Murder trial of former Dallas officer pauses until Monday

[TurtleDude]

Re: Dallas ex-cop Amber Guyger convicted of murder in neighr's shooting

I think the verdict is spot on. Her life wasnt in danger and she just opened fire.

Hard to say, Murder GENERALLY requires a bit more. but I don't know all the facts. but based on what I do know-I'd say the mens rea for murder might be a bit thin. Of course, most of the people posting on this are experienced criminal defense attorneys or felony level prosecutors, so I am sure they know best

 

[Felis Leo]

Re: Dallas ex-cop Amber Guyger convicted of murder in neighr's shooting

Murder means she deliberately meant to murder that man. Manslaughter is when a person is wrongfully killed recklessly or carelessly, which seems the case here.

Well, under Texas Law, a person commits murder if he or she "intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual." She apparently stated in testimony that she shot Botham Jean with the intent to kill him. She did not have an adequate defense as to why she walked into the man's home thinking that it was hers. I realize you brought up the fact that she claimed she believed that the apartment was hers. I do not find that this was in any way a reasonable defense. How on Earth could she not tell it was not her place the second she opened the door? Especially since it was on the wrong floor? It isn't as though she stepped into the apartment right next door. It was literally one flight of stairs above her own place. To my limited knowledge of Texas criminal law, having one's head up one's ass or being too tired is not adequate mitigating defense for firing upon someone in their own home with the intention of ending their life. And if it is, her defense attorney did not raise it.

The moment you draw your gun with the intent to shoot your target, you had better be damn sure of the circumstances under which you are firing your weapon. There are no do-overs. There is no "but I was really tired. Can't I have a Mulligan?" defense. There is no "Ohhh...ha ha ha...eeeeesh...my bad. I thought this was MY apartment" defense. She robbed a man of his life and stole him away from his family intentionally under unreasonable and unjustifiable circumstances. She is a murderer, both in the eyes of the law and in reality, plain and simple. Society is better off with people like her behind bars.

 

[Felis Leo]

Re: Dallas ex-cop Amber Guyger convicted of murder in neighr's shooting

Hard to say, Murder GENERALLY requires a bit more. but I don't know all the facts. but based on what I do know-I'd say the mens rea for murder might be a bit thin. Of course, most of the people posting on this are experienced criminal defense attorneys or felony level prosecutors, so I am sure they know best

Well, it appears that Texas's penal code has a very low bar for mens rea, with intent to cause death being the only requirement to prove murder. No lengthy premeditation required. I personally think it is very sensible. For all the sneers people make towards Texas's relatively lax gun laws, the laws of Texas take the ending of life damn seriously. As they should.

 

[SMTA]

Re: Dallas ex-cop Amber Guyger convicted of murder in neighr's shooting

Well, it appears that Texas's penal code has a very low bar for mens rea, with intent to cause death being the only requirement to prove murder. No lengthy premeditation required. I personally think it is very sensible. For all the sneers people make towards Texas's relatively lax gun laws, the laws of Texas take the ending of life damn seriously. As they should.

Shame on you using common sense and logic based on the actual Texas law.
Nicely done.

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: Dallas ex-cop Amber Guyger convicted of murder in neighr's shooting

What details made this murder?

Maybe that her claims of verbal commands to the dead man could not be corroborated? The jury thought she lied?

 

[AmNat]

Re: Dallas ex-cop Amber Guyger convicted of murder in neighr's shooting

A former Dallas police officer who fatally shot a black neighbor she mistook for an intruder was convicted of murder Tuesday and could face life in prison.
Amber Guyger, who is white, had testified that she was exhausted from an extended shift when she walked into the apartment of Botham Jean thinking it was her own. Guyger, 31, said she believed Jean, 26, was a burglar and shot him in self-defense.
Amber Guyger verdict: Jury finds ex-Dallas officer guilty of murder

Manslaughter seemed more appropriate.

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 19. CRIMINAL HOMICIDE

Texas's homicide law seems to indicate that the issue of "passion provocation" is handled at sentencing, so that issue may yet to be decided.

Though this line:

"Guyger’s defense lawyers may argue that she deserves a light sentence because she acted out of sudden fear and confusion. However, their case might become harder to make after prosecutors in the afternoon session showed the jury text messages from Guyger's cellphone that hint at insensitivity toward black people."

makes me think this'll be another "manslaughter while racist" case like Fields'.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Re: Dallas ex-cop Amber Guyger convicted of murder in neighr's shooting

A thread on this trial already exists in this Law Forum here.....

Murder trial of former Dallas officer pauses until Monday

 

[joko104]

Re: Dallas ex-cop Amber Guyger convicted of murder in neighr's shooting

Which law are you reading???? I’m looking at the Texas Penal Code, Title 2, chapter 9 SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


Your interpretation doesn’t seem to match the actual law.

