Everything that followed were deliberate choices and decisions she made.

She had a multitude of options available to her -

-pull the gun and order him to stay back
-back out of the apartment and ask who he is
-retreat and run away
-retreat and scream bloody murder to draw attention

Bottom line - she did what a lot of cops do. She saw a black man and assumed the worst and shot first without any attempt to assess the circumstances or attempt to
de-escalate the situation.

She murdered that man. Period.

 

 

You’re damn right I asked that question. What do YOU KNOW about the lighting in the room? Was there any? If so did it create positive or negative contrast? What was his location? We’re there any obstructions to visibility?

See, I do this for a living. I know the science. I don’t make half cocked assumptions and false conclusions. This case requires a careful study of the law and conclusions based on facts and the applicable sciences that I mentioned in previous posts.

Let me give you another example.

The “FACTS” article you posted is DEMOMSTRABLY FALSE. Your conclusion from it is therefore false. She said 19 times she thought it was her apartment. She did not mention her job 19 times. Did you evaluate the actual evidence yourself? And then draw a conclusion?

Or just assume?

Why was the article false? Because the author is a dumbass who jumps to conclusions? Because they have a narrative they want to further? To get clicks?

Why did you take the bait? Was it because it was easy for you? You work off of base emotions without much reflection? It fit your opinion of the matter?

4 hours ago, PilotsError said:

One thing few are mentioning that could acquit her is that she fired twice and hit her intended target twice. No sober, alert, well rested cop could pull that off. It backs up her defense that she was exhausted and in a non alert frame of mind. Only explanation for her pinpoint accuracy.

Assumption.

WRONG.

Shot twice, hit once. 

[PilotsError 2,281]

Thank you for correcting my joke, which still stands.  Fifty percent accuracy is still unrealistic for a cop.

[4th and 5 4,914]

Is that another one of you jokes?

I can’t tell.

[Huckleberry 32,699]

Do you have a statistic and evidence to counter that argument? The NYPD determined in a study a while back that their officers hit their intended target less than 30% of the time.

Edited to add - Actually the numbers were usually worse.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/public_information/RAND_FirearmEvaluation.pdf

Edited May 3, 2019 by Huckleberry

[Uncle Nate 2,097]

How does this compare with stormtroopers?  I'm thinking they've never broken the 20% threshold.

[4th and 5 4,914]

21 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Do you have a statistic and evidence to counter that argument? The NYPD determined in a study a while back that their officers hit their intended target less than 30% of the time.

Edited to add - Actually the numbers were usually worse.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/public_information/RAND_FirearmEvaluation.pdf

I am familiar with the data.

There we’re 3 outcomes possible. 0 for 2, 1 for 2 or 2 for 2. She was 1 for 2. 

The fact that this case specifically doesn’t conform (cannot conform) mathematically to a NYPD average is of no import.

[bernorange 8,348]

I appreciate 4th & 5's expertise and thoughts on this thread, but lol @ not grokking Pilot's joke.

[TwiceHorn 31,269]

1 hour ago, bernorange said:

I'm not a psychologist or privy to an expert level assessment of the defendent, but from what I have seen about her social media history and wardrobe, I consider it highly likely that if she walks without jail time, she will consider herself teflon - that she killed someone and got away with it.  And she won't be the only one taking note of that lesson.  The badge - and the fraternity that supports it - shouldn't be a license to kill carte blanche.  She has already received preferential treatment to prepare a defense.  LEOs should be held to a higher level of account than Joe Public for the privileges they enjoy.  Short of exposing their pension funds to liability, jail time is about the only check left to balance the thin blue line.

Now that is a reasonable point.  Not sure I agree, but makes some sense.  I think the facts are so weird and so unlikely to ever occur again, that one would be foolish to say "this gives me carte blanche to go around wasting people."  And I think that probably goes more with an acquittal than by the sentence.

 

 

[TornACL 7,675]

1 hour ago, Pam Cummings said:

Are you serious? This isnt about blood thirst. This is about not setting a precedent where some fuckwit cop can barge into your house and shoot you to death for no good reason and get away with it.

 

That would be bad. Really, really bad.

Umm I think you meant to make this argument to the other guy, who was suggesting that interest in this case is a sign of our society's worsening bloodthirst. I'm with you, bro.

In refreshing my memory on this case, I found an article that covered the original DPD statement on this shooting. What a fucking joke. They went immediately into CYA mode. The dead giveaway is always the subtle emotional language in the description of events. Of course, many of those initial descriptions were immediately found to be incorrect and inaccurate, so the DPD had to backpedal and issue a correction. 

 

 

[Huckleberry 32,699]

23 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

I am familiar with the data.

There we’re 3 outcomes possible. 0 for 2, 1 for 2 or 2 for 2. She was 1 for 2. 

The fact that this case specifically doesn’t conform (cannot conform) mathematically to a NYPD average is of no import.

