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

[TwiceHorn 31269]

4 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

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

I think we determined that that was the path through the briar patch.

[TXSooner518 2432]

45 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

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. 

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.....

Yes, 9.32 sorry.

And sorry, those don't rise to reasonable fear for your life. If my kid comes up behind me tonight and yells BOO I can't kill her in self-defense.

[hayden_horn 11360]

ok, i've come back around full circle.

she's a trigger happy cop. she blasted a guy in his own house. she did not have to do this thing. even if startled, she shot the guy across the room. things we know: the tv was on, he was watching football. he was working on his laptop as well. maybe those are the only light sources. we don't know, i don't think.

important for her:

is her couch and tv situated the same way as his? i'm assuming that the floorplans are exactly the same given he's exactly one floor above her, which would leave a limited number of places for TV access, if the apartments are all wired the same. 

was the door open or ajar? this detail i do not think we have ever managed to understand. who sits in their apartment with the door open? was he expecting a guest?

the apartment numbers are not subtle:

i've gone to the wrong hotel room more than once. i get it. it can happen. but i don't live there.

also, there's the whole issue with the red doormat.

that is also not subtle.

so her decision tree was:

open the door, see a guy, then immediately draw her sidearm and issue a command that's not followed, then shoot. let's remember that it's dark for jean in his apartment as well, and guyger was likely backlit by the corridor.

that's a bad cop mentality. a normal person who isn't a shoot first person retreats into the lit hallway and calls the police. if the guy follows you and you legit fear for your life in the well lit corridor, then you have a completely different situation.

her reflex was to shoot. that's a bad fact for her. she had other options. she wasn't back to the wall INSIDE the apartment. she had a means to retreat and regroup and double check her surroundings. she did not do that. because she was tired. that's a bad fact for DPD as well. 

but she murdered that dude when she had other options. that washes over her immediate regret on that 911 call for me.

[4th and 5 4914]

5 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

Yes, 9.32 sorry.

And sorry, those don't rise to reasonable fear for your life. If my kid comes up behind me tonight and yells BOO I can't kill her in self-defense.

That's a jury question based on the facts. I don't see a similarity in this case and your daughter yelling boo. Or my hypotheticals above.

But you could kill her in self defense under that circumstance, if a jury finds the state failed to disprove BARD the defense. Would they? I think we all doubt it.

How about your kid sneaking into his bedroom window, hours after he snuck out after midnight?

How about your wife killing you, when you came home late after a delayed flight, when she expected you home the following day?

How about if your kid pranks you, and you kill him, thinking it is an intruder.

If a jury buys it, that's what happened. It's justified.

 

28 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

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.

She's looking at 80%+, practically speaking.

 

43 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

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

Quick research indicates yes. I thought I read a case that said no recently.

However I got a necessity defense jury instruction along with defense of self, defense of another, and defense of property in a trial not long ago.

2005 CCA case below cited as recently as 2017 so I assume it is good law still.

Note 2 CCA judges dissented saying the specific controls the general and they would not allow another defense, in this case necessity, and by analogy could also apply to mistake of fact in the Dallas case. Who knows what the court would rule if presented with the issue again. But if I was the trial attorney I'd be trying to get every defense I can because the refusal to give the instruction when requested and supported by some evidence is reversible error on appeal every time.

 

162 S.W.3d 226 (2005)

Lydia H. BOWEN, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Texas.

No. PD-1873-03.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 4, 2005.

Samuel C. Bishop, Decatur, for Appellant.

Gregory P. Lowery, County Atty., Thomas J. Aaberg, Asst. County Atty., Decatur, Matthew Paul, State's Atty., Austin, for State.

 

OPINION

 

KEASLER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court in which MEYERS, PRICE, WOMACK, JOHNSON, HERVEY, and HOLCOMB, JJ., joined.

