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

[SquishMitten 10401]

20 hours ago, 4th and 5 said:

Negative, sir. 

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

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

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

Well, I would've been right if the question was asked many years ago. Or if we were in Ohio or South Carolina. Had to look it up, but it was the "Alter Ego" defense of others rule I was thinking of. Bummer. All those times I watched someone die because I didn't want to risk being wrong about using force to protect them!

[4th and 5 4914]

56 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

I guess I'm still missing it. You're saying the CCA is affirming murder convictions by saying no evidence that the shooting is unintentional. Sure! Any case law of CCA overruling a manslaughter conviction by saying "nope it was intentional, not reckless"? 

Under Texas law, proof of intent = proof of reckless. The elements of manslaughter are prima facie met under the Penal Code. So unless there is case law of a manslaughter or CNH conviction overturned because the act was intentional not reckless, I'm still missing it.

EDIT: I'm not saying failing to give lesser included would invalidate a murder conviction, but I also don't see how a manslaughter conviction could be overturned as a matter of law. 

Proof of the greater Culpable mental state is proof of the letter. But that doesn’t mean you get a jury charge when there is no evidence to support the chart. There has to be some evidence.

The reason you don’t see the caselaw that you speak of is because that would necessarily involve an acquittal for the greater offense, murder, which The state cannot appeal by statute. And obviously a defendant wouldn’t appeal a murder acquittal where he was convicted of a lesser offense unless there was no evidence of that lesser offense as well. And that issue wouldn’t be in the appeal

[TXSooner518 2432]

7 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

Proof of the greater Culpable mental state is proof of the letter. But that doesn’t mean you get a jury charge when there is no evidence to support the chart. There has to be some evidence.

The reason you don’t see the caselaw that you speak of is because that would necessarily involve an acquittal for the greater offense, murder, which The state cannot appeal by statute. And obviously a defendant wouldn’t appeal a murder acquittal where he was convicted of a lesser offense unless there was no evidence of that lesser offense as well. And that issue wouldn’t be in the appeal

What about someone not charged with murder at all, solely charged with and convicted of manslaughter, overturned on appeal because the defendant shows the act was intentional, not reckless?

Or is there caselaw that indicates the overall circumstances can't be considered in the mental state? The definition of manslaughter is recklessly taking the life of another. That seems to fit pretty well, all things considered. In other words, the fact that she took this intentional act, was reckless?

Also, I'm hung up here, maybe help me see where I'm wrong:

Say the state did not charge with murder, only manslaughter. Evidence is as it is. Under 6.02, there's no way she gets a directed verdict of acquittal, right? Evidence on all elements of the offense. Under 6.02, her conviction of manslaughter would hold up, as the state established all elements. Agree/disagree?

If this is true, I fail to see how including manslaughter as a lesser included can possibly be error. And I can't see how the above is possibly not true.

Edited September 25, 2019 by TXSooner518

[Vic Mackey 46936]

How many of those pulled out a gun and killed the actual resident of that apartment?...

[Vic Mackey 46936]

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. 

Law enforcement taking up for one of their own? Whoa!!

[HRSchenker 2259]

What is up with her face? The WFAA livestream is creeping me the fuck out

[wood 11161]

57 minutes ago, royiv said:

I don't care whether or not she thought she was at her apartment or not. The fact that I get stuck on is the fact that her split second decision is to draw her gun and start blasting before she assesses the threat. She had ample opportunity to back out of the apartment. There was no clear and present threat to her life. I'm assuming she also had a Taser on her. Instead of drawing that and issuing a command, she pulls her handgun and goes straight for deadly force. As a citizen, that's terrifying.

 

34 minutes ago, tokamak said:

This is what I keep coming back to. She's literally standing in the doorway as this plays out. Looking at the pictures, he's a good 20+ feet away, starting from either sitting or laying down (not sure). To me, the only reasonable split second action is to back out into the hallway and start yelling commands and/or calling for backup. Even in the event that he's an armed, drug-fueled burglar, that seems like the much safer course of action.