Let's be generous and give a standard police officer a 25% hit rate. Guyger claims she was so exhausted she couldn't tell she was in the wrong apartment, so I'm going to go ahead and unilaterally knock that down to an expected 12.5% hit rate. With a 12.5% expected hit rate, we would expect:

0 of 2: 76.6% of the time
1 of 2: 21.9% of the time
2 of 2: 1.6% of the time

Pardon the rounding. So while it was still a joke it's also a perfectly valid argument. Compare this to a not actually tired and was really just a dumbass standard 25% hit rate:

0 of 2: 56.3% of the time
1 of 2: 37.5% of the time
2 of 2: 6.3% of the time

I mean if we're going to get pedantic let's really do this shit.

[JimmyHoffa 1,188]

27 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

I am familiar with the data.

There we’re 3 outcomes possible. 0 for 2, 1 for 2 or 2 for 2. She was 1 for 2. 

The fact that this case specifically doesn’t conform (cannot conform) mathematically to a NYPD average is of no import.

 

But we can assume if she would have shot a third time she probably would have missed. Did I do the math right? 

[Huckleberry 32,699]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Now that is a reasonable point.  Not sure I agree, but makes some sense.  I think the facts are so weird and so unlikely to ever occur again, that one would be foolish to say "this gives me carte blanche to go around wasting people."  And I think that probably goes more with an acquittal than by the sentence.

 

 

You are assuming that the facts are as she claims them to be. What if she actually intended to kill Botham Jean and knew how to act after the shooting? Then she absolutely believes she's teflon and got away with murder and could do it again. The facts are only unlikely to ever occur again if nobody intentionally recreates the facts necessary to get away with a similar incident. That wouldn't be very difficult.

[Brisketexan 104,596]

9 hours ago, 4th and 5 said:

As a lawyer you should be deathly allergic to assumptions

 

To be clear, we are ALL discussing a case based on assumptions.  Educated and realistic assumptions should be our goal, but it goes without saying that we don't have all the facts at this point.  That said.....

7 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Did someone really just ask if she was sure the victim was black???

The lighting in the apartment was good enough for her to shoot him twice in the chest without missing so I’m going to assume the lighting was good enough to determine this man was indeed, black.





Bottom line - she did what a lot of cops do. She saw a black man and assumed the worst and shot first without any attempt to assess the circumstances or attempt to
de-escalate the situation.

She murdered that man. Period.

 

My educated assumption is that she indeed did identify her target as a big black man.

And yes, the bottom-line above is very likely the psychology -- the state of mind -- behind the choices she made here.

Not one person has answered my question, which I find puzzling.  If she had opened that door and seen geeky white guy instead of scary black guy, would she have been so quick on the draw and the trigger?

That sort of thinking WILL be in the mind of some jurors.  That's a big reason why we have a jury system -- they aren't computers, but rather they draw on their own experiences and understanding of people.  Note that in this case, that could be good or bad for the defense.  Because SOME of us see my question, and think "of course she wouldn't have shot a white guy in a split second."  Others (old Fox News watchers, for example) will think "if I opened my door and saw that thug, darn right I'd protect myself." RACE MATTERS.  We are lying to ourselves if we pretend it doesn't.

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Now that is a reasonable point.  Not sure I agree, but makes some sense.  I think the facts are so weird and so unlikely to ever occur again, that one would be foolish to say "this gives me carte blanche to go around wasting people."  And I think that probably goes more with an acquittal than by the sentence.

 

Agree on the point about the acquittal vs. sentence.  Based on my assumptions and expectations, I don't think that she should rot in prison for eternity.  She should do time, but she shouldn't be there forever.

But I disagree about the message an acquittal sends.  The message it sends is that the judgement of a uniformed cop is, essentially, infallible, and can never be the basis for criminal liability.  All a cop has to do is say "I was scared," and any and all killing they do after that is free and clear.  Seriously, I just typed hyperbole, but that hyperbole is frighteningly close to the truth.  The burden of proof to convict a cop of unlawful killing is so obscenely high that if it applied to the rest of society, the murder conviction percentage rate would be in the single digits.

[TXSooner518 2,432]

10 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

As 4th and 5 notes, a proper application of the law could result in acquittal and no punishment at all. 

4th and 5 is obv sharp, but is also playing devil's advocate to its maximum capacity. As we have noted, to be able to kill in self-defense, you have to:

1) be reasonably in fear for your life. That's a huge hurdle. What occurred that led her to reasonably fear for her life? A person standing in your apartment does not, in and of itself, constitute reasonable fear for your life. 

2) To be able to use deadly force instead of retreating, you must be in a place you have a right to be. She was not. So to be able to use deadly force, she must have not had the option to retreat. That also seems extremely unlikely. Much more likely to apply to the person in the dwelling, not the person standing at/near an open doorway to a public hallway.

This parlay, given what we know, is dramatically unlikely, and I would say impossible barring some giant fact that we are not currently aware of. 

10 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I have yet to say she shouln't serve some time.  I have objected to the notion that she be "punished, hard" whatever that means.

Oh, a solid internet search could give you some ideas.

9 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

 Again, imagine if the resident was a white guy. You KNOW the outcome would have been different, but you sure as hell have studiously avoided even touching the question.

