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

[pondwater]

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.

I didn't know that. I retract my earlier statement, haha.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

You are wrong. It says inside your home the use of deadly force is presumed reasonable.

That is exactly what I said.  It is presumed that deadly force is reasonable.  This shifts the burden to the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your use of deadly force was unreasonable.  If it occurs outside your home the defendant has the burden to prove that the use of deadly force was reasonable under the circumstances.

[Phishfan]

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.

You said that the law was clear. It is  clear, use of  deadly force is presumed justified.  If you meant her work policy is clear that is another subject and I am fuzzy if that would trump the castle doctrine when off duty.

[Phishfan]

That is exactly what I said.  It is presumed that deadly force is reasonable.  This shifts the burden to the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your use of deadly force was unreasonable.  If it occurs outside your home the defendant has the burden to prove that the use of deadly force was reasonable under the circumstances.

I was in the process of changing that post. I misread and posted quickly.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

You said that the law was clear. It is  clear, use of  deadly force is presumed justified.  If you meant her work policy is clear that is another subject and I am fuzzy if that would trump the castle doctrine when off duty.

The law also says you are presumed innocent.  That is the starting point, everyone is innocent unless there is sufficient evidence to say beyond a reasonable doubt they are guilty.

Under the Castle doctrine it is presumed that you acted reasonable in using deadly force against an intruder.  

The jury either rejected the castle defense in its entirety because it wasn’t her home or decided her actions were unreasonable even if it had been her apartment or maybe both.  

If I had been on the jury I would have rejected the castle doctrine for the latter reason.  Spider would have rejected it for the former reason.  

[Spider-Dan]

The conviction for murder means she intended to kill the person she shot at, that's murder (not manslaughter) under Texas law.

Incorrect.  Guyger has maintained from the beginning that she intentionally (i.e. not accidentally) shot him, and she was initially charged with manslaughter, not murder; if what you are saying were true, her admission to intentionally shooting him would make manslaughter an impossible charge.  ("I intentionally shot him but didn't mean for him to die" is not a valid defense in a homicide case, so she couldn't have been making that argument, either.)

However, if the jury believed that she really thought she was in her own apartment, then she "recklessly caused the death of another person" with her mistake, which would result in a conviction for manslaughter.

I find it rather bizarre that you guys are still making excuses for this scumbag, who killed an innocent man in his own home, after she was just convicted of murder.  The jury convicted her almost immediately.  Stop trying to pretend that her transparent lie of an excuse earns her sympathy.  She's yet another cop who thinks they can just kill people for no reason; she's just dumber than most of them.

[pondwater]

Incorrect.  Guyger has maintained from the beginning that she intentionally (i.e. not accidentally) shot him, and she was initially charged with manslaughter, not murder; if what you are saying were true, her admission to intentionally shooting him would make manslaughter an impossible charge.  ("I intentionally shot him but didn't mean for him to die" is not a valid defense in a homicide case, so she couldn't have been making that argument, either.)

However, if the jury believed that she really thought she was in her own apartment, then she "recklessly caused the death of another person" with her mistake, which would result in a conviction for manslaughter.

I find it rather bizarre that you guys are still making excuses for this scumbag, who killed an innocent man in his own home, after she was just convicted of murder.  The jury convicted her almost immediately.  Stop trying to pretend that her transparent lie of an excuse earns her sympathy.  She's yet another cop who thinks they can just kill people for no reason; she's just dumber than most of them.

So just to be clear, is it your opinion that she purposely went to his apartment instead of hers just to shoot and kill him?

[Spider-Dan]

Yes.

If I understand correctly, it just so happens that the guy she killed was in the apartment directly above hers.  But I'm sure she had no outstanding beef with the tenant above her, as that would be exceedingly unusual.  Especially at night.

Her frequent, transparently ridiculous lies offered as excuses reinforce my belief that she is a cold-blooded killer, not someone who made a terrible mistake.

[masterfins]

Incorrect.  Guyger has maintained from the beginning that she intentionally (i.e. not accidentally) shot him, and she was initially charged with manslaughter, not murder; if what you are saying were true, her admission to intentionally shooting him would make manslaughter an impossible charge.  ("I intentionally shot him but didn't mean for him to die" is not a valid defense in a homicide case, so she couldn't have been making that argument, either.)