We haven't heard a lot about it yet, but makes me think that the exact status and operation of the door will be important. If the door lock automatically when latched (I suspect that's the case), and she walks up and pushes open what she thinks is her own door, that suggests to me that she should be in a state of heightened awareness.

All of this ... and how in the actual fuck do you take even a quick look and not immediately recognize that you aren't at home in your own apartment? 

[Vic Mackey 46936]

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

And we wonder why people have such a shitty view of law enforcement. They harbor and justify criminal activities. The whole there's only a few bad apples is horseshit. It's a tight knit fraternity that will go to whatever lengths to justify their shitty behavior.

This dude gets up on the stand and tells the country that you are not safe in your home no matter what. Well mainly from cops. We all know she is getting preferential treatment. He would not go to bat for any of us at all. Better not live near law enforcement because they have the right to enter your home and blow your ass away and use this excuse. Fucking disgusting. But hey, chalk it up to another cop getting off for murdering someone. Back the Blue!!!

[HRSchenker 2259]

4 minutes ago, Vic Mackey said:

And we wonder why people have such a shitty view of law enforcement. They harbor and justify criminal activities. The whole there's only a few bad apples is horseshit. It's a tight knit fraternity that will go to whatever lengths to justify their shitty behavior.

This dude gets up on the stand and tells the country that you are not safe in your home no matter what. Well mainly from cops. We all know she is getting preferential treatment. He would not go to bat for any of us at all. Better not live near law enforcement because they have the right to enter your home and blow your ass away and use this excuse. Fucking disgusting. But hey, chalk it up to another cop getting off for murdering someone. Back the Blue!!!

I wonder what they would think if Bo retreated into his bedroom, pulled out a gun, and killed her. 

[Gene Parmesan 3993]

3 minutes ago, Vic Mackey said:

And we wonder why people have such a shitty view of law enforcement. They harbor and justify criminal activities. The whole there's only a few bad apples is horseshit. It's a tight knit fraternity that will go to whatever lengths to justify their shitty behavior.

This dude gets up on the stand and tells the country that you are not safe in your home no matter what. Well mainly from cops. We all know she is getting preferential treatment. He would not go to bat for any of us at all. Better not live near law enforcement because they have the right to enter your home and blow your ass away and use this excuse. Fucking disgusting. But hey, chalk it up to another cop getting off for murdering someone. Back the Blue!!!

That seems like a very inefficient way to abuse power for a cop.  Invoking this defense pretty much ends you policing career not to mention puts you on the hook for the upcoming civil trial.  Why wouldn't your neighbor cop just blow you away and plant evidence afterwards?  That's seems like the way better plan for all the cops wanting to kill their neighbors.

[Vic Mackey 46936]

1 minute ago, HRSchenker said:

I wonder what they would think if Bo retreated into his bedroom, pulled out a gun, and killed her. 

Oh we all know their viewpoint is now the complete opposite. That he should have assessed the situation better and tried to diffuse it in a different manner. That she was no threat at all (even though she was armed).

He was unarmed, sitting on  his couch chilling. How is this reasonable that he was a threat and a burglar? What kind of burglar just chills out on the couch. Being a fucking cop she should be able to assess this situation better than most (well you'd think so anyways). She went through training on all this shit. But she perceived a dude chilling on a couch as some threat she needed to kill right away? Witnesses near the apartment said she gave out no commands. How about "show me your hands" or "who are you and why are you in my house". It would take all of a few exchanges to clear up the situation and realize she was not in her house. Then she apologizes and goes to her own home and every thing is fine and normal. Chalk it up to a mistake. 

But to instantly kill this dude without assessing the situation at all? She's so "disoriented" she does not even know which floor or apartment door she is at? Wow. Such a quality from our good men/women in blue to have. Would she bust down the wrong door for a warrant and kill an innocent person like cops have did in the past?