Upon the close of evidence at her resisting arrest trial, Lydia Bowen sought a jury instruction on the defense of necessity. The trial judge refused this request. Affirming the trial judge's refusal, the Court of Appeals held that the self-defense statute, Penal Code section 9.31, demonstrated a legislative purpose to exclude the necessity defense under section 9.22(3). We disagree. Therefore, we reverse and remand.

['stache 21770]

I forgot about the red floor mat.  Wasn't their a picture of her apartment that had no floor mat? I seem to recall that's why I thought her story was BS. How do you not notice immediately that there is a red floor mat that isn't yours and realize you're on the wrong floor? But like I said, you would think it would have come out by now if there was some prior relationship or altercation between the two.

Edited May 3, 2019 by 'stache

[Guest Lobo]

I would love to have the kind of target proficiency it says I can’t see the color of a doormat or read the number of an apartment unit right in front of my face, but I can take out a vital organ at a range of 20 to 25 feet Using only two rounds.   being tired and in the dark and exhausted from a long day of public service ?    Yes your honor these numbers look so blurry I don’t even know what unit I am in .   But there’s someone over there ?  Target acquired

[Macanudo 12926]

4 minutes ago, 'stache said:

But like I said, you would think it would have come out by now if there was some prior relationship or altercation between the two.

Unless DPD destroyed the evidence.

[Gene Parmesan 3993]

Just now, 'stache said:

I forgot about the red floormat.  Wasn't their a picture of her apartment that had no floor mat? I seem to recall that's why I thought her story was BS. But like I said, you would think it would have come out by now if there was some prior relationship or altercation between the two.

The illuminated apt. numbers do nothing for me especially since they are on every door in the hallway.  Your brain tunes that kind of stuff out constantly.  The red floormat at least raises a little more doubt to her reasonably believing it to be her apartment especially if hers has nothing under her door.  You can do some googling that shows your brain tunes out quite a bit though.  I'm sure the defense will bring that up.

[TXSooner518 2432]

11 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

That's a jury question based on the facts. I don't see a similarity in this case and your daughter yelling boo. Or my hypotheticals above.

But you could kill her in self defense under that circumstance, if a jury finds the state failed to disprove BARD the defense. Would they? I think we all doubt it.

How about your kid sneaking into his bedroom window, hours after he snuck out after midnight?

How about your wife killing you, when you came home late after a delayed flight, when she expected you home the following day?

How about if your kid pranks you, and you kill him, thinking it is an intruder.

If a jury buys it, that's what happened. It's justified.

It's a lot easier to construct reasonable scenarios where the person doing the shooting is in their own house. If Botham had shot Guyger in this scenario, his response would be more reasonable. And in fact the law allows a provision for a reasonable presumption of loss of life if someone is breaking and entering your dwelling.

[TwiceHorn 31269]

4 minutes ago, Gene Parmesan said:

The illuminated apt. numbers do nothing for me especially since they are on every door in the hallway.  Your brain tunes that kind of stuff out constantly.  The red floormat at least raises a little more doubt to her reasonably believing it to be her apartment especially if hers has nothing under her door.  You can do some googling that shows your brain tunes out quite a bit though.  I'm sure the defense will bring that up.

Agreed on the numbers.  They are also out of your field of view when standing in front of the door.  The floormat is hard to reconcile.

[TornACL 7675]

15 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I forgot about the red floor mat.  Wasn't their a picture of her apartment that had no floor mat? I seem to recall that's why I thought her story was BS. How do you not notice immediately that there is a red floor mat that isn't yours and realize you're on the wrong floor? But like I said, you would think it would have come out by now if there was some prior relationship or altercation between the two.

But she was so tired. It's perfectly ok to shoot someone in the chest if you're really tired, or if you feel bad about it later. 

['stache 21770]

11 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

TWICE

He was smoking pot. Probably laced with PCP. Gotta pull the old double-tap.

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

25 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

TWICE

Without missing.  So tired you can’t find your own apartment and then presumably shot full of adrenaline when you see a person in “your home” and you go 2/2.  

Or did I miss a report of her emptying her magazine or otherwise missing?