You don't even have to do that. Just flip the roles. Botham Jean enters the apartment of Amber Guyger, blows her away, then says oh my bad, I thought this was my place. 100.0% murder conviction.

[Guest Lobo]

Is her story really going to be that the door was just open?  The least believable part of this whole thing to me is that a black man in the South would be smoking weed with his door wide open in a building he knows to be full of white people and cops.  

I'm assuming there were no signs of forced entry, that would have come out already.  And obviously the forensics/ballistics people can tell where he was when he got shot.  so that leaves two other options I can think of (feel free to post others)---he answered the door when she identified herself as someone he knew in the building and then something about their relationship caused him to drop his guard and go back to the couch while she remained in the doorway/foyer.  Or she had a key to his place and left it in there as if it were his spare.  

[bernorange 8,348]

11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

... I think the facts are so weird and so unlikely to ever occur again, that one would be foolish to say "this gives me carte blanche to go around wasting people."  ...

As long as she has the thin blue line at her back, she's going to feel safe acting out the fantasies she's posted to social media and worn on her clothing, IMO.  It's the thin blue line that protects her (and her peers) from consequences. 

6 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

You are assuming that the facts are as she claims them to be. ...

I posted my thoughts above while giving her the benefit of the doubt on the facts regarding the circumstances.    The shooting didn't have to be premeditated to lead to the conclusion I drew.  Assume she fucked up without malevolent intent.  It was still murder.  The thin blue line worked hard to protect her.  She's convicted, but walks with no jail time.  Lesson learned.  The thin blue line can save you from a slam dunk murder case.

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

... If she had opened that door and seen geeky white guy instead of scary black guy, would she have been so quick on the draw and the trigger?  ...

Based upon what I saw of her social media history and wardrobe, I would say yes, she would not have hesitated (assuming that her version of the story is honest/correct).

[TwiceHorn 31,269]

4 hours ago, BurntEyes said:

First, as to the system being "overzealous", while they might choose different words, most of the people you are debating your point with in the last page or two actually agree. I know Brisket does and Torn actually agreed to as much. Personally, I prefer the words, classist, sexist and preferential to police. Some would argue racist is a better word than classist but I don't agree based on the facts, but imo, that's a debate for a different thread. 

Speaking of different threads, as has already been pointed out, I'm really not sure why you picked this particular one to make your point. The only conclusion I can draw is you are a part of the sexist crowd that is defending this person because she is female, and solely because she is a female and you feel bad for her. Feel free to clarify why it was this female and this homicide that you've chosen to make this point on when the Houston shooting thread is a FAR, FAR better example of our Criminal Industrial complex gone "overzealous". There are a lot of parallels to this case. Police illegally went into a home, under the auspice of the war on drugs. Someone LEGALLY defended their home against invasion by using a firearm for self defense, and those people were summarily shot by police officers. 

Finally, to your note on stache. I don't know why he chose those words, but he's a single individual. Most of the people you're debating with in these past two pages tend to be more on the side of justice, less on the "hang'em high" end. Outside of this board, it is the aforementioned racist or classist (pick your word) police activity that has many people's feathers in a ruffle, notably, the Houston case. Which again, is a far better hill to die on for your point than this case, yet here were are. 

 

Overzealous was Torn's term, not mine.  I think the system is broken beyond being racist, classist, sexist, and pro-cop.  It's all of that and more.  It's broken by being used as a crass political tool ("Tough on crime" and castle doctrine itself is/was pretty much pure pandering to a segment of the gun crowd, various aspects of the drug war, among many other examples), and scholarship and thought directed to improving the system has been ignored for decades, unlike in Europe and the rest of the world. 

And the above has happened largely because we the people have let it happen by being seduced by facile political rhetoric. And because even smart, educated people of good will like the ones on this board, yield to bloodthirstiness and vengeance all too often.

I don't disagree with most of your post, or your prior ones on the last page or two.

These are bizarre facts.  It's not quite straight-up murder like the Houston case seems to be, I think everyone acknowledges that.  Yet, it has to be charged as murder, there's not much escaping that.  And the mitigation of that is self-defense leading to a potential acquittal. There is very little legal middle ground on that.  This may actually be a flaw in Texas homicide law.

So, if there is any middle ground to be found between giving her a straight-up murder sentence, being "punished, hard" (25 years?) and letting her walk, I'd like to figure out what that may be or have a reasoned discussion of it.  I think you have to do that by looking at the crime itself as neutrally as you can (stripped to basic facts and without a lot of technicalities), to find a sort of median just sentence, and then add (or subtract) years based on aggravating (or mitigating) factors that are specific to the case, such as she was a cop and should be held to a higher standard.

I may not have been clear on the last paragraph until now,. but I keep letting myself get dragged off into the weeds.