WRONG STATUTE:

It is this one:
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/80R/billtext/pdf/SB00378F.pdf#navpanes=0

It says that if someone is in your home illegally, you can "PRESUME" the person is intent to harm you and use deadly force in self defense. Because her key unlocked both locks on the door, it was 100% reasonable to believe she was in her apartment and a BIG man could - by law - be "presumed" to be a deadly threat and shot.

The statute you quote refers to protecting property, not yourself.

The jury - nearly all black women - had to decide whether to go against Black Lives Matters who were chanting outside the courthouse and promising riots - plus elected officials on TV (Democrats) ranting she is guilty - OR acquit the WHITE COP - risking retaliation against those jurors as traitors to their race and the destruction of race riots.

She was set up for conviction from the start by leaving the case in Dallas County. In real terms, the verdict is a death sentence. To be merciful, they should give her some rope, a ladder and put a hook in the ceiling of her cell so her execution would at least be humane.

ONLY TRULY STUPID COPS stay on the force in any city controlled by Democrats. Only extra stupid people would apply for the job of police officer in any Democratic controlled jurisdiction, particularly any white person.

 

[Rogue Valley]

The sentencing phase has now gone to the jury. Guyger is not eligible for probation.

The prosecution is asking for 28 years, the age of the deceased. The defense naturally is seeking leniency.

It came out in the sentencing testimony that Guyger has posted racist remarks on Pinterest and in text messages with her tryst lover and currently married police partner, Officer Martin Rivera.

She also wondered why citizens never thanked her for having the patience to not kill them. All of this material is in the jury's possession.

 

[Redress]

Re: Dallas ex-cop Amber Guyger convicted of murder in neighr's shooting

Moderator's Warning:

Threads Merged.

 

[pinqy]

Re: Dallas ex-cop Amber Guyger convicted of murder in neighr's shooting

WRONG STATUTE:

It is this one:
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/80R/billtext/pdf/SB00378F.pdf#navpanes=0

It says that if someone is in your home illegally, you can "PRESUME" the person is intent to harm you and use deadly force in self defense.
The statute you quote refers to protecting property, not yourself.

And you cited the proposed bill, not the final statute PENAL CODE CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
So let’s look and bold the relevant parts:


Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

Because her key unlocked both locks on the door, it was 100% reasonable to believe she was in her apartment and a BIG man could - by law - be "presumed" to be a deadly threat and shot.

Except the door was unlocked. She attempted to put her key in the door and realized it was unlocked. So she could NOT reasonably believe he entered with force, there was no evidence he was vomiting a crime (he was sitting on the couch with the tv on) and he made no provocation. So none of the factors fit, and she had the ability to call for backup before engaging.

She was set up for conviction from the start by leaving the case in Dallas County. In real terms, the verdict is a death sentence. To be merciful, they should give her some rope, a ladder and put a hook in the ceiling of her cell so her execution would at least be humane.

Texas law does not recognize voluntary manslaughter. She was not criminally negligent (crime of criminally negligent homicides) nor was she reckless (manslaughter) as both of those require lack of intent.
It did not rise to the level of capital murder, so murder is the only charge applicable.

She was not in her own property...she was trespassing, and self defense does not apply.
Her only defense was a mistake of fact...that she reasonably believed she was in her own apartment...and also that she reasonably believed she was in immediate danger and deadly force was the best response. She failed to support that in her testimony.

And note that my posts do not need to mention race or political affiliation to be true.

 

[SMTA]

Re: Dallas ex-cop Amber Guyger convicted of murder in neighr's shooting

WRONG STATUTE:

It is this one:
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/80R/billtext/pdf/SB00378F.pdf#navpanes=0

It says that if someone is in your home illegally, you can "PRESUME" the person is intent to harm you and use deadly force in self defense. Because her key unlocked both locks on the door, it was 100% reasonable to believe she was in her apartment and a BIG man could - by law - be "presumed" to be a deadly threat and shot.

The statute you quote refers to protecting property, not yourself.

The jury - nearly all black women - had to decide whether to go against Black Lives Matters who were chanting outside the courthouse and promising riots - plus elected officials on TV (Democrats) ranting she is guilty - OR acquit the WHITE COP - risking retaliation against those jurors as traitors to their race and the destruction of race riots.

She was set up for conviction from the start by leaving the case in Dallas County. In real terms, the verdict is a death sentence. To be merciful, they should give her some rope, a ladder and put a hook in the ceiling of her cell so her execution would at least be humane.

ONLY TRULY STUPID COPS stay on the force in any city controlled by Democrats. Only extra stupid people would apply for the job of police officer in any Democratic controlled jurisdiction, particularly any white person.