[4th and 5 4914]

23 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Agreed on the numbers.  They are also out of your field of view when standing in front of the door.  The floormat is hard to reconcile.

Did she look down?

She was carrying a backpack, lunch bag and ballistic vest. Was she distracted?

There is so much to this in the science of forensic vision, perception, attention, expectation, human response and reaction time.

What color is your doormat at your home?

Which doors have doormats?

Do doormats contain useful information?

If you knew your feet were wet or dirty would you be more likely to notice one?

Which lights did you stop at on the way to work? And what lights were green?

Have you ever not noticed someone you knew well, because you did not expect to see them where you were at the time?

Do you look for deer when you drive through a school zone? Do you scan for little children pedestrians at dusk on Ranch Road XX? What would you expect to see?

If the city put a stop sign on a roadway where there was no intersection, would it be more likely not to be noticed?

What happens when you are in a well lit area and walk in to a dark area? 

20 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

TWICE

ONCE

[Huckleberry 32699]

Man, this guy's a good lawyer. So many jurors are likely to get confused by all that hand waving.

Was Jean supposed to be there? Yes. Was Guyger supposed to be there? No. Did Guyger aim at and intend to shoot Jean when she killed him? Yes.

Done and done. If she entered the apartment she's toast. Still haven't heard or read a good legal argument why she shouldn't be convicted of murder if she entered the apartment. If she entered then she was already committing a crime (likely accidentally) when she killed a guy in his home. Hell, if she didn't enter then she had plenty of opportunity to retreat/escape if she actually thought there was a physical threat.

Edited May 3, 2019 by Huckleberry

[TwiceHorn 31269]

12 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Man, this guy's a good lawyer. So many jurors are likely to get confused by all that hand waving.

Was Jean supposed to be there? Yes. Was Guyger supposed to be there? No. Did Guyger aim at and intend to shoot Jean when she killed him? Yes.

Done and done. If she entered the apartment she's toast. Still haven't heard or read a good legal argument why she shouldn't be convicted of murder if she entered the apartment. If she entered then she was already committing a crime (likely accidentally) when she killed a guy in his home. Hell, if she didn't enter then she had plenty of opportunity to retreat/escape if she actually thought there was a physical threat.

As far as "legal" arguments go, it's mistake of fact as to whether she was in her home plus the "castle doctrine" self defense.  If the boxes can be checked, it's a sound legal defense.  Whether it's "good" or not may be another question.

As far as persuading the jury, apart from jury instructions and burdens of proof and those legal niceties, there may not be any good arguments. But careful what you wish for here, because a jury could be pro-cop, racist, or just discontent with having to convict for murder, if they get too untethered from the law.

['stache 21770]

I've never heard the castle doctrine extending to someone else's home. It's a very limited doctrine and has no application elsewhere even if you have a "reasonable belief" you're in your own home. 

[Huckleberry 32699]

I don't have any particular wishes as far as the jury goes, other than that she serves jail time for the reasons discussed previously (holding officers to a higher standard and also making sure she's never an officer again).

And the castle doctrine defense seems flimsy, but I've never been on a jury. If I were in that deliberation room I'd just find somebody who was all about the castle doctrine and ask them "so it's okay if I use the castle doctrine and kill you in your castle?"

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

The problem with using mistake of fact in conjunction with another act is that it opens the door for mistake of fact to justify other criminal actions. 

Or not.  Is it up to juries to decide on the reasonableness of the mistake of fact?

 

 

[Guest Lobo]

12 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

I don't have any particular wishes as far as the jury goes, other than that she serves jail time for the reasons discussed previously (holding officers to a higher standard and also making sure she's never an officer again).

And the castle doctrine defense seems flimsy, but I've never been on a jury. If I were in that deliberation room I'd just find somebody who was all about the castle doctrine and ask them "so it's okay if I use the castle doctrine and kill you in your castle?"

Well, duh...the point of having a castle is to use it as a launchpad to sack other castles.  Didn't you learn anything from European History, Part I?  Did black people have castles though?  Hmmmm, curious gambit.

