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

[clapclapclap 9,000]

Putting her trash can in a choke point is further proof of here terrible judgment.  Who does that?  Or maybe she altered the scene.

[TwiceHorn 31,994]

A technical explanation from the Ranger for why the door wouldn't fully close itself.

Bent strike plate.

[Brisketexan 106,640]

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

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

[gsoda3 3,358]

47 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

You don’t auto-pilot your way from car to door based on a gut feeling. 

 

i auto-pilot from my office door to my car.  on the days i park in the back instead of the front i always have to turn around and go back.  not only that, i drive on auto-pilot too and forget i'm not going to where i think i'm going.  i'm sure a lot of people do as well. 

 

 

[Vic Mackey 47,849]

14 minutes ago, hookem17 said:

There’s more pictures of the apartments on that twitter account. 

Edit: Top photo is Jean’s apartment. Bottom is Guyger’s. 

Most of these apartments have the same layouts. But how about what it looks like inside. The 2 pictures have so many differences that you should easily notice when entering. He had no plants on the stand to the left side. He had a computer area directly to the back. She had a trashcan by her counter/desk. He did not. And I could on and on but the point is made. And this is just by looking at some grainy looking pics. The differences would be even more obvious had you stepped in person. So a burglar is going to completely re-do the furnishing and just be chilling . Riiiiight. 

Edited September 25, 2019 by Vic Mackey

[TXSooner518 2,455]

The couch being in the back of the room opposite the entry door to me is additional indicator that her behavior was unreasonable in immediately drawing and firing. If the couch was, say, immediately to your right as you walked in, much more likely to have a person be able to ambush/cut you off. 

[hookem17 485]

 

Alternate view of Jean’s apartment. There is a counter in both apartments. 

Edited September 25, 2019 by hookem17

[TXSooner518 2,455]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

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

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

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

[TwiceHorn 31,994]

17 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

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

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

As 4th has pointed out, self-defense in response to manslaughter or CNH is bizarre if not legally untenable.

The theory most seem to be going on is it's murder, but by combining mistake of fact and self-defense, it becomes justified or excused, but only if her mistake and reactions once in the apartment were reasonable.

But then man and CNH require some examination of the reasonablensess of her actions, but I tend to think at a different point than the act that caused the death.

If it's not murder, I don't think you can get to self-defense by any "road."

Edited September 25, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[hookem17 485]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

A technical explanation from the Ranger for why the door wouldn't fully close itself.

Bent strike plate.

 

[kevwun 16,288]

So she shot him as soon as he got up off the couch on the other side of the room.  And how the fuck do you miss there not being a counter in the middle of the room?  She should have backed up in to the hallway at that point instead of blasting away.

[CHEF DIESEL 126]

Looking at the photos of the door jam, the original installer must of been three Bud Light Clamato Chelada quart tall boys in when he put in those locks and throws. Holy crap that is a shoddy job.

[BigDHornfan 6,625]

4 minutes ago, kevwun said:

So she shot him as soon as he got up off the couch on the other side of the room.  And how the fuck do you miss there not being a counter in the middle of the room?  She should have backed up in to the hallway at that point instead of blasting away.

Counter is in his apt as well.  pictures were taken at different depths into the apts.

[TXSooner518 2,455]

4 minutes ago, kevwun said:

So she shot him as soon as he got up off the couch on the other side of the room.  And how the fuck do you miss there not being a counter in the middle of the room?  She should have backed up in to the hallway at that point instead of blasting away.

Agree generally, but there's a counter in both apartments.

[kevwun 16,288]

Gotcha, he still was no where near her.  Dallas is going to pay his family many millions of dollars over this.

[bigup2dahorns 3,348]

[bigup2dahorns 3,348]

[kevwun 16,288]

If a cop shows up at burglary and has reason to believe the burglar could still be in the house, they call for backup and wait.  That is what she should have done here.  Her door wasn't closed and the tv was on.  She should have never walked all the way in to the apartment.

Edited September 25, 2019 by kevwun

[TXSooner518 2,455]

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

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

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

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

[TwiceHorn 31,994]

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

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

[Constant 6,844]

Ranger Armstrong is an impressive witness. 

[Gene Parmesan 4,062]

I think it's reasonable to end up at the wrong apartment.  I just don't think a reasonable mistake of fact should get you off from killing someone.  Killing someone when you are in the wrong should always have a consequence.  So if I am on the jury and following the letter of the law would I have to go not guilty?

[TwiceHorn 31,994]

2 minutes ago, Constant said:

Ranger Armstrong is an impressive witness. 

He is.

[Skipper 6,406]

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

Edited September 25, 2019 by Skipper

[TXSooner518 2,455]

11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

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

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

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

[Trey3216 15,450]

21 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

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

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

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

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

You think a woman knows how many ramps she goes up?  

[pops 7,121]

19 minutes ago, kevwun said:

If a cop shows up at burglary and has reason to believe the burglar could still be in the house, they call for backup and wait.  That is what she should have done here.  Her door wasn't closed and the tv was on.  She should have never walked all the way in to the apartment.