Cops get away with so much and it is sickening. Hell the few who actually were prosecuted to the full extent happened to be on camera and they could not do anything about it or doctor it since they didn't have it. Like those cops in South Carolina who shot some dude in the back running away and tried to cover up the scene and plant a gun on him. But just so happened a pedestrian filmed the whole thing. Otherwise, they would have gotten off.

[hookem17 485]

Is this now the 5th or 6th resident talking about hearing gunshots but nothing else prior to the shooting? At what point is marching out all these residents unnecessarily duplicative and cumulative? 

[TXSooner518 2432]

Just now, hookem17 said:

Is this now the 5th or 6th resident talking about hearing gunshots but nothing else prior to the shooting? At what point is marching out all these residents unnecessarily duplicative and cumulative? 

Pretty important, esp since the defense has said Guyger yelled "Hands!" when she entered. Although even if true, randomly just screaming HANDS to someone who had no idea you existed one second ago doesn't seem at all effective. 

[hornbri 1375]

10 minutes ago, hookem17 said:

Is this now the 5th or 6th resident talking about hearing gunshots but nothing else prior to the shooting? At what point is marching out all these residents unnecessarily duplicative and cumulative? 

They need to because the defense might have 6 other neighbors who are going to say they heard the yelling. 

[tokamak 6352]

13 minutes ago, Vic Mackey said:

Oh we all know their viewpoint is now the complete opposite. That he should have assessed the situation better and tried to diffuse it in a different manner. That she was no threat at all (even though she was armed).

He was unarmed, sitting on  his couch chilling. How is this reasonable that he was a threat and a burglar? What kind of burglar just chills out on the couch. Being a fucking cop she should be able to assess this situation better than most (well you'd think so anyways). She went through training on all this shit. But she perceived a dude chilling on a couch as some threat she needed to kill right away? Witnesses near the apartment said she gave out no commands. How about "show me your hands" or "who are you and why are you in my house". It would take all of a few exchanges to clear up the situation and realize she was not in her house. Then she apologizes and goes to her own home and every thing is fine and normal. Chalk it up to a mistake. 

But to instantly kill this dude without assessing the situation at all? She's so "disoriented" she does not even know which floor or apartment door she is at? Wow. Such a quality from our good men/women in blue to have. Would she bust down the wrong door for a warrant and kill an innocent person like cops have did in the past?

Cops get away with so much and it is sickening. Hell the few who actually were prosecuted to the full extent happened to be on camera and they could not do anything about it or doctor it since they didn't have it. Like those cops in South Carolina who shot some dude in the back running away and tried to cover up the scene and plant a gun on him. But just so happened a pedestrian filmed the whole thing. Otherwise, they would have gotten off.

The really chilling thing to me, is that once she entered his home without cause, there was absolutely nothing that Botham Jean could have done differently to prevent his death. Even her defense seems to basically be admitting that.

 

Side note to that, if the doors typically lock automatically when closed but Jean's didn't because of the bent strike plate, I expect that his family is going to absolutely lay waste to the apartment complex owner in civil court.

[BigDHornfan 6541]

The one on the stand now:

[Gene Parmesan 3993]

17 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

Pretty important, esp since the defense has said Guyger yelled "Hands!" when she entered. Although even if true, randomly just screaming HANDS to someone who had no idea you existed one second ago doesn't seem at all effective. 

Her yelling hands is the equivalent yelling nothing or gibberish, imo. 

[TXSooner518 2432]

2 minutes ago, BigDHornfan said:

The one on the stand now:

She did just testify that "her back door was open"....

[RPM 26229]

2 hours ago, hopkinsnhorns said:

IANAL

You might not want to use that acronym.

[Trey3216 15325]

9 minutes ago, BigDHornfan said:

The one on the stand now:

Doesn't do enough squats/lunges with right leg.  WNB  

[Vic Mackey 46936]

Might have already been mentioned but the jury will not hear Armstrong's testimony that she did not commit a crime. They left the room while he testified. This is a good thing.