As usual, you post garbage without facts.
Jean’s door was slightly ajar, therefor no key was required to open it.
Your jury commented are partisan opinion devoid of fact.
Your ridiculous comment about Dallas Country is also without merit.
The only truthful application of ‘extra stupid’ applies to your posted comments here.
Learn to educate yourself prior to posting.

 

[joko104]

Re: Dallas ex-cop Amber Guyger convicted of murder in neighr's shooting

And you cited the proposed bill, not the final statute PENAL CODE CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
So let’s look and bold the relevant parts:


Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;



Except the door was unlocked. She attempted to put her key in the door and realized it was unlocked. So she could NOT reasonably believe he entered with force, there was no evidence he was vomiting a crime (he was sitting on the couch with the tv on) and he made no provocation. So none of the factors fit, and she had the ability to call for backup before engaging.



Texas law does not recognize voluntary manslaughter. She was not criminally negligent (crime of criminally negligent homicides) nor was she reckless (manslaughter) as both of those require lack of intent.
It did not rise to the level of capital murder, so murder is the only charge applicable.

She was not in her own property...she was trespassing, and self defense does not apply.
Her only defense was a mistake of fact...that she reasonably believed she was in her own apartment...and also that she reasonably believed she was in immediate danger and deadly force was the best response. She failed to support that in her testimony.

And note that my posts do not need to mention race or political affiliation to be true.

(1)(A) applies. While it was not her residence by mistake, there is no such thing as innocently committing a crime. The question is not whether it was her residence, but whether she believed it was a residence. It is the principle of culpability.

Here's an example: A person pulls a gun on a young woman, ordering her to get into his car. But instead she fights, pulls a knife out of her purse stabbing and killing the man. Turns out it was a toy gun. Does it matter? No. What matters is whether that woman believed it was a gun.

A person, 100 feet away, swings around with a toy AK47 at police, and the shoot and kill him. What matters? You claim it is just facts - and in FACT there was no need for the police to have shot. Thus, in your opinion those police are murderers. But in law, the question is was it reasonable for the police to think it was a gun and think they were in danger.

This was a young woman. She walked into what she believed was her apartment because she got in with her key and a huge man came at her. What is a reasonable defense for such a woman to put up. In your opinion, apparently none.

The question is whether she believed she was in her apartment, not whether she was or not.

 

[Grand Mal]

Re: Dallas ex-cop Amber Guyger convicted of murder in neighr's shooting

Murder means she deliberately meant to murder that man. Manslaughter is when a person is wrongfully killed recklessly or carelessly, which seems the case here.

Did she shoot to kill? If yes then it was deliberate. Might not be premeditated but still murder.

 

[Aristaeus]

Re: Dallas ex-cop Amber Guyger convicted of murder in neighr's shooting

Victims brother hugs her in court, forgives her, and says she shouldn't go to jail.

 

[pinqy]

Re: Dallas ex-cop Amber Guyger convicted of murder in neighr's shooting

(1)(A) applies. While it was not her residence by mistake, there is no such thing as innocently committing a crime. The question is not whether it was her residence, but whether she believed it was a residence. It is the principle of culpability.

1A unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

There was zero evidence he entered with force, so 1A cannot apply.

Here's an example: A person pulls a gun on a young woman, ordering her to get into his car. But instead she fights, pulls a knife out of her purse stabbing and killing the man. Turns out it was a toy gun. Does it matter? No. What matters is whether that woman believed it was a gun.

In this case assault was committed, it was reasonably believed he had a weapon, so self defense with deadly force is perfectly reasonable.

A person, 100 feet away, swings around with a toy AK47 at police, and the shoot and kill him. What matters? You claim it is just facts - and in FACT there was no need for the police to have shot. Thus, in your opinion those police are murderers. But in law, the question is was it reasonable for the police to think it was a gun and think they were in danger.

No that is not my opinion. For this case it would depend on the exact circumstances as to whether the cops thought it was only a threat or an immediate act of violence. But in any case, reasonable belief of a clear threat.

In both your examples the individuals are approached and assured/threatened by the other.

This was a young woman.

You mean “trained professional law enforcement officer.”

She walked into what she believed was her apartment because she got in with her key

You have been corrected on that more than once. She saw the door unlocked on what she believed was her apartment, despite multiple indications it was not.

and a huge man came at her.

You mean a large man was sitting on the couch eating ice cream, watching tv, and reacted in a startled manner that a stranger was in his apartment.

She did not testify that he came at her.

What is a reasonable defense for such a woman to put up. In your opinion, apparently none.

There was nothing to defend against. He didn’t attack her, and he did not have or even appear to have a weapon. It was not reasonable to believe deadly force was necessary.

The question is whether she believed she was in her apartment, not whether she was or not.

The requirements for deadly force were not met: there was no sign of force, or crime, and she was not attacked.

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: Dallas ex-cop Amber Guyger convicted of murder in neighr's shooting

Victims brother hugs her in court, forgives her, and says she shouldn't go to jail.