 

Edited May 3, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Vic Mackey 46,935]

Whatever.  I find your explanations inadequate, facile, and in some cases stupid, leaving the only plausible explanation to be bloodlust.
I have never once said she SHOULD walk.  Not one single time.  But other than to serve the political narrative of white cop/black victim, I'm not convinced any kind of jail time serves any real purpose here.
You just seem incapable of backing away from the particular facts of this case and seeing it more objectively.
The facts of this particular case, insofar as they are known, have been beaten to fucking death on the previous 42 pages of this thread.
If I were a juror in this case, one thing I would not do is excuse her because she's an itty bitty white girl scared of a drug-crazed black man.  I think the state has a pretty easy burden, initially, of proving murder.  What I am unsure of, is whether Texas' self defense laws can be met.  And I am even more unsure what is a proper sentence should she be convicted.
 

You don't think jail time serves a purpose for someone who walks in someone else's house and kills them? The fuck?

[futureman 22,415]

fingers crossed for a consensus opinion about all this in the next few pages.  if you dream it you can do it. 

[TwiceHorn 31,269]

10 minutes ago, Vic Mackey said:

14 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Whatever.  I find your explanations inadequate, facile, and in some cases stupid, leaving the only plausible explanation to be bloodlust.
I have never once said she SHOULD walk.  Not one single time.  But other than to serve the political narrative of white cop/black victim, I'm not convinced any kind of jail time serves any real purpose here.
You just seem incapable of backing away from the particular facts of this case and seeing it more objectively.
The facts of this particular case, insofar as they are known, have been beaten to fucking death on the previous 42 pages of this thread.
If I were a juror in this case, one thing I would not do is excuse her because she's an itty bitty white girl scared of a drug-crazed black man.  I think the state has a pretty easy burden, initially, of proving murder.  What I am unsure of, is whether Texas' self defense laws can be met.  And I am even more unsure what is a proper sentence should she be convicted.
 

Read more  

You don't think jail time serves a purpose for someone who walks in someone else's house and kills them? The fuck?

Not what I said, ever.  Not sure where you get that. 

Edited May 3, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[bernorange 8,348]

18 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

... and castle doctrine itself is/was pretty much pure pandering to a segment of the gun crowd, ...

Wat?  Don't want to derail this thread, but unless I'm missing some context to that statement, I really don't understand how you arrived at that conclusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#History

[4th and 5 4,914]

36 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Now that is a reasonable point.  Not sure I agree, but makes some sense.  I think the facts are so weird and so unlikely to ever occur again, that one would be foolish to say "this gives me carte blanche to go around wasting people."  And I think that probably goes more with an acquittal than by the sentence.

 

 

People don’t understand this case isn’t going to be waved around in court in future self defense murder trials like “Judge, in the case of State v. Guyger she got away with it, and my client should too, motion to dismiss your honor!!!” It doesn’t work that way. Every case will be tried to a jury on its facts. 

in an acquittal, there would be no percent to even cite. There is no case to the court of appeals.

33 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Let's be generous and give a standard police officer a 25% hit rate. Guyger claims she was so exhausted she couldn't tell she was in the wrong apartment, so I'm going to go ahead and unilaterally knock that down to an expected 12.5% hit rate. With a 12.5% expected hit rate, we would expect:

0 of 2: 76.6% of the time
1 of 2: 21.9% of the time
2 of 2: 1.6% of the time

Pardon the rounding. So while it was still a joke it's also a perfectly valid argument. Compare this to a not actually tired and was really just a dumbass standard 25% hit rate:

0 of 2: 56.3% of the time
1 of 2: 37.5% of the time
2 of 2: 6.3% of the time

I mean if we're going to get pedantic let's really do this shit.

More assumptions. There are three possible events here. 0, 1 and 2. 

If it is 0 the event does not occur. Hence two possible outcomes to discuss.

Whatever the average number is, it doesn’t bear on this 50/50 case. She could have missed her next 10 shots, made them all or in any combination. 

What is a statistical analysis of the craps table odds is not valid for two rolls of the dice.

31 minutes ago, JimmyHoffa said:

 

But we can assume if she would have shot a third time she probably would have missed. Did I do the math right? 

It depends on the circumstances then existing in this case at the time she could have fired shot #3, unless you are just making uneducated guesses based solely on years on data not specific to this case.

I’ve had clients shot at better than 50 by cops and civilians

I’ve had clients use deadly force in 3 cases that shot better than 50%. One killed two and injured a third while getting shot at! No professional training. Each case stands on its own. 

27 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

To be clear, we are ALL discussing a case based on assumptions.  Educated and realistic assumptions should be our goal, but it goes without saying that we don't have all the facts at this point.  That said.....

My educated assumption is that she indeed did identify her target as a big black man.

And yes, the bottom-line above is very likely the psychology -- the state of mind -- behind the choices she made here.

Not one person has answered my question, which I find puzzling.  If she had opened that door and seen geeky white guy instead of scary black guy, would she have been so quick on the draw and the trigger?

That sort of thinking WILL be in the mind of some jurors.  That's a big reason why we have a jury system -- they aren't computers, but rather they draw on their own experiences and understanding of people.  Note that in this case, that could be good or bad for the defense.  Because SOME of us see my question, and think "of course she wouldn't have shot a white guy in a split second."  Others (old Fox News watchers, for example) will think "if I opened my door and saw that thug, darn right I'd protect myself." RACE MATTERS.  We are lying to ourselves if we pretend it doesn't.