Which leads to my question, are these jurors cut off from the outside the world during the trial? Do they not have access to their phones or the internet? One could easily find this information of his testimony and have that shift their opinion. I have seen in movies where jurors are housed in a hotel and cut off from the outside world. Although it was an old movie and the smartphones were not even close into play yet. Back then, they just didn't allow them to get view the newspaper. Would the court take their phones away from them? This doesn't seem reasonable. I know they are instructed not to look at anything regarding the case but human nature kicks in and some would want to see what the public opinion is so far. How can they really stop that?

[4th and 5 4914]

1 hour ago, TXSooner518 said:

What about someone not charged with murder at all, solely charged with and convicted of manslaughter, overturned on appeal because the defendant shows the act was intentional, not reckless?

Or is there caselaw that indicates the overall circumstances can't be considered in the mental state? The definition of manslaughter is recklessly taking the life of another. That seems to fit pretty well, all things considered. In other words, the fact that she took this intentional act, was reckless?

Also, I'm hung up here, maybe help me see where I'm wrong:

Say the state did not charge with murder, only manslaughter. Evidence is as it is. Under 6.02, there's no way she gets a directed verdict of acquittal, right? Evidence on all elements of the offense. Under 6.02, her conviction of manslaughter would hold up, as the state established all elements. Agree/disagree?

If this is true, I fail to see how including manslaughter as a lesser included can possibly be error. And I can't see how the above is possibly not true.

 

 

It would be a not guilty, because the specific reckless or negligent act need be ALLEGED in the indictment and PROVEN IN COURT, if not, not guilty. There is no negligent or reckless act in intentionally discharging a firearm.

Art. 21.15. MUST ALLEGE ACTS OF RECKLESSNESS OR CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE. Whenever recklessness or criminal negligence enters into or is a part or element of any offense, or it is charged that the accused acted recklessly or with criminal negligence in the commission of an offense, the complaint, information, or indictment in order to be sufficient in any such case must allege, with reasonable certainty, the act or acts relied upon to constitute recklessness or criminal negligence, and in no event shall it be sufficient to allege merely that the accused, in committing the offense, acted recklessly or with criminal negligence.

A manslaughter indictment would read"...recklessly causing the death of an individual, to wit: by cleaning a firearm that was loaded in a room full of schoolchildren, and by causing said firearm to discharge, striking VICTIM and causing VICTIM's death" or something like that 

the recklessness has to go to a specific act of the discharge of the firearm, not going to the wrong apartment, and with no proof of the allegation, it is an acquittal....an incidentally, a double jeopardy bar to the greater offense of murder. 

The state would really be fucking itself trying a case in this manner

[TXSooner518 2432]

To wit, entering another person's residence and discharging a firearm immediately without ascertaining the nature of the target.

To wit, texting your fuckbuddy instead of providing CPR in accordance with your training.

Also, interested in how 6.02 and 21.15 would interact. I also disagree that intentionally discharging a firearm can never be reckless. I think this is an example of a possible situation. You rely on self-defense, but that reliance isn't reasonable given all factors. You had a good faith, but unreasonable, belief that you had the cover of self-defense. It seems perfectly within the language of the statute for that conduct to be "recklessly causing the death of an individual." 

Another example, gun located on a movie set. I assume but do not verify that it is loaded with blanks, aim at a person and intentionally pull the trigger. Instead, real bullets, and they die. My act was intentional, yet the circumstances can make my action reckless.

Edited September 25, 2019 by TXSooner518

[Gene Parmesan 3993]

3 minutes ago, Vic Mackey said:

Might have already been mentioned but the jury will not hear Armstrong's testimony that she did not commit a crime. They left the room while he testified. This is a good thing.

Which leads to my question, are these jurors cut off from the outside the world during the trial? Do they not have access to their phones or the internet? One could easily find this information of his testimony and have that shift their opinion. I have seen in movies where jurors are housed in a hotel and cut off from the outside world. Although it was an old movie and the smartphones were not even close into play yet. Back then, they just didn't allow them to get view the newspaper. Would the court take their phones away from them? This doesn't seem reasonable. I know they are instructed not to look at anything regarding the case but human nature kicks in and some would want to see what the public opinion is so far. How can they really stop that?