 

[Huckleberry 32699]

While you raise a good point about historical castle residents, the fact remains that Guyger used a firearm to kill Jean. Murder, go to jail.

Now if she had used a trebuchet then we could submit into evidence exhibits related to medieval codes of conduct with respect to the castle doctrine.

[hayden_horn 11360]

59 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Man, this guy's a good lawyer. So many jurors are likely to get confused by all that hand waving.

Was Jean supposed to be there? Yes. Was Guyger supposed to be there? No. Did Guyger aim at and intend to shoot Jean when she killed him? Yes.

Done and done. If she entered the apartment she's toast. Still haven't heard or read a good legal argument why she shouldn't be convicted of murder if she entered the apartment. If she entered then she was already committing a crime (likely accidentally) when she killed a guy in his home. Hell, if she didn't enter then she had plenty of opportunity to retreat/escape if she actually thought there was a physical threat.

yes, killing should be a last fucking resort, not your first option. a cop SHOULD know that.

retreat, regroup, and if the guy follows you with a knife or a gun, shoot his ass.

that's where i am on this one. she had other options.

[Gene Parmesan 3993]

The 911 call was released several days ago.  It's what sparked all the recent activity in this thread.

[TwiceHorn 31269]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

I don't have any particular wishes as far as the jury goes, other than that she serves jail time for the reasons discussed previously (holding officers to a higher standard and also making sure she's never an officer again).

And the castle doctrine defense seems flimsy, but I've never been on a jury. If I were in that deliberation room I'd just find somebody who was all about the castle doctrine and ask them "so it's okay if I use the castle doctrine and kill you in your castle?"

Not to be too much of a pedant, but jurors have written instructions to follow and questions to answer in the jury charge.  Of course whether they follow the instructions or answer the questions in the manner that was intended is a different question.

In the usual case, the question is going to be pretty simple.  In this case, they could be considerably more complex.

[Foggy Notion 1202]

2 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

You obviously didn't click the link.

DPD did NOT release the 911 call and a internal investigate is underway as to how it got out.

The linked article also includes this, which I believe has been mentioned in this thread before but is worth mentioning again as it will likely be part of the trial...

"Lee Merritt, one of the attorneys for Jean's family, has said that two independent witnesses cast doubt on Guyger's narrative and told him they heard knocking on the door in the hallway before the shooting."

[hayden_horn 11360]

40 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

This is even more detail:

https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/dallas-police-shooting-botham-jean.html

Damn, i had forgotten the detail about two witnesses saying she knocked and that she may have made a noise complaint about this guy...

[High Plains Drifter 10974]

18 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

This was an accident.

 

She deliberately pointed her gun at somebody and deliberately pulled the trigger. That is not an accident.

['stache 21770]

5 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

She deliberately pointed her gun at somebody and deliberately pulled the trigger. That is not an accident.

Bloodthirsty animal!

[4th and 5 4914]

2 hours ago, BurntEyes said:

Nope...

On September 6, a white Dallas police officer shot and killed her black neighbor inside his own Dallas apartment, reigniting, once again, the debate around police racism and brutality in the U.S. In the police affidavit, which is based almost entirely off the cop’s account, 30-year-old Amber Guyger claims that she mistook 26-year-old Botham Jean’s apartment for her own and thought Jean was an intruder, leading her to shoot him twice. 

wrong again

ASSUMPTION ALERT: media reports are not always correct

 

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4853150-Amber-Guyger-arrest-affidavit.html?sidebar=false

 

 

 

[Huckleberry 32699]

Yeah, don't forget that Guyger reported that even after illuminating the apartment she still didn't know it wasn't hers until she went back to the hallway to read the apartment number to confirm her location for EMS.

 

We're not dealing with a bright bulb here.

 

 

[SDG 3319]

This thread got me thinking so I have a question for our Legal experts. 