Agree on the point about the acquittal vs. sentence.  Based on my assumptions and expectations, I don't think that she should rot in prison for eternity.  She should do time, but she shouldn't be there forever.

But I disagree about the message an acquittal sends.  The message it sends is that the judgement of a uniformed cop is, essentially, infallible, and can never be the basis for criminal liability.  All a cop has to do is say "I was scared," and any and all killing they do after that is free and clear.  Seriously, I just typed hyperbole, but that hyperbole is frighteningly close to the truth.  The burden of proof to convict a cop of unlawful killing is so obscenely high that if it applied to the rest of society, the murder conviction percentage rate would be in the single digits.

Brisket your assumption has no basis in fact YET and is therefore not “educated.”

You might be right. You might not.

i understand you are busy and you don’t have time to read a treatise on visibility, perception and reaction times. But if you were aware, I think you would be at least more open minded about what happened. But your narrative has been what is is since September, it is too late to backtrack now.

And to be clear, I am open to accepting your opinions, and agree that they have merit, IF PROVEN SHE KNEW HIS RACE PRIOR TO DISCHARGING HER FIREARM.

Do me a favor. You travel some for work right? Dark out your hotel room completely at night. Allow a small amount of ambient light from city lights thru the curtains opposite the entrance. You stand by the entrance and have someone else stand across the room in front of the curtains.

Tell me what you see.

 

23 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

4th and 5 is obv sharp, but is also playing devil's advocate to its maximum capacity. As we have noted, to be able to kill in self-defense, you have to:

1) be reasonably in fear for your life. That's a huge hurdle. What occurred that led her to reasonably fear for her life? A person standing in your apartment does not, in and of itself, constitute reasonable fear for your life. 

2) To be able to use deadly force instead of retreating, you must be in a place you have a right to be. She was not. So to be able to use deadly force, she must have not had the option to retreat. That also seems extremely unlikely. Much more likely to apply to the person in the dwelling, not the person standing at/near an open doorway to a public hallway.

This parlay, given what we know, is dramatically unlikely, and I would say impossible barring some giant fact that we are not currently aware of. 

Oh, a solid internet search could give you some ideas.

You don't even have to do that. Just flip the roles. Botham Jean enters the apartment of Amber Guyger, blows her away, then says oh my bad, I thought this was my place. 100.0% murder conviction.

As to point 2, your statement that “to be able to use deadly force, she must not have had the option to retreat” is not accurate.

The law is that the jury MAY CONSIDER whether she failed to retreat in answering the question of whether the force was used when and to the degree it was immediately necessary. 

She will not benefit from the “no duty to retreat” instruction IF she entered the apartment.

17 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Is her story really going to be that the door was just open?  The least believable part of this whole thing to me is that a black man in the South would be smoking weed with his door wide open in a building he knows to be full of white people and cops.  

I'm assuming there were no signs of forced entry, that would have come out already.  And obviously the forensics/ballistics people can tell where he was when he got shot.  so that leaves two other options I can think of (feel free to post others)---he answered the door when she identified herself as someone he knew in the building and then something about their relationship caused him to drop his guard and go back to the couch while she remained in the doorway/foyer.  Or she had a key to his place and left it in there as if it were his spare.  

 

ASSUMPTION ALERT: was he smoking weed at the time? I see the building full of white people and cops?

Of course I am not one to assume but the entry is the most puzzling part of the case.

The tin foil hat stuff lost me there at the end, but you neve know!

[TXSooner518 2,432]

34 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

a straight-up murder sentence, being "punished, hard" (25 years?) and letting her walk, I'd like to figure out what that may be or have a reasoned discussion of it. 

Minimum sentence on a murder conviction is 5 years. I don't think that is excessive in the least. 

[TwiceHorn 31,269]

5 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Wat?  Don't want to derail this thread, but unless I'm missing some context to that statement, I really don't understand how you arrived at that conclusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#History

As I said earlier, codifying self-defense in the way that Castle Doctrine has been, is a relatively new thing (see Colorado make my day law, 1985).  Plain old self defense doctrine worked pretty well to defend legitimate home defense shootings and the fact that you were defending your home was worked into it without the elaborate, byzantine stuff presently in the Texas Penal Code as of 2007 and other states' penal codes.

[TornACL 7,675]

26 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

So, if there is any middle ground to be found between giving her a straight-up murder sentence, being "punished, hard" (25 years?) and letting her walk, I'd like to figure out what that may be or have a reasoned discussion of it.  I think you have to do that by looking at the crime itself as neutrally as you can (stripped to basic facts and without a lot of technicalities), to find a sort of median just sentence, and then add (or subtract) years based on aggravating (or mitigating) factors that are specific to the case, such as she was a cop and should be held to a higher standard.

Middle ground between murder and no charges is manslaughter. Instead of having a reasoned discussion when it was floated out there, you immediately dismissed manslaughter as impossible, spiraling off into a series of inaccuracies about the grand jury process and ultimately concluding that murder is the only charge because intent was clear.

