Dallas police officer enters man's apartment and shoots him (split from anthem thread)

[Pappy13]

She probably won't live long enough to see her parole hearing.   If there's one group of people that gets targeted for violence more often in prisons than child molesters, it's former police officers.

Well as Hoodie already alluded to she's probably not going to a maximum security prison. She's going to sent to a non violent offenders prison. She's gonna be pretty safe there.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Well as Hoodie already alluded to she's probably not going to a maximum security prison. She's going to sent to a non violent offenders prison. She's gonna be pretty safe there.

The crime was MURDER!  She belongs in a max security prison, not in prison with non-violent offenders. 

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

The more I think about it, the more I conclude that her thinking it was her own apartment is totally IRRELEVANT!!!

Let us assume for a moment, it was her apartment.  Let us assume for a moment there was an actual intruder.  Let us assume she arrives at her own apartment and before entering realizes that someone is burglarizing her apartment.   

The law is clear on what to do in this case.  Don't enter.  Take cover.  Call for backup.  Even if it had been her own apartment it what she did was vigilante murder.  You are not allowed to kill someone to prevent theft of property. 

Of course, had it been an act of vigilante murder she would never have been charged.   And that is a problem. 

 

 

[Pappy13]

The crime was MURDER!  She belongs in a max security prison, not in prison with non-violent offenders. 

On the other hand she's an ex-cop. You can't ignore one fact while focusing on the other solely. Whether or not she deserves to be in a max security prison doesn't change the fact that putting her there may not be prudent.

[BuccaneerBrad]

The crime was MURDER!  She belongs in a max security prison, not in prison with non-violent offenders. 

Agreed because what she did was a violent crime. 

On the other hand she's an ex-cop. You can't ignore one fact while focusing on the other solely. Whether or not she deserves to be in a max security prison doesn't change the fact that putting her there may not be prudent.

She still won't be safe.   Non-violent doesn't mean they all behave.   Jared the Subway guy is in a supposedly non-violent federal prison and he's gotten a beat down several times.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Ten years for murdering a man in his own home.

Ninety nine years for kicking a cop.

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/state/texas/article235518312.html

Definitely fair.

[CF DolFan]

Ten years for murdering a man in his own home.

Ninety nine years for kicking a cop.

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/state/texas/article235518312.html

Definitely fair.

These stories that seem crazy almost always have more to it but its fun to pretend they are telling it all. It would be interesting to see what these records actually entail.

Mills had previously gone to prison for drug offenses, burglary, aggravated assault on a public servant and driving while intoxicated, the Herald Democrat reported. Prosecutors say this was Mills’ fifth offense of driving while intoxicated.

With that said ... I thought she may have gotten more although I didn't follow the trial. It was amazing to see how the brother responded.  Crazy how God can heal a person in the worst of times.

[Spider-Dan]

Former law enforcement does not go into prison general population, so even if she was in a maximum security "violent offender" prison, she would have a much easier time than most.  Her biggest problem will likely be loneliness, as I don't imagine there are many female former cops convicted of violent crimes to keep her company.

I think this was a fair sentence.  IMO it wasn't done maliciously, but was rather a series of events that had any one not happened this murder would not have occurred.

The conviction for the crime of "murder" means a jury determined that it was malicious.  She did not kill him by accident.

In other words, the jury did not buy her obviously, laughably BS story that she believed she was in her own apartment.  If they had, she would have gotten manslaughter.

[Dave Gray]

Ten years for murdering a man in his own home.

Ninety nine years for kicking a cop.

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/state/texas/article235518312.html

Definitely fair.

You really can't do this.  It's not fair and it's not healthy.

Sure, there are stupid cases where people are over-prosecuted or under-prosecuted.  But we should want what is just in each case, independent of some other bad ruling.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

In other words, the jury did not buy her obviously, laughably BS story that she believed she was in her own apartment.  If they had, she would have gotten manslaughter.

Maybe or maybe they concluded as I have, even if it had been her own apartment what she did was vigilante murder. 

Based o what I have learned from trial accounts, I believe she sincerely believed that she was at her own apartment and that she was being a victim of burglary.  She choose rather than call for backup and arrest the thief to execute him instead.

[pondwater]

In other words, the jury did not buy her obviously, laughably BS story that she believed she was in her own apartment.  If they had, she would have gotten manslaughter.

The jury also only gave her 10 years for murder. And the jury was composed of mostly minorities. Therefore, my conclusion is that they did buy her story. The public pressure and backlash forced their hand to convict on murder over manslaughter. However, they made up for it with the lighter sentence.

[Spider-Dan]

So if the jury didn't believe her story, what crime do you think they would have convicted her of?

It's entirely possible that they gave her a light sentence for murder because she is a young woman who was crying a lot.

[Phishfan]

The more I think about it, the more I conclude that her thinking it was her own apartment is totally IRRELEVANT!!!

Let us assume for a moment, it was her apartment.  Let us assume for a moment there was an actual intruder.  Let us assume she arrives at her own apartment and before entering realizes that someone is burglarizing her apartment.   

The law is clear on what to do in this case.  Don't enter.  Take cover.  Call for backup.  Even if it had been her own apartment it what she did was vigilante murder.  You are not allowed to kill someone to prevent theft of property. 

Of course, had it been an act of vigilante murder she would never have been charged.   And that is a problem. 

 

 

I'm not exactly sure you are correct. In Texas the castle doctrine doesn't require any of that.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I'm not exactly sure you are correct. In Texas the castle doctrine doesn't require any of that.

The Texas castle doctrine is NOT an absolute right to kill any and all intruders.  It creates a presumption that if you kill some in your own home that you acted reasonable and in self defense.  It shifts the burden from the defendant to prove self-defense to the prosecution to disprove that it was not self-defense.  For example if you were to come home and saw your next door neighbors 12 year-old kid had broken into your house to play with your XBox for the 6th time this month and rather than call him mom you shot him and asserted the castle doctrine.  The prosecutor would have to prove you knew he wasn’t a threat and therefore you acted unreasonable.  And the prosecutor would have little trouble doing that.  The castle doctrine only creates a presumption. 

Here is where being a cop may have hurt her.  There is a very specific procedure she was trained to follow in this situation.  She didn’t follow it.  A regular person might have been able to assert a credible “i was scared and had no idea what to do” defense.  She was trained in what to do and ignored her training.

[masterfins]

The conviction for the crime of "murder" means a jury determined that it was malicious.  She did not kill him by accident.

In other words, the jury did not buy her obviously, laughably BS story that she believed she was in her own apartment.  If they had, she would have gotten manslaughter.

Well, not exactly.  The conviction for murder means she intended to kill the person she shot at, that's murder (not manslaughter) under Texas law.  She testified that when she shot the victim she intended to kill him, so actually the jury did believe her story, that's why she was found guilty of murder.

The jury then took into account all the circumstances in the case and sentenced her to ten years, which is in the range available for someone convicted of murder.  There is a reason there is a range of sentances, if you don't agree with it fine; but a racially balanced jury that listened to all the testimony found it to be the right sentence.

I think a big problem with people complaining over the sentence is that they wanted Amber Guyger to pay for killings that were done by other police officers who were never tried or convicted for their deeds.  IMO the jury rightly did not do that.