Posted on 10/01/2019 10:33:27 AM PDT by Envisioning
DALLAS - A former Dallas police officer who fatally shot an unarmed man in his apartment was found guilty of murder by a Dallas County jury on Tuesday.
Guyger was off-duty but still in uniform after a long shift when she shot Botham Jean, a 26-year-old accountant from the Caribbean nation of St. Lucia. Murder carries a sentence of five to 99 years. The punishment phase, which will start Tuesday afternoon, will determine just how long her sentence will be.
Cheers erupted in the courthouse as the verdict was announced, and someone yelled "Thank you, Jesus!" In the hallway outside the courtroom where Guyger was tried, a crowd celebrated and said "black lives matter" in raised voices. When the prosecutors walked into the hall, they broke into cheers.
There have been almost too many cases to count where a police officer has shot an unarmed civilian, and walked. There have been two few cases where police officers have been held responsible for their actions. But in this instance the officer was not acting in the line of duty, had entered the residence illegally, and killed an unarmed man.
I think you’re dismissing the case of highway accidents too flippantly. Fault most frequently IS determined, but no advanced criminal charges result, other than traffic tickets.
And you hit the nail on the head in this instance as well, advanced criminal action. She was there illegally.
Dude, I did.
I did. Have you?
IOW-you will get charged with murder in Texas if you walk in, find your wife sleeping with another man and you kill them both. In most states that’s second degree murder. Not in Texas. That’s just murder. However, In Texas, “passion” can be argued as a defense at the punishment phase.
So, what happens in Texas is you get a murder charge and a sentence that looks like a CNH or manslaughter conviction due to circumstances.
No. You gave a link. CITE THE STATUTE!
I did.
If it was open, why did she try using her key?
How about this? "Sec. 30.02(a)(3). BURGLARY. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, the person...enters a building or habitation and commits or attempts to commit a felony, theft, or an assault?
Who the hell knows? She is not being open and forthright.
That is burglary. We were discussing trespassing.
She entered a habitation without the express consent of the owner. Under Texas law this is burglary.(30.02)
Once inside she committed a felony; criminal homicide. (30.02.a.3 & 19.02.b.3)
By her own admission during testimony, once inside, she intended to kill Jean.
That makes it murder.
Texas law under these statutes does not require premeditation. Only actions matter.
How does 30.02 not fit?
Sec. 30.02. BURGLARY. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, the person:
(1) enters a habitation, or a building (or any portion of a building) not then open to the public, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault; or
(2) remains concealed, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault, in a building or habitation; or
(3) enters a building or habitation and commits or attempts to commit a felony, theft, or an assault.
Did she have the express consent of the owner to enter his habitation? She did not. That's burglary under 30.02.
Once inside, did she commit a felony? Yes she did; criminal homicide. (30.02.a.3)
By her own admission during testimony, she intended to kill Jean.
Sec. 19.02. MURDER. (a) In this section:
(1) "Adequate cause" means cause that would commonly produce a degree of anger, rage, resentment, or terror in a person of ordinary temper, sufficient to render the mind incapable of cool reflection.
(2) "Sudden passion" means passion directly caused by and arising out of provocation by the individual killed or another acting with the person killed which passion arises at the time of the offense and is not solely the result of former provocation.
(b) A person commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;
(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual; or
(3) commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.
She committed the felony of burglary and in the course of that felony, committed an act clearly dangerous to human life which resulted in the death of an individual.
That makes her guilty of murder. (30.02.a.3 & 19.02.b.3)
Me: That is burglary. We were discussing trespassing.
You: How does 30.02 not fit?
We were discussing trespassing.
Was she charged with trespassing?
“Was she charged with trespassing? “
I dont think so.
Do you believe she should have been charged with trespassing?
I was referring to the difference in capital murder and murder being akin to 1st and 2nd degree...
However I do see what you mean by the sentencing phase being where the hairs are split.
Capital murder has a very specific set of definitions. In order to commit CM, you have to kill a cop, a firefighter (while they are working), commit murder while breaking a specific law or commit murder while escaping prison. Murder for hire is also CM. Premeditated murder is just murder. I do wish they would change it. But it is what it is.
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.