But if intent was clear, why did you repeatedly state on earlier posts that this was all an accident?

Which is it?

I think if you want to actually have reasoned discussions without spinning around like a top, it would help if you would focus. So let's focus on you. What is your position given what we know now. Murder charge warranted? Guilty / not guilty? Sentencing (if applicable). Hint: the number you're looking for is somewhere between 5-99 if you think it's a murder rap with a guilty verdict. 

 

14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Not what I said, ever.  Not sure where you get that. 

I'm not convinced any kind of jail time serves any real purpose here.
 

Seems about as unambiguous a statement as you are personally capable of making. 

[TwiceHorn 31,269]

1 minute ago, TXSooner518 said:

Minimum sentence on a murder conviction is 5 years. I don't think that is excessive in the least. 

Nor do I.  Do you think it's adequate here?  Also, is a probationary sentence available?

[4th and 5 4,914]

39 minutes ago, bernorange said:

As long as she has the thin blue line at her back, she's going to feel safe acting out the fantasies she's posted to social media and worn on her clothing, IMO.  It's the thin blue line that protects her (and her peers) from consequences. 

I posted my thoughts above while giving her the benefit of the doubt on the facts regarding the circumstances.    The shooting didn't have to be premeditated to lead to the conclusion I drew.  Assume she fucked up without malevolent intent.  It was still murder.  The thin blue line worked hard to protect her.  She's convicted, but walks with no jail time.  Lesson learned.  The thin blue line can save you from a slam dunk murder case.

Based upon what I saw of her social media history and wardrobe, I would say yes, she would not have hesitated (assuming that her version of the story is honest/correct).

If convicted of murder she “cannot walk with no jail time.”

Not probation eligible.

5-99 or life, to do.

[TwiceHorn 31,269]

8 minutes ago, TornACL said:

Middle ground between murder and no charges is manslaughter. Instead of having a reasoned discussion when it was floated out there, you immediately dismissed manslaughter as impossible, spiraling off into a series of inaccuracies about the grand jury process and ultimately concluding that murder is the only charge because intent was clear.

But if intent was clear, why did you repeatedly state on earlier posts that this was all an accident?

Which is it?

I think if you want to actually have reasoned discussions without spinning around like a top, it would help if you would focus. So let's focus on you. What is your position given what we know now. Murder charge warranted? Guilty / not guilty? Sentencing (if applicable). Hint: the number you're looking for is somewhere between 5-99 if you think it's a murder rap with a guilty verdict. 

 

I'm not convinced any kind of jail time serves any real purpose here.
 

Seems about as unambiguous a statement as you are personally capable of making. 

Yet it is ambiguous.  I think we decided a while back that manslaughter charges would risk a straight up acquittal because the shooting was not reckless.  Other things made the situation reckless or negligent, but the shooting itself was an intentional act.  So, like I said, you can't get "middle ground" by the indictment,  It has to be on the sentence.

 

There is a bit of a paradox in murder law in Texas, among other places.  And that is that the conduct has to be intentional, but the result (death) and the target of the conduct do not have to be intentional.  At common law, both the conduct and the result (and the target of the result) all had to be intentional for it to be murder.  So you had to intend to kill a specific person, by specific conduct.  Anything less was some form of manslaughter,. That is not the law in Texas.

So overall, you can have a situation where death of an innocent person is a mistake or accident, and it's still murder if the conduct you engaged in was intentional.

Edited May 3, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[TornACL 7,675]

3 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

If convicted of murder she “cannot walk with no jail time.”

Not probation eligible.

5-99 or life, to do.

I think in extenuating circumstances you can get probation for murder, in cases such as an abused spouse, etc.

This thread will be hilarious if that is the outcome. 

[Brisketexan 104,596]

5 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

Do me a favor. You travel some for work right? Dark out your hotel room completely at night. Allow a small amount of ambient light from city lights thru the curtains opposite the entrance. You stand by the entrance and have someone else stand across the room in front of the curtains.

Tell me what you see.

Ha -- TRICK QUESTION!  By the time I get back to my room, I'm shitfaced and just heading for the bathroom to take an urgent leak.  I wouldn't even notice if someone else was in the room.

Think you can trick me - no sir, I ain't falling for it!

[TornACL 7,675]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yet it is ambiguous.  I think we decided a while back that manslaughter charges would risk a straight up acquittal because the shooting was not reckless.  Other things made the situation reckless or negligent, but the shooting itself was an intentional act.  So, like I said, you can't get "middle ground" by the indictment,  It has to be on the sentence.

We understand. Everything is ambiguous. State a position. What do YOU think?

 

[TXSooner518 2,432]

5 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

As to point 2, your statement that “to be able to use deadly force, she must not have had the option to retreat” is not accurate.

The law is that the jury MAY CONSIDER whether she failed to retreat in answering the question of whether the force was used when and to the degree it was immediately necessary. 

She will not benefit from the “no duty to retreat” instruction IF she entered the apartment.