Two friends walk into the bar at the same time and have the same amount to drink.  They both leave at the same and one is involved in a fatality wreck (he may or may not have caused) while the other only got a DWI.  Is that fair?  Guy 1 didn’t intend to cause death.

Should their outcomes be the same?

(are there any laws that says a person who doesn’t have thier 100% mental facilities should Or shouldn’t be in possession of a firearm?)

 

[Foggy Notion 1202]

1 hour ago, 4th and 5 said:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4853150-Amber-Guyger-arrest-affidavit.html?sidebar=false

In the "facts of the case" section of this affidavit, it states that the door was slightly ajar prior to Guyger's arrival. 

How would this have been determined? 

[4th and 5 4914]

5 hours ago, BurntEyes said:

She shot twice hitting him once.

She still fired her weapon twice.

You're getting pretty fucking trolly.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4853308-Amber-Guyger-Search-Warrant.html

 

Welcome To last September. Two shots, one hit.

You were wrong.

Own it. 

[TwiceHorn 31269]

7 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

She deliberately pointed her gun at somebody and deliberately pulled the trigger. That is not an accident.

That part is not, but the mistakes apparently leading to the intentional act of shooting render the episode an accident.

[Brisketexan 104596]

That part is not, but the mistakes apparently leading to the intentional act of shooting render the episode an accident.

Nope. It may have been an accident that she ended up in the position where she had that choice to make....but when it came to choice time, it was a conscious choice, not an accident.

I’ve done plenty of foolish shit in my life. But when the chain of stupid events reaches its culmination, there’s usually a choice to make. My life was never ruined because when I came to that fork in the road, I made the right choice.

She made a murderous one.

[El Diablo 4232]

On 5/1/2019 at 1:30 PM, 'stache said:

Occam's razor tells me nobody is stupid enough to enter the wrong apartment. It's just not believable. We haven't seen any evidence of a prior relationship or altercation or any political motivation (my speculation was that it was a hit based on his family's political connections in his home country). Its looking more and more like it was truly random, but that in no way exonerates her. She is guilty of a crime even if the rosiest of circumstances are true. 

True story - Navy ships are in a foreign port, 3 destroyers all the same class, basically identical. They're "nested", that is one tied to the pier, the next one tied outboard of that one and the third tied outboard of that one. Drunk dude comes back from liberty and goes up the gangway of the first ship, crosses over to the second ship and instead of continuing on to his ship he goes below decks to "his" bunk. Fracas. 

[XYZ 2154]

14 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

True story - Navy ships are in a foreign port, 3 destroyers all the same class, basically identical. They're "nested", that is one tied to the pier, the next one tied outboard of that one and the third tied outboard of that one. Drunk dude comes back from liberty and goes up the gangway of the first ship, crosses over to the second ship and instead of continuing on to his ship he goes below decks to "his" bunk. Fracas. 

Then what happens?

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

3 minutes ago, XYZ said:

Then what happens?

Seamen everywhere 

['stache 21770]

This thread got me thinking so I have a question for our Legal experts. 

Two friends walk into the bar at the same time and have the same amount to drink.  They both leave at the same and one is involved in a fatality wreck (he may or may not have caused) while the other only got a DWI.  Is that fair?  Guy 1 didn’t intend to cause death.

Should their outcomes be the same?

(are there any laws that says a person who doesn’t have thier 100% mental facilities should Or shouldn’t be in possession of a firearm?)

 

Yes, it’s fair. Second guy got lucky. At this point even a drunk ass person knows not to drive. Call fucking Uber. If you get behind the wheel you know it could kill someone and that you’ll be punished accordingly.

[Nivek 16857]

Lawyers....

[TwiceHorn 31269]

9 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Nope. It may have been an accident that she ended up in the position where she had that choice to make....but when it came to choice time, it was a conscious choice, not an accident.

I’ve done plenty of foolish shit in my life. But when the chain of stupid events reaches its culmination, there’s usually a choice to make. My life was never ruined because when I came to that fork in the road, I made the right choice.

She made a murderous one.