However, if the jury believed that she really thought she was in her own apartment, then she "recklessly caused the death of another person" with her mistake, which would result in a conviction for manslaughter.

I find it rather bizarre that you guys are still making excuses for this scumbag, who killed an innocent man in his own home, after she was just convicted of murder.  The jury convicted her almost immediately.  Stop trying to pretend that her transparent lie of an excuse earns her sympathy.  She's yet another cop who thinks they can just kill people for no reason; she's just dumber than most of them.

#1 I'm not incorrect.  It's not up to Amber Guyger to determine what she is charged with, that's the prosecutors job.  Your argument is with the prosecutors office not me, as to why manslaughter was included as a possible charge.

#2 If the jury wrongly (IMO) thought the Castle Doctrine applied then it possibly could be manslaughter, or she could have possibly been found innocent.

#3 I'm not making excuses for her, from the beginning I thought she was guilty of some crime, and should be held accountable.  But, unlike you I don't think she purposely went to the wrong door, that just happened not to completely close, and purposely entered so she could murder any possible occupants.

[stinkfish]

I just read on Fox News that the main witness against the Dallas cop has been shot and killed. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I just read on Fox News that the main witness against the Dallas cop has been shot and killed. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Texas.

[stinkfish]

 

[Spider-Dan]

#1 I'm not incorrect.  It's not up to Amber Guyger to determine what she is charged with, that's the prosecutors job.  Your argument is with the prosecutors office not me, as to why manslaughter was included as a possible charge.

I am saying that your interpretation of Texas law is incorrect.

The prosecutor ostensibly understands how the law works, and if your interpretation of the law - that intentionally shooting him is defined as murder - were correct, the fact that she has stated from the beginning that she intentionally shot him would have made a manslaughter charge impossible.  And I'm not only talking about the prosecutor; the jury was also instructed that manslaughter was an option, but that wouldn't have happened if killing someone with an intentional gunshot were defined as murder as you claim.  No one, not even Guyger, disputes that she shot him on purpose.

#2 If the jury wrongly (IMO) thought the Castle Doctrine applied then it possibly could be manslaughter, or she could have possibly been found innocent.

According to the definition you gave earlier ("she intended to kill the person she shot at"), even if it actually was her home and she admitted to shooting him intentionally, it could not be manslaughter and would have to be either "murder" or "not guilty."  Your interpretation of manslaughter is wrong.

They convicted her of murder because they did not buy her story.

#3 I'm not making excuses for her, from the beginning I thought she was guilty of some crime, and should be held accountable.  But, unlike you I don't think she purposely went to the wrong door, that just happened not to completely close, and purposely entered so she could murder any possible occupants.

I think that she went upstairs to straighten out the guy making noise in the apartment directly above her when she was trying to sleep after a long shift, and things got out of hand is the least implausible explanation.  "I went into the wrong apartment because I parked somewhere different today, I have multiple contradictory explanations for how I got in the automatically-locking and self-closing door, I shot the guy who was there, then I had to go outside and look at the apartment number to realize it wasn't my own place" is insultingly stupid.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

You testify against the mob, this is what happens. 

[Spider-Dan]

Let me add that I do think there is another possibility, though I think it's less likely than the "angry neighbor" explanation:

Guyger went to the wrong apartment which, against all odds, happened to be ajar.  She went in, noticed a guy and immediately shot him in the dark.  When she turned on the lights, she instantly realized that she was in the wrong apartment and that she was very likely to get fired, if not imprisoned.  And so instead of trying to save his life, she started working on lies to improve her story... acting on the phone with 911 like she just discovered she's not in her own apartment, figuring out what's the "best" story for her to have entered the apartment, etc.  (You know, the standard stuff police do when they have unjustly brutalized a civilian.)  Unfortunately for her, she was really dumb about it and her story was not credible.

Ironically, had she went with the "angry neighbor" story, she would almost certainly be a free woman today and have kept her job.