Eh. If she didn't enter the apartment, I can't fathom a way that deadly force can be authorized. How can she reasonably be in fear of her life from an unarmed man being in a dwelling that she isn't in? If she did enter the apartment, PC 9.23(d) seems to me to indicate that a person with no legal right to be where they are can't avail themselves of deadly force if they can retreat. 

You have the practice experience, and what the jury is told is more important than what the law says, so I concede to that. But, I just don't find a way to check the boxes to make deadly force reasonable in this scenario, based on the combination of her needing to have a reasonable fear for her life (or SBI blah blah) and her not having 9.23(d) in her favor re: need to retreat.

[Pam Cummings 9,576]

2 hours ago, 4th and 5 said:

 

 

You’re damn right I asked that question. What do YOU KNOW about the lighting in the room? Was there any? If so did it create positive or negative contrast? What was his location? We’re there any obstructions to visibility?

See, I do this for a living. I know the science. I don’t make half cocked assumptions and false conclusions. This case requires a careful study of the law and conclusions based on facts and the applicable sciences that I mentioned in previous posts.

Let me give you another example.

The “FACTS” article you posted is DEMOMSTRABLY FALSE. Your conclusion from it is therefore false. She said 19 times she thought it was her apartment. She did not mention her job 19 times. Did you evaluate the actual evidence yourself? And then draw a conclusion?

Or just assume?

Why was the article false? Because the author is a dumbass who jumps to conclusions? Because they have a narrative they want to further? To get clicks?

Why did you take the bait? Was it because it was easy for you? You work off of base emotions without much reflection? It fit your opinion of the matter?

Assumption.

WRONG.

Shot twice, hit once. 

What we know about the lighting is that there was enough for her to identify that there was a person in the room and shoot them. 

Edited May 3, 2019 by Pam Cummings

[TXSooner518 2,432]

1 minute ago, Pam Cummings said:

What we know about the lighting is that there was enough for her to identify and shoot whoever it was that was standing there.

And if the light was so bad that she can't even distinguish the race of the person, what exactly did she see that created a reasonable fear for her life? Again, can't have it both ways.

[TwiceHorn 31,269]

12 minutes ago, TornACL said:

We understand. Everything is ambiguous. State a position. What do YOU think?

 

Because people have begun to engage on the actual topic, it looks like probation is unavailable for murder, so that's out.  I'm ok with that.  Five years is the minimum.  I could probably live with that.  You might convince me 7.5 or 10 is reasonable, but doubtful.  Although I don't believe a jury can consider it (help TxSooner and 4th), we should probably also consider what of the sentence will actually be served.

I think a kind of "average sentence" for murder in Texas is 20-25 years.  I think that would be overkill.  For the record, I am coming around to believing that any sentence much over 20-25 years is overkill except for the very worst crimes.

Edited May 3, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Pato del Muerto 52,342]

I’m a day late, with my own idea of how cops are, the fact that she’s a cop actually lessens the idea that his race was a contributing factor. Cops are trigger happy and looking for reasons to shoot, and she thought she had one. Could have been kip dynamite in that apartment and she’d have shot him. 

Additionally, if the lighting was sufficient for her to recognize his race, she should reasonably have been able to see enough of the domicile to notice it wasn’t her place. But I’m sure they’ll just say she was focused on the threat. 

I am interested to see if they claim she followed her training at any time. DPD is already going to be looked at for scheduling with the tired after a long shift excuse. 

Edited May 3, 2019 by Pato del Muerto

[bernorange 8,348]

5 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

If convicted of murder she “cannot walk with no jail time.”

Not probation eligible.

5-99 or life, to do.

That's good to hear.  The point I was trying to make was addressing Twicehorn's original comment about what purpose any kind of jail time served.  Understanding that conviction = jail time, TH's comment is equivalent to wondering (in this case) what purpose a conviction serves.  Not sure that is what TH really meant, but I think the answer is obvious.

[TwiceHorn 31,269]

4 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

I’m a day late, with my own idea of how cops are, the fact that she’s a cop actually lessens the idea that his race was a contributing factor. Cops are trigger happy and looking for reasons to shoot, and she thought she had one. Could have been kip dynamite in that apartment and she’d have shot him. 

Additionally, if the lighting was sufficient for her to recognize his race, she should reasonably have been able to see enough of the domicile to notice it wasn’t her place. But I’m sure they’ll just say she was focused on the threat. 

I am interested to see if they claim she followed her training at any time. DPD is already going to be looked at for scheduling with the tired after a long shift excuse. 

An aside, if they raise MJ as part of the defense, it looks like they're going to have to have her testify that she saw it there on the coffee table.  Which would open her up to questioning about how well she saw the coffee table and furniture and why she didn't recognize it as not her own.

Edited May 3, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31,269]

2 minutes ago, bernorange said:

That's good to hear.  The point I was trying to make was addressing Twicehorn's original comment about what purpose any kind of jail time served.  Understanding that conviction = jail time, TH's comment is equivalent to wondering (in this case) what purpose a conviction serves.  Not sure that is what TH really meant, but I think the answer is obvious.