That's what the aim to do by sequestering the jury.  They put you in a hotel, and limit exposure to the outside as much as possible which I assume involves taking your smartphone.  If they don't take your phone, the whole thing would be kind of pointless. 

[GringoSalado 1651]

3 hours ago, Skipper said:

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. 

Agreed. 

But sad that, imo, one scenario (this one) is miles more plausible than your hypothetical "normal" petite female CHL one.  Can't we all just picture a cop doing this ("hey you're in my apartment BANG now you're dead in my apartment oops where am I")?

 

Sadly I have 1,000% more trust in some rando with a piece than a "trained" leo...

 

Disarm cops, CHLs all around then.

[hookem17 485]

The judge sequestered this jury beginning on Monday. I’m not sure if that includes cutting them off from the internet. 

[po elvis 2070]

9 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

To wit, entering another person's residence and discharging a firearm immediately without ascertaining the nature of the target.

She entered her own residence when she shot the guy. At least this was her reality at the time that she was making decisions based on.

[TXSooner518 2432]

Just now, po elvis said:

She entered her own residence when she shot the guy. At least this was her reality at the time that she was making decisions based on.

1) is it reasonable that this was her reality?

2) the "discharging a firearm immediately without ascertaining the nature of the target" part can still be reckless even in your own apartment.

[hookem17 485]

4 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

1) is it reasonable that this was her reality?

2) the "discharging a firearm immediately without ascertaining the nature of the target" part can still be reckless even in your own apartment.

I think what these legal experts (and Texas law) are saying is that the act of intentionally firing a weapon at another person cannot, by definition, be reckless, regardless of the circumstances or who you believed you were shooting. Seems counterintuitive to the definition of reckless. 

[po elvis 2070]

1 minute ago, TXSooner518 said:

1) is it reasonable that this was her reality?

2) the "discharging a firearm immediately without ascertaining the nature of the target" part can still be reckless even in your own apartment.

1) it is reasonable that she made a mistake. when you see a stranger in what you believe to be your apartment, your whole attention probably goes to him and not the surroundings.

2) i think that the fact she is a cop will hurt her on this point. if she was a random person that had a gun, you could understand them acting on that initial fear and adrenaline. there will be some questions why a cop couldn't handle it better.

[TXSooner518 2432]

1 minute ago, hookem17 said:

I think what these legal experts (and Texas law) are saying is that the act of intentionally firing a weapon at another person cannot, by definition, be reckless, regardless of the circumstances or who you believed you were shooting. Seems counterintuitive to the definition of reckless. 

Are you saying their argument is counterintuitive to the definition of reckless, or mine?  Because the statute doesn't go so far as to say that. And in fact, the statute expressly says that proving someone did something intentionally counts as proving they did it recklessly if that's what the offense requires.

[hookem17 485]

1 minute ago, TXSooner518 said:

Are you saying their argument is counterintuitive to the definition of reckless, or mine?  Because the statute doesn't go so far as to say that. And in fact, the statute expressly says that proving someone did something intentionally counts as proving they did it recklessly if that's what the offense requires.

I’m with you. Their argument seems counterintuitive to me. 

[TXSooner518 2432]

3 minutes ago, po elvis said:

1) it is reasonable that she made a mistake. when you see a stranger in what you believe to be your apartment, your whole attention probably goes to him and not the surroundings.

2) i think that the fact she is a cop will hurt her on this point. if she was a random person that had a gun, you could understand them acting on that initial fear and adrenaline. there will be some questions why a cop couldn't handle it better.

1 is open for debate on reasonableness of mistake. Agree somewhat on 2, however even a random person can't just blast someone dead even in your own home without reasonably fearing serious bodily injury or death. She should be held to a higher standard due to experience and training though, agreed.

[4th and 5 4914]

30 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

To wit, entering another person's residence and discharging a firearm immediately without ascertaining the nature of the target.

To wit, texting your fuckbuddy instead of providing CPR in accordance with your training.