I'm not excusing her choice in any way shape or form.  It was a bad choice.  But in certain circumstances, she is legally permitted to make that choice.  She apparently (all subject to proof) thought those circumstances applied.  Hell, I wouldn't like her choice even if it had occurred in her own home.  But you essentially concede my point in your second sentence.

[Foggy Notion 1202]

13 hours ago, Foggy Notion said:

In the "facts of the case" section of this affidavit, it states that the door was slightly ajar prior to Guyger's arrival. 

How would this have been determined? 

I hope my question didn't come across as obtuse, but I am curious to hear from the attorneys posting in this thread about this. 

The affidavit states that the door was slightly ajar prior to Guyger's arrival. The only thing I can think of is that this "fact" was based on the investigators' interview with Guyger prior to her being charged. And of course she's gonna say that. 

It stuck out to me when reading the affidavit. To me, it almost seems as if the purpose of including this information was to minimize her liability or explain her intent. I would expect her defense to emphasize this "fact" during trial, but didn't expect to see this in the arrest affidavit. 

Is it normal to have this type of information in an arrest affidavit?

[TwiceHorn 31269]

2 minutes ago, Foggy Notion said:

I hope my question didn't come across as obtuse, but I am curious to hear from the attorneys posting in this thread about this. 

The affidavit states that the door was slightly ajar prior to Guyger's arrival. The only thing I can think of is that this "fact" was based on the investigators' interview with Guyger prior to her being charged. And of course she's gonna say that. 

It stuck out to me when reading the affidavit. To me, it almost seems as if the purpose of including this information was to minimize her liability or explain her intent. I would expect her defense to emphasize this "fact" during trial, but didn't expect to see this in the arrest affidavit. 

Is it normal to have this type of information in an arrest affidavit?

Warrants are based on some evidentiary standard, usually probable cause that a crime has been comitted, which is the second-lowest standard recognized in the law (reasonable suspicion is lower (border stops)).  So, yeah, it's common to have "facts" alleged solely on the basis of a witness' testimony. ie what they said, uncorroborated.  Other than maybe key logs, which probably won't tell us directly, Guyger's testimony is probably all we'll ever have on that issue.

[Foggy Notion 1202]

Thanks for the response, TH.

I'm not arguing with anything you wrote. I understand what you're saying about evidentiary standard. To me, it just seems extraneous and irrelevant to the charge and to establishing that standard. But I'm not a lawyer, so that's why I asked. 

 

[TwiceHorn 31269]

3 minutes ago, Foggy Notion said:

Thanks for the response, TH.

I'm not arguing with anything you wrote. I understand what you're saying about evidentiary standard. To me, it just seems extraneous and irrelevant to the charge and to establishing that standard. But I'm not a lawyer, so that's why I asked. 

 

Oh, yeah, there's that too.  It is kind of a self-serving statement that isn't particularly relevant.   Lawyers tend to be super careful with affidavits, including only as much information as the law absolutely requires to get what the affidavit seeks or supports. As my first mentor said "the less you say, the less likely you are to say something stupid."  You never know when something extraneous will be used against you.

Anyway, most search/wiretap/arrest warrants are prepared by LEO, rather than lawyers, so they may not follow that maxim strictly.  And sometimes, you just get on a roll, and say too much.

In this case, it may have been Guyger trying to explain herself to the Ranger, or the Ranger's curiosity (how the hell did you get into the apartment) that sort of forced that "factoid" into the warrant affidavit, even though it didn't need to be in there.  It could also have been an attempt by either or both to set the narrative.  In keeping with my first paragraph, I think it might be wiser to leave it out.

[Foggy Notion 1202]

11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It could also have been an attempt by either or both to set the narrative.

This is what I was thinking. 

I would expect Guyger to do this. But I would hope a Ranger wouldn't. To me, it seems improper at best.

[TwiceHorn 31269]

51 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Under no legal conditions are you allowed to shoot a stranger in their own home after obtaining access against that person's wishes or illegally. (No-knock warrants aside) Whether you think you have that legal authority or not.

The fact that she believed she had that authority, calls into question a lot more about her than it does create a defense of her. I've already clearly pointed out why.

The preshooting witness description of what occurred further call it into question. Those are of course always suspect but there they are.

The way in which she gain entrance to the location is suspect, if she did in fact gain entrance to the apartment. Which based on what I've read neither is clear.

I still want YOU to answer the question of why you picked this specific example to start your non-stop defense.

 

Dude.  I'm not defending her.  I have not once said she SHOULD be acquitted.  I have said she might be, though.  I remain unsure what sort of sentence is appropriate if she is convicted.

Saying that the incident is an accident because (subject to proof of course) she did not intentionally walk into an innocent man's home and kill him, is not a defense.  It is a neutral evaluation of what happened.

For the 40th time, I'm trying to distill a sort of general case for this crime, which is hard to do because it's so unusual.  Unless and until it is proven that she did intentionally enter a mans home and shoot him to death, this isn't a "straight-up murder."  It is certainly murder by the statute.

The central fact is that she made a rotten, no-good, horrible decision to shoot the guy.  But in certain circumstances under our law, that is absolutely permitted.  And she may be able to claim the benefit of that law.  I freely admit that from a technical perspective, the defense and tactics here are fascinating, but don't equate that fascination with desire that she be acquitted.

This case lies in a twilight zone between straight-up murder and straight-up self-defense.  In a zone between 5-99 and  0/acquittal.  To treat it as one or the other on that spectrum is foolhardy, but that's just like my opinion, man.  I'm trying to figure out, for sentencing purposes mostly, where on the spectrum the general crime here lies.  I'm not satisfied with either of the poles.

I'm not speculating wildly on what facts may later be proven that tilt the thing to one end of the spectrum or the other.  You have your biases, they are obvious, and I don't disagree with them.  I certainly condemn wild shooting, and would do so if she had done this in her own home had the roles been reversed.  I'm very much against shoot-first cops. Hell, I'm on record for disarming them entirely.  But I'm not indulging the biases for purposes of trying to look at this neutrally.  You are so biased that you see my trying-to-be-neutral analysis as a defense.

 

Edited May 4, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Guest Lobo]

I have no idea if the prosecution could obtain this kind of information.  And if they could, I seriously doubt it would ever be admitted to the case, but could they look at the keycard activity of both of them in so far as, how often did his door open, only to have her enter her own door just moments later.  And vice-versa, how often did her door close and then his open just moments later---suggesting that were together in one apartment for a period of time before the other person retired to their own place shortly thereafter?  Phone records and social media forensics are one thing...I'd be curious if it seemed like they fraternized directly within the building on occasion?  

[TwiceHorn 31269]

11 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

This exist no where in the world of self defense despite the claims of the shooter and your assertive, continued claims that it does.  In every legal sense she had no right to shoot him. There is no gray area on that point. That you are arguing there is shows either a lack of knowledge of the law or an attempt for reason still unclear to me for you to justify her actions.

Those simply don't exist morally nor legally. 

I'm going to say it again. There is nothing, based on the data and evidence we know that provides a legal or moral defense of shooting the other person. It doesn't not fall into the area of self defense, legally or morally. It was not an accident it was a choice.

She went against every rule of gun safety and tactical training that is readily available to anyone. They are in fact taught to police. She chose to or did not by poor habit use any of them.

You're looking for a grey area that doesn't exist in this example based on the evidence we know. If she did enter, she did so intentionally. Whether she knew it was the wrong house or not. She had upon seeing him many choices that she CHOSE not to explore. She went into someone else home and shot a person. There isn't a stitch of grey area that you keep claiming exist. It isn't there. You've deluded yourself into believing it does.

And I still don't know why you continue to do so.

 

 

Tomato, tomahto.  We agree to disagree.

[TwiceHorn 31269]

6 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Not really. But I'll agree to disagree because in general I think you make sensible, well though out posts. 

Thanks,  The feeling is mutual.