Posted on 09/11/2018 2:21:41 PM PDT by billorites
Amber Guyger’s killing of Botham Shem Jean is an unspeakable tragedy. It also highlights the need for officers like Guyger to face impartial justice.
It is hard to think of a more tragic, more senseless shooting in America than the killing last week of Botham Shem Jean, a young black risk-assurance associate at PricewaterhouseCoopers, and a member of Dallas West Church of Christ.
This is what we know so far. Jean was home alone in his apartment in the South Side Flats complexin Dallas when police officer Amber Guyger entered and shot him dead. The precise chain of events is somewhat disputed. The affidavit supporting Guyger’s arrest warrant states that she believed she was entering her own apartment, which was directly below Jean’s and laid out almost identically. When she placed her key in the lock, the door pushed open, the apartment was dark, she saw a “large silhouette” across the room, and she believed she was facing a burglar. She “drew her firearm” and “gave verbal commands,” which she claims Jean ignored. She fired twice, and only then, she says, entered the apartment, called 911, turned on the lights, and realized she’d made a terrible mistake.
These statements, however, don’t square with other testimony. One witness reported hearing a woman yelling, “Let me in! Let me in!” before the gunshots and a man’s voice saying, “Oh my God. Why did you do that?” after them.
Aside from the horrific details of the shooting itself, there are already troubling indications that Guyger’s identity as a police officer is providing her with actual, undeserved advantages in the prosecution of this case.
First, police sources are reportedly indicating that Guyger may actually try to raise the fact that Jean didn’t obey her commands as a defense. It’s not a defense. The moment she opened the door to an apartment that wasn’t her own, she wasn’t operating as a police officer clothed with the authority of the law. She was instead a criminal. She was breaking into another person’s home. She was an armed home invader, and the person clothed with the authority of law to defend himself was Botham Shem Jean.
Which brings us to the second troubling element of the story. So far, Guyger is only charged with manslaughter. But all the available evidence indicates that she intentionally shot Jean. This wasn’t a warning shot gone awry. The pistol didn’t discharge during a struggle. She committed a crime by forcing open Jean’s door, deliberately took aim, and killed him.
Texas law defines murder quite simply as “intentionally or knowingly caus[ing] the death of an individual.” Manslaughter, by contrast, occurs when a person “recklessly” causes death. Guyger’s warning and her deliberate aim scream intent. She may have “recklessly” gone to the wrong apartment, but she very intentionally killed Jean. There is a chance that the grand jury will increase the charge to murder, so the early manslaughter charge is tentative. But I ask you: If Jean had mistakenly gone to Guyger’s apartment and then gunned her down in cold blood after demanding that she follow his commands, would he face a manslaughter charge?
Finally, it’s troubling that Guyger wasn’t arrested and booked until three days after the shooting. Reportedly, Dallas police had prepared a warrant the day after the killing, but they handed the investigation over to the Texas Rangers, who put a hold on the warrant.
What’s done is done, and the delayed arrest shouldn’t have any ultimate impact on the prosecution, but when all the available evidence indicates that a cop acted outside of her lawful authority, she should receive none of the courtesies and advantages so often extended to members of law enforcement. She’s a citizen, like any other, and it is hard to imagine — again — that if the roles had been reversed Jean would have enjoyed several days of relative freedom before he was arrested and booked. He’d have been in handcuffs that night, and rightfully so.
There is need for vigorous debate about the extent of police misconduct toward black men. I am unconvinced by the “open season” rhetoric, and the data supporting claims that police are more trigger-happy when confronting black men is controversial and conflicting. Without question, that’s an issue worth serious inquiry and study, and no one single incident or handful of incidents is dispositive or even all that relevant to settling it.
At the same time, however, each individual incident demands fair inquiry and the impartial administration of justice. Yet this has too often proven difficult. Juries credit officers for their fear without properly determining whether that fear was “reasonable.” And thus we’ve seen the sad spectacle of a mistrial after a cop shot an unarmed, running man in the back; the acquittal of the Minnesota cop who shot Philando Castile as Castile was doing his best to comply with the cop’s panicked, conflicting demands; and the acquittal of the cop who shot a sobbing Daniel Shaver as he crawled on his hands and knees, begging for his life.
Indeed, the justice system is often so stacked in officers’ favor that they enjoy qualified immunity, a judge-made rule that blocks even civil lawsuits against those who make dangerous and deadly mistakes.
We ask police officers to be brave. We ask officers to face a much higher degree of danger than civilians. We ask them to show restraint even in the face of provocations and tense confrontations. There are countless among them who do all we ask, and more. But we also ask something else: that police officers be subject to the very laws they’re sworn to enforce.