The brother did the Christian thing, and that's good.

10 years will be plenty of punishment for the woman.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Re: Dallas ex-cop Amber Guyger convicted of murder in neighr's shooting

In this thread we seem to be arguing two things, but both within the confines of opinions that seem more political than legal.

With the 10 year sentence, there was legal reason for it even though it is easy to argue the jury chose a punishment on the lower end of the huge range of 5 years to 99 years under Texas law. The good news is the jurors rejected the "sudden passion" defense, under Texas law the concept of "immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause" or the heat of the moment defense did not apply here.

And that speaks to what some of you are talking about.

The jury already rejected the defense position that this was all an "accident," which means they did not seem to respond well to just the notion of "she believes she was in her apartment, and in fear for her life." In that instance the requirements for deadly force were not met at all. We have no sign of a crime, no sign of threat to the officer, and no real evidence to support that a shot needed to be fired at all.

Her age and size, her experience as an officer, her activities that day leading up to all this are entirely irrelevant.

She was a trained and licensed (in the Texas law sense) law enforcement officer who went to the wrong apartment despite multiple indications of where she was, drew a weapon, then shot and killed someone who was sitting in his own apartment, startled, eating ice cream, and watching TV.

We have no real evidence offered at trial that there was cause for Guyger to be aggressive, there was no evidence that her life was ever in danger.

10 years was a light sentence, it could have been 99 years, and if I were on that jury I would have pushed for something more in the 20-30 range given what we know on the reporting of that trial.

The only bright spot in that entire trail was the victim's brother Brandt Jean, who seemed to be having the hardest time with the loss of his brother Botham Jean according to the family.

Being a very rare example of a Christian truly being a Christian and loving his enemy, he forgave and embraced Guyger in perhaps one of the most human moments I can recall happening inside of a courtroom.

But even that does not change the fact that the evidence in this case supports the verdict of Murder, and the sentence was a gift all things considered.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Re: Dallas ex-cop Amber Guyger convicted of murder in neighr's shooting

I had thought a sentence of 12 years. She received 10 years with parole possible after serving 5 years.

IMO she got off light. I wonder what facility she will be assigned to.

 

[trouble13]

Re: Dallas ex-cop Amber Guyger convicted of murder in neighr's shooting

She had reason to believe it was her apartment because her key opened the door lock. The apartment was dark and a strange man was in it.

That her key operated the door locks seems THE most relevant factor, 100% reason to believe it was her apartment, and it would be interesting to explore WHY the door locks operated with her key. Seems like a mega lawsuit against the apartment complex - but I guess the jury decided she should have daily checked to see if her key worked in any other apartments in the complex or some other twisted theory of responsibility.

By reading of this she was found guilty of being white and a police officer, with black jurors walking past protesters shouting "black lives matter" plus seeing in on TV and threatening riots is she is found not guilty.

The case should NEVER have been tried in Dallas County with public threats of riots if she is found not guilty.

I do not think her key did turn the lock. I believe the door was slightly ajar and she heard noises coming from inside. Thats the point where she makes a series of very bad choices.

Rather than call in for assistance with a robbery in progress she drew her weapon and went in alone. She then confronts the man in the apartment and shoots him with the intent to kill him which is how poice are trained to shoot.

I can understand how a jury would come back with a murder verdict. She made a series of conscious choices to esculate the situation and to finally pull the trigger.

Technically speaking she was the person who was acting unlawfully. She was in fact in that apartment illegally. Her sentence may of been a bit harsh but i dont think it was unfair.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

Re: Dallas ex-cop Amber Guyger convicted of murder in neighr's shooting

My understanding is that although she says she told him to put his hands up, no one else heard her say that, and he was unarmed and sitting down on the couch with the television on. That’s hard to sell as a her shooting in (mistaken) self-defense. She was in uniform and had her radio on but did not call in that she thought her apartment had been broken in.

I certainly have not heard all the details, but it seems the jury didn’t see it as self-defense even if it had been her own apartment. The Castle doctrine still requires reasonable belief that deadly force is immediately necessary. From the circumstances I can see how a jury could decide it was not reasonable of her to think it immediately necessary. That makes it not self defense or defense of property, but murder.

You bring up and odd part of the case. She claims he lunged at her and thats why she shot him and the prosecution claims he never got off the couch. Both things cant be true and i would think forensic science could demostrate which was more likely.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

Re: Dallas ex-cop Amber Guyger convicted of murder in neighr's shooting

Cop in prison? White cop found guilty of deliberately going into the wrong apartment for the purpose of murdering a black man? I doubt the prison time matters because in real terms it will be a death sentence.

What bothers me the most is that this woman was a cop. Her instinct to shoot first should of disqualified her to be on the force.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk