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.
At the bottom of one of the protesters signs I noticed something aboht a socialist organization... didn’t know Soros was in town.
“so where is her cop privilege?”
She was walking the streets for 72 hours after the shooting.
They allowed her to turn herself in at Kaufman County instead of the Dallas County jail.
From the link:
[Family attorney Lee Merritt] said Jean had a red doormat outside his apartment door. "In fact, to ensure no one mistook his apartment the way this officer is claiming in this case, he went out and bought the biggest, brightest red rug and placed it right there at his doorstep," Merritt said.
If the Rug is Red, You Must Convict!
“Did he write a piece on THAT killing?”
It is curiously omitted, because you are right, it is a perfect example of an unjust shooting. Not a very good piece by French.
Nope just totally agreeing with you!!!!
I said that the other day and a guy went nuts on me. Told me I cant have an opinion that goes against media reports.
Im Parole. I play with liars, criminal thinkers and felons all day long. Ive conducted hundreds of criminal interviews and witness examinations. Ive seen a great deal of crime and criminal behavior.
Her story makes little sense and seems to contradict itself. If true, it’s actually going to be quite extraordinary in the number of unfortunate and bizarre coincidences that had to happen to have the same end result. But it really just doesnt add up.
The detectives in my AO agree with me. Everyone thinks it was something common that escalated like a personal issue of some sort between neighbors or lovers.
Bottom line: if I was going to lie about why I killed someone, I might tell the story she is telling. You always trade manslaughter for murder if you can get away with it. The general public doesnt think like that but a cop would. But, hey, what do we know.
“...when did it become normal to shoot to kill rather than to shoot to maim or injure?” [cherry, post 57]
Shooting to wound instead of kill has no basis in reality. It’s the stuff of police procedurals, detective novels, and “true crime” magazines. The idea that it used to hold true is invalid.
There’s no verifiable distinction between the amount of force (kinetic energy transferred from projectile to target) required to wound, versus the amount required to cause death.
Law enforcement people are trained to aim at center of mass, fire, evaluate the situation, and fire again as needed until the target ceases hostile action. It’s termed “shoot to stop.” Gun-handling training schools impart exactly the same instruction to their paying civilian students.
I’ve seen crime shows where a perp is allowed to wander freely for much longer than that. This idea that the police protect other cops who commit crimes is absurd. There is nothing that the police hate more than a cop who gives the police force a bad name.
This woman was probably hired due to some BS quota for female officers and had no business being a cop. Blame the politicians and liberals for that, not the cops.
This Ping List is for all things pertaining to the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
The family’s lawyer was on CNN saying there was a noise complaint from the apartment below Jean’s about himthe day of the shooting. The apartment directly below him would be the shooter’s
“I’ve seen crime shows where a perp is allowed to wander freely for much longer than that.”
Excuse me, I’m sorry, but I did not know that you earned your law degree from the Car 54 Where are You School of Law.
Yeah, well, I meant reality shows about real crime such as Dateline, The First 48, etc.
Of course, this incident won’t make the news....
https://www.breitbart.com/california/2018/09/11/watch-suspect-shoots-officer-gets-killed/
Are you saying she is not a murderer?
There is no dispute. She shot an un-armed man in his home. No doubt, reasonable or otherwise.
“””The family’s lawyer was on CNN saying there was a noise complaint from the apartment below Jean’s about himthe day of the shooting. The apartment directly below him would be the shooter’s”””
What you say could explain the real reason she went to his apartment and killed him. He was walking too loudly and it disturbed her.
Yep. Every phrase is both clearly a "how about this?" from the union lawyer and law enforcement's collective history of knowing what magic words get them off the hook, and not believable on its face. And unless there's surveillance cameras in the hallway, not a bit of it can be independently verified. So I'd have to guess that there aren't any cameras, and they made sure they knew that before they sat down and put on their thinking caps.
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.
He lives in an apartment complex in a city. He leaves his door unlocked? AND "ajar"? And it's too dark to see anything in there at 7 PM? Because apparently he's already got all the blinds closed too? But he's walking around there in the dark?
The only thing missing from that verbiage is any talk of "I saw him reaching for a weapon" or "I saw a weapon in his hand." I have to think that that was nixed as not being compatible with "dark apartment" and "silhouette across the room."
Nonsense. A drunk doesn't start his car and think, "now I'm going to kill a pedestrian." That was the only thing on her mind when she pulled her gun. Shoot that guy dead.
People here really have to stop spreading this crap. If there was anything to this, we'd have seen substantive evidence of it on day one. His mother would have mentioned it. His neighbors would have mentioned it. His friends at work would have mentioned it.
And I don't want to hear any rebuttal about how they kept it super secret, and cops are good at keeping things secret, blah blah. Shut up.
Her state of mind was the mistaken belief that he was in her place!! 1st year law student can walk her easy!!
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.