Also, interested in how 6.02 and 21.15 would interact. I also disagree that intentionally discharging a firearm can never be reckless. I think this is an example of a possible situation. You rely on self-defense, but that reliance isn't reasonable given all factors. You had a good faith, but unreasonable, belief that you had the cover of self-defense. It seems perfectly within the language of the statute for that conduct to be "recklessly causing the death of an individual." 

Another example, gun located on a movie set. I assume but do not verify that it is loaded with blanks, aim at a person and intentionally pull the trigger. Instead, real bullets, and they die. My act was intentional, yet the circumstances can make my action reckless.

That's intentional.

Unless you didn't mean to pull the trigger.

What you did after is irrelevant.

Movie set: did you intend to cause the death of the other? NO

Did Amber Guyger? YES

I'm done here.

[po elvis 2070]

Just now, TXSooner518 said:

1 is open for debate on reasonableness of mistake. Agree somewhat on 2, however even a random person can't just blast someone dead even in your own home without reasonably fearing serious bodily injury or death. She should be held to a higher standard due to experience and training though, agreed.

Imagine you are awakened at night and see a guy in your house that you believe to be a burglar. You don't know if he has a gun or not. You assume he is dangerous because he broke into your house. You want to protect your family. You shoot him. Turns out your daughter snuck in her boyfriend. Your fear and adrenaline made you shoot him. Was it reckless?

[4th and 5 4914]

It was intentional in COURT! You shot him on purpose. Conscious objective or desire to cause death.

And apparent self defense or defense of another would justify it.

It may or may not be reckless in the court of public opinion, but it a Texas court it wouldn't be

[TXSooner518 2432]

4 minutes ago, po elvis said:

Imagine you are awakened at night and see a guy in your house that you believe to be a burglar. You don't know if he has a gun or not. You assume he is dangerous because he broke into your house. You want to protect your family. You shoot him. Turns out your daughter snuck in her boyfriend. Your fear and adrenaline made you shoot him. Was it reckless?

Yes, on those facts. I don't verbalize any commands, there is no threat of SBI/death, no menacing behavior. I don't have grounds to kill. 

Could also be murder, and under 4th and 5's argument, would have to be murder unless valid self-defense exists.

[SameSame 1692]

3 minutes ago, po elvis said:

Imagine you are awakened at night and see a guy in your house that you believe to be a burglar. You don't know if he has a gun or not. You assume he is dangerous because he broke into your house. You want to protect your family. You shoot him. Turns out your daughter snuck in her boyfriend. Your fear and adrenaline made you shoot him. Was it reckless?

If you intended to shoot him, I don't think think that's reckless. It's intentional.  If there was some sort of accidental discharge that somehow hit him, that would seem to be reckless 

[cattail 112]

Even we agree it was a reasonable mistake. I can not justify the actions afterward. “know your target and what is behind it”. Firearms 101. I mean it’s an apartment complex. What if Jean happened to be a maintenance man who had gone in to shut off a leaky pipe or something. First instinct to blast just doesn’t hold up IMHO

[Gene Parmesan 3993]

16 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

1 is open for debate on reasonableness of mistake. Agree somewhat on 2, however even a random person can't just blast someone dead even in your own home without reasonably fearing serious bodily injury or death. She should be held to a higher standard due to experience and training though, agreed.

Does not the mere presences of an intruder in your home constitute reasonable fear of bodily harm.  Does the intruder have to actually make a move towards you?

[Vic Mackey 46936]

2 minutes ago, cattail said:

Even we agree it was a reasonable mistake. I can not justify the actions afterward. “know your target and what is behind it”. Firearms 101. I mean it’s an apartment complex. What if Jean happened to be a maintenance man who had gone in to shut off a leaky pipe or something. First instinct to blast just doesn’t hold up IMHO

Good point. Didn't think of that aspect of some type of worker being in there for whatever reason. Although I doubt a worker would be sitting on the couch eating ice cream. Then again, neither would an intruder. 