It is not what I meant, no.

[PilotsError 2,281]

With the right jury, she wouldn't had to see the MJ, the defense will just tell this particular jury that he had ILLEGAL NARCOTICS in his possession, and most likely had ILLEGAL NARCOTICS in his system.  Had he not of had ILLEGAL NARCOTICS coursing like the Germans through his veins, he might have obeyed her LAWFUL COMMANDS and still be alive today.  

[PilotsError 2,281]

I wonder if we hear the phrase "furtive movements?"

[4th and 5 4,914]

 

28 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yet it is ambiguous.  I think we decided a while back that manslaughter charges would risk a straight up acquittal because the shooting was not reckless.  Other things made the situation reckless or negligent, but the shooting itself was an intentional act.  So, like I said, you can't get "middle ground" by the indictment,  It has to be on the sentence.

 

There is a bit of a paradox in murder law in Texas, among other places.  And that is that the conduct has to be intentional, but the result (death) and the target of the conduct do not have to be intentional.  At common law, both the conduct and the result (and the target of the result) all had to be intentional for it to be murder.  So you had to intend to kill a specific person, by specific conduct.  Anything less was some form of manslaughter,. That is not the law in Texas.

So overall, you can have a situation where death of an innocent person is a mistake or accident, and it's still murder if the conduct you engaged in was intentional.

What he wrote.

How the heck can you assert self defense as a justification to an of allegation of reckless or criminally negligent conduct?

You can’t.

And as to paragraph 2, I believe the transferred intent rule was part of the common law, and your statement would be incorrect. Prolly depends on “when” in the “common law” we are talking about. 

27 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Ha -- TRICK QUESTION!  By the time I get back to my room, I'm shitfaced and just heading for the bathroom to take an urgent leak.  I wouldn't even notice if someone else was in the room.

Think you can trick me - no sir, I ain't falling for it!

Goddamnit brisket, take the bait!

23 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

Eh. If she didn't enter the apartment, I can't fathom a way that deadly force can be authorized. How can she reasonably be in fear of her life from an unarmed man being in a dwelling that she isn't in? If she did enter the apartment, PC 9.23(d) seems to me to indicate that a person with no legal right to be where they are can't avail themselves of deadly force if they can retreat. 

You have the practice experience, and what the jury is told is more important than what the law says, so I concede to that. But, I just don't find a way to check the boxes to make deadly force reasonable in this scenario, based on the combination of her needing to have a reasonable fear for her life (or SBI blah blah) and her not having 9.23(d) in her favor re: need to retreat.

9.32 is what I think you are referring to.....go back and read my post. She doesn’t get the jury instruction. It’s a fact issue in the calculation of reasonableness. Not a prohibition. 

23 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

What we know about the lighting is that there was enough for her to identify that there was a person in the room and shoot them. 

Exactly, and nothing more. 

21 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

And if the light was so bad that she can't even distinguish the race of the person, what exactly did she see that created a reasonable fear for her life? Again, can't have it both ways.

Sure you can. 

Go do the experiment brisket is too drunk to do. Have a pistol in your hand. Maybe make a fake pistol with your fingers. Or just make some “furtive” movements. Be scary!

or maybe just be startled while you are jacking off to porn hub videos and eating Cheetos on the couch, quickly get up from where you are sitting and yell “HEY” or “Fuck” and grab a phone off a table to call 911....BOOM

I could do this all day.....

 

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

An aside, if they raise MJ as part of the defense, it looks like they're going to have to have her testify that she saw it there on the coffee table.  Which would open her up to questioning about how well she saw the coffee table and furniture and why she didn't recognize it as not her own.

 It getting raised. It isn’t no defense, not relevant. Proves nothing. 

10 minutes ago, PilotsError said:

With the right jury, she wouldn't had to see the MJ, the defense will just tell this particular jury that he had ILLEGAL NARCOTICS in his possession, and most likely had ILLEGAL NARCOTICS in his system.  Had he not of had ILLEGAL NARCOTICS coursing like the Germans through his veins, he might have obeyed her LAWFUL COMMANDS and still be alive today.  

This sounds like the arguments prosecutors generally try to make. And fail.

[PilotsError 2,281]

Are you on something?  

[Pato del Muerto 52,342]

46 minutes ago, PilotsError said:

With the right jury, she wouldn't had to see the MJ, the defense will just tell this particular jury that he had ILLEGAL NARCOTICS in his possession, and most likely had ILLEGAL NARCOTICS in his system.  Had he not of had ILLEGAL NARCOTICS coursing like the Germans through his veins, he might have obeyed her LAWFUL COMMANDS and still be alive today.  

Marijuana isn’t a narcotic, and if it was in his system would only pacify his behavior.  Prosecution should be ready if the argument is made. 

[TwiceHorn 31,269]

On the sentence, parole eligibility at 50% time served.  Eligibility =/= release, but I might guess that she's probably going to get favorable treatment, so it might.

[Pato del Muerto 52,342]

Can they combine mistake of fact and self defense?  She thought it was her place and therefore thought she had the right to shoot?