That’s where the system has failed in all too many cases, wounding a family that’s already suffering and breaking the public’s trust each time. At present there’s no evidence that Amber Guyger woke up Thursday morning intending to kill anyone. One can certainly feel a degree of sympathy for a person who makes a terrible mistake. But sympathy must not be allowed to cloud the quest for justice. Guyger’s blue uniform should not grant her a single advantage in the investigation and prosecution to come.
An accused cop's off-the-shelf exculpatory response is "I felt threatened." She probably did.
Absolutely. I've had arguments with other Freepers on this. They think it's okay to blindly shoot into the shadows if it's your property. Situation was a sheriff's deputy who killed his own daughter in his garage, shot her in the shadows because he thought it was a burglar. Big mistake, guilty of murder of his own daughter. Too many situations can happen of an innocent getting shot when someone doesn't properly identify their target.
When an illegal alien murders a citizen in cold blood, lefties tell us we shouldn’t politize it. No such restrictions here I guess.
Secondly, Texas could be a big political battleground, and this will inflame the left.
Texas doesn’t have a second-degree murder statute. It’s capital murder, murder, manslaughter, or criminally negligent homicide.
“...One witness reported hearing a woman yelling, “Let me in! Let me in!” before the gunshots and a man’s voice saying, “Oh my God. Why did you do that?” after them. ...”
Sounds more like a “Lovers Quarrel” gone bad to me. My gut instinct is that they were involved.
This is her cover story to avoid jail for murder.
Indeed it does.
Perhaps, but regardless of how she is programmed, she was not on duty. She does not deserve to be treated as such. It’s pretty ballsy that she even used that as an excuse. Hopefully, it’s just part of the report. But, if that is part of her defense - it makes me pretty darn sick.
If that witness account is accurate it puts extreme doubt on her claim that she mistakenly thought it was her apartment. That story would make no sense.
When did the PD fire her/let her go, etc?
This woman should NOT be treated any differently than if a civilian had walked into that apartment armed, just because she is a cop shouldn’t give her special treatment, as a matter of fact she SHOULD BE more aware of her surroundings due to her training!!!!
I read he was doing laundry, had it with him. But, lots of things being said right now.
“..That story would make no sense....”
It ALREADY makes no sense.
Who doesn’t recognize their OWN apartment, house, condo, dwelling etc... unless they’re stoned out of their mind/drunk off their ass.
Gut instinct says - she’s banging the guy, he’s cheating on her, she finds out, and goes Dirty Harriet on him.
I could be wrong. Probably close enough, though.
I agree. Did I say something that would say otherwise?
I thought this as well. At least it wouldn’t seem as crazy?! Apparently he had a red door mat as well. Didn’t that set off flags that she was at the wrong door?
But, I’ve read many articles that state they’ve never even met before.
As another FReeper has cogently asked on several threads about this "if you came home, found your door ajar and someone inside would you go on in?" Unless you're looking to get into a gun fight the answer is obviously 'no.' You get away from the situation and call 911. Who would (should) understand that better than a cop?
Your "gut instinct" sounds like common sense to me.
“Perhaps, but regardless of how she is programmed, she was not on duty. She does not deserve to be treated as such. It’s pretty ballsy that she even used that as an excuse. Hopefully, it’s just part of the report. But, if that is part of her defense - it makes me pretty darn sick.”
Spot on, one of the better analysis I have read here at FR.
Even more specific to your point, I think the only card she really has to play is Cop Entitlement, and that might work with at least one juror.
And yes, her statement that the victim did not follow her commands makes me want to puke.
“...read many articles that state they’ve never even met before...”
Depends on who wrote the articles, I suppose.
Like I said, I could be wrong. Just that little Spidey Sense tingling in the back of the head says “they was bumpin’ uglies...”
Either way, she needs to lose the badge and the gun and do time.
You or I would be in jail for life already.
“...if you came home, found your door ajar and someone inside would you go on in?”...”
As someone who carries on daily basis - EVERYWHERE - no, I’d cover the doors/windows with my own piece, and call the police, and LET THEM KNOW I’m the homeowner, what I’m wearing, what car I’m in, and that I’m armed and watching my home.
Further, when they showed up all full of adrenaline, Roidrage, flashing lights and screeching tires, I’d put the firearm down, and do EXACTLY as they say while they clear the house.
“The wallet is in my left pocket, with ID, etc., etc., and someone is in my house...”
They don’t know who is who, and until they do, your life is at risk.
She did shoot because she is a cop (which she is unqualified to be). She shot because she is a dumbass. I can’t bekieve there are people on FR who sound like Colin Kaepernick. She is being charged and will be tried, so where is her cop privilege?
Capital Murder and Murder are pretty much the same as 1st and 2nd degree from what I understand. If not, please explain.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.