[SameSame 1692]

9 minutes ago, po elvis said:

Imagine you are awakened at night and see a guy in your house that you believe to be a burglar. You don't know if he has a gun or not. You assume he is dangerous because he broke into your house. You want to protect your family. You shoot him. Turns out your daughter snuck in her boyfriend. Your fear and adrenaline made you shoot him. Was it reckless?

How it relates to this case, you can argue how she got to and inside the apartment was reckless (though I do agree those mistakes were her reality at the time), but once she pulled her weapon, aimed center mass and fired two shots, it was intentional.  She meant to shoot him in the chest and she did.

[TXSooner518 2432]

2 minutes ago, Gene Parmesan said:

Does not the mere presences of an intruder in your home constitute reasonable fear of bodily harm.  Does the intruder have to actually make a move towards you?

Deadly force is authorized if you know or have reason to believe they entered your house illegally and with force. The exact circumstances would dictate if you "had reason to believe" that. For example, if someone walks in your unlocked front door, you wouldn't immediately have the right to use deadly force. But you would have the right to immediately use force.

[hookem17 485]

Interesting demonstration on the entry angle of the bullet right now. Makes it clear that Jean was not standing upright when shot. Could have been laying down, bent over, or kneeling. 

[HOOKEM4 5023]

Or lunging at that frail terrified woman in the darkness, armed to the teeth with the most advanced of weapons at the ready to maul her poor defenseless body to death.

Edited September 25, 2019 by HOOKEM4

[Huckleberry 32703]

17 hours ago, bigup2dahorns said:

 

Doesn’t make it false. It’s a real thing happening. The prosecution already put on testimony that Jean frequently smoked weed. He’s the only one in a big apartment complex?

 

Does Guyger smoke weed? Because the previous poster's point still stands if she doesn't. Her apartment would smell different.

I mean it's not like it's a case-clinching argument, but the smell of weed in a hallway is nothing at all like the smell in an apartment where weed is frequently smoked.

[TXSooner518 2432]

1 minute ago, hookem17 said:

Interesting demonstration on the entry angle of the bullet right now. Makes it clear that Jean was not standing upright when shot. Could have been laying down, bent over, or kneeling. 

Yeah combo of this plus the location of the couch in the apartment seems really bad for her.

[RPM 26229]

14 minutes ago, Gene Parmesan said:

Does not the mere presences of an intruder in your home constitute reasonable fear of bodily harm.  Does the intruder have to actually make a move towards you?

She was the intruder.

[Vic Mackey 46936]

18 minutes ago, po elvis said:

Imagine you are awakened at night and see a guy in your house that you believe to be a burglar. You don't know if he has a gun or not. You assume he is dangerous because he broke into your house. You want to protect your family. You shoot him. Turns out your daughter snuck in her boyfriend. Your fear and adrenaline made you shoot him. Was it reckless?

That is a different scenario entirely. You are already in your own home. She wasn't. She thought she was by her own lack of awareness but she wasn't. Your scenario is you for a fact in your own home and can prove you were defending it without needing an attorney or witnesses pleading your case for you. Now I do think just firing a gun in a dark house at someone you have not identified at all can be wreckless, yes.

There has to be consequences for these actions. Lack of awareness and being careless is not an excuse. Just as being intoxicated or high is not an excuse for committing a crime.

That's like saying I have a real generic car. I parked on the 2nd level of the business but go to the 3rd floor. There is an exact same style of car of mine there. There is a person inside and the door happened to be unlocked. They were either ready to drive off or get out. I think the car is mine without really assessing the entire situation and pull out my gun and kill the person. Only then I realize the car was not actually mine and I am not on the right floor of the parking garage. That is the exact same scenario that happened here. No one should be shot and killed inside their own home/car by a careless person and they damn sure should not walk free because their argument is they were too stupid and careless to realize they were in the wrong place.

[Gene Parmesan 3993]

2 minutes ago, RPM said:

She was the intruder.

I know.  My post was in response to someone saying deadly forced isn't authorized even if it's your home.  That a threat of bodily harm has to be present.  It was a sidebar question.