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

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

[TXSooner518 2,455]

Just now, Skipper said:

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

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

[hookem17 485]

The Ranger agreed with defense counsel that her reaction to shoot at a perceived threat was reasonable, and that she didn’t have time to get to cover or call for backup. 

Edited September 25, 2019 by hookem17

[Native Horn 3,569]

23 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

I drive a crimson two door Mazda.

Well of course you do. OU sucks.

[bschoolprof 6,339]

1 minute ago, Gene Parmesan said:

I think it's reasonable to end up at the wrong apartment.  I just don't think a reasonable mistake of fact should get you off from killing someone.  Killing someone when you are in the wrong should always have a consequence.  So if I am on the jury and following the letter of the law would I have to go not guilty?

If you think it's reasonable that she:

1) went to the wrong apartment

2) quickly concluded the man there was an intruder

3) an act of deadly force was needed to protect herself

then yes (I think).   

I think 1) is possibly reasonable.   I do not think 2 and 3 are reasonable.  

 

[TwiceHorn 31,994]

1 minute ago, Gene Parmesan said:

I think it's reasonable to end up at the wrong apartment.  I just don't think a reasonable mistake of fact should get you off from killing someone.  Killing someone when you are in the wrong should always have a consequence.  So if I am on the jury and following the letter of the law would I have to go not guilty?

Very possibly (on the not guilty).  

While it may not be the consequence you desire, to say that this is without consequence is foolish.  She's been the subject of scrutiny, ridicule, and contempt for a year.  And, thanks to the internet, she will probably never live this down. She's having to sit through this trial, which is something not to be sneezed at.  She's going to have to sit through a civil trial.

Apparently, she hasn't had to pay for her attorneys, but for many, this would be financially ruinous, as well.

[TXSooner518 2,455]

1 minute ago, pops said:

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

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

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

[immortal13 4,059]

2 minutes ago, hookem17 said:

The Ranger agreed with defense counsel that her reaction to shoot at a perceived threat was reasonable. 

This is why she will walk

[kevwun 16,288]

She had no business being a cop if she randomly stumbles around through her day oblivious to her surroundings.

2 minutes ago, hookem17 said:

The Ranger agreed with defense counsel that her reaction to shoot at a perceived threat was reasonable, and that she didn’t have time to get to cover or call for backup. 

If only there was a door behind her that led to a hallway where she would have had cover and more time to think.

Edited September 25, 2019 by kevwun

[CHEF DIESEL 126]

Texas Ranger just testified that he feels that Guyger committed no crime.

[hookem17 485]

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

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

2 minutes ago, hookem17 said:

The Ranger agreed with defense counsel that her reaction to shoot at a perceived threat was reasonable, and that she didn’t have time to get to cover or call for backup. 

fucking bootlicker

[TXSooner518 2,455]

1 minute ago, hookem17 said:

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

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

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

Edited September 25, 2019 by TXSooner518

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

I hope that fucker is shot to death in his own home by a fucking cop serving a no-knock warrant on the wrong address.  Fuck him with a red hot poker.

[Gene Parmesan 4,062]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Very possibly (on the not guilty).  

While it may not be the consequence you desire, to say that this is without consequence is foolish.  She's been the subject of scrutiny, ridicule, and contempt for a year.  And, thanks to the internet, she will probably never live this down. She's having to sit through this trial, which is something not to be sneezed at.  She's going to have to sit through a civil trial.

Apparently, she hasn't had to pay for her attorneys, but for many, this would be financially ruinous, as well.

Fair enough on the without consequences comment, but I still think taking a life when you are in the wrong merits prison time as a consequence.

[BigDHornfan 6,625]

Jesus dude.

 

[TwiceHorn 31,994]

1 minute ago, TXSooner518 said:

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

No, it was an offer of proof.

For the peanut gallery, the Ranger was going to offer his opinion on all this, but the judge excluded it.  For appeal purposes, you have to get the testimony on the record outside the presence of the jury so the appellate court can rule on the propriety of the judge's decision excluding it.  That's an offer of proof.

None of these opinions were rendered to the jury.

Edited September 25, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[tx 3 putt 78,474]

2 minutes ago, CHEF DIESEL said:

Texas Ranger just testified that he feels that Guyger committed no crime.

Of course he did 

[Skipper 6,406]

Just now, TXSooner518 said:

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

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

[hookem17 485]

Just now, TXSooner518 said:

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

I was out for a bit but it  now appears you are correct. Jury is not hearing the Ranger’s testimony. 

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

At least the jury didn't hear this.  I hope the judge excludes this testimony.

[PilotsError 2,339]

Yep she's walking, if this testimony was in front of the jury.  All that matters is a cop feared for her life.  Doesn't matter the situation, nuance, timing, duration, possible retreat.  A cop was in fear, and it's acceptable to fire and kill the perceived threat.  Immediately.

The Ranger just gave the case to her.  If the jury heard it.

[HOOKEM4 5,152]

Is the jury actually present for this? The way they are talking it seems they might not be there?

[PilotsError 2,339]

Oh ok the jury didn't hear.