Posted on 10/02/2019 9:33:26 AM PDT by Navy Patriot
A former police officer who argued she had a right to use lethal force when she killed an innocent man after mistakenly entering his apartment has been convicted of murder.
Amber Guyger faces a lengthy prison sentence after a jury found her guilty of the murder of Botham Jean in Dallas on 6 September last year – a verdict Jean family attorneys hailed as a significant moment in the battle to hold police accountable.
Guyger is white. Jean was black. Guyger is the first Dallas police department officer to be convicted of murder since the 1970s, the Dallas Morning News reported.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Hard to see on what legal grounds they could sue the City.
Had one roommate killed by a drunk driver, and one relative by an inattentive coworker on a job site. They are just as dead as if any ‘murderer’ had planned and plotted to kill them.
At the very least it should be “you get out when they come back to life”.
On the other hand, she clearly was an immediate threat to the life of a man sitting on HIS couch watching HIS TV and eating HIS ice cream in HIS apartment.
Do not forget:
Whatever misperceptions she might or might not have had, she had NO legal right or authority to even be in HIS apartment … much less issue "commands" as some have suggested or murder him as she actually did.
Your question is meaningless if you grasp the concept known as "mens rea."
Yes, I don't bother answering meaningless questions.
Does anybody know whether she had any connection to the man she killed BEFORE she walked into his apartment and shot him? Did she know him at all? Were they acquaintances or total strangers? I didn’t see this addressed anywhere.
Where is the criminal intent?
acting negligently - The defendant was not aware of the risk, but should have been aware of the risk
What is your alternate explanation for why she was at that door?
She claims the door was open.
What is your alternate explanation for how she got in?
She claims she thought there was a burglar in there.
What is your alternate explanation for why she would shoot at a man she didn't believe was a burglar?
She claims she told him to put up his hands.
And how do you know she did not?
She claims she was scared.
And what is your alternate explanation for why she shot this man?
Somehow a guy eating ice cream and watching tv and never gets off the couch is supposed to be threatening to an armed cop.
How do you know he never got off the couch?
What is your explanation for why she shot this man?
She couldn’t have taken two seconds to see the couch wasn’t hers...
How do you know this couch doesn't look like her couch sufficiently to be immediately recognizable as not being her couch? What does her couch look like?
Besides, if I thought someone was in my house, I think I would put almost all my focus on the person I didn't expect to find, and I wouldn't be paying a lot of attention to the furnishings unless they were noticeably different from what I expected.
waited for him to respond but noooo, she immediately murdered him on the spot.
Why did she murder him on the spot. Do you think she just likes murdering people, or that nobody would notice she murdered someone?
Explain this thing to me. Why, in your opinion, did the woman feel she needed to murder this guy?
“I wear all black to remind you not to mess with me, because I’m already dressed for your funeral.”
“Why did she murder him on the spot. Do you think she just likes murdering people, or that nobody would notice she murdered someone? “
Some people should not have Guns much less be on an elite task force!
“But let us be clear, what she did was a “mistake”. There was no criminal intent to kill that man”.
She entered the mans apartment without his permission or an invitation, she admits the door was closed.
That is a crime called trespassing. Her intent does not mean she did not commit this crime. SO, she committed a crime before she pulled the trigger.
Lets go on.
There was a big red doormat outside of this man’s door that was not in front of her apartment, the furniture was not nearly the same as in her apartment. Nothing of anykind could have reinforced that she was in the right apartment...
Then after being exposed to all of this she made the choice to pull the trigger. With that choice, her and only her choice, she killed a totally innocent man. That is a crime.
You are trying to sell us on Intent being the only threshold of guilt. That is an incorrect and false argument.
The threshold here is not intent, but if a normal person in the same circumstances, would have made the same decision.
The jury, those who saw all of the evidence said they would not have made that same decision.
You who have not been presented any of the evidence believe differently.
I’ll go with the jury and if they believe that a normal, rational person would have done the same thing in the same situation.
Were you "sexting" at the time? If you are unfamiliar with it, it's about trading text messages of a sexual nature.
I don't have a modern phone, but I know a lot of people who do, and they spend every f***ing minute on those things, and they are oblivious to everything that is going on around them. Would people be even more distracted from their surroundings if they were fishing for sex in their text messages to their lover?
I sorta think they would.
So let me ask you again, were you "sexting" at the time?
I think you're trying to make excuses for a murderer. I suggest you take a good long look in the mirror, illuminated by your truth-seeking lamp, and question your own motivation for making those excuses.
I think she should have been convicted of homicide, manslaughter, or something like that. I think "murder" which to my understanding has always required criminal intent, is just a bridge too far.
Do you think that Minneapolis cop should be convicted of murder or manslaughter? Do you think he intended to commit a criminal act when he shot that woman?
What was the negligent act?
How did door open?
You seem to see her habit of "sexting" as an excuse or mitigating factor. I see it as an aggravating factor, much as drunkenness is regarded.
I must say, I'm finding your apparent position on this matter to be increasingly repugnant.
The intent was a legal intent to defend what she believed to be her home according to Texas' castle doctrine.
The intent was not to murder an innocent man who had done her no wrong.
Yes, she intended to kill him, but she thought she was killing a burglar who broke into her apartment. This makes it a legal intent, not illegal.
TEN YEARS
"Homicide" isn't a criminal charge in Texas. From the jury charge:
"A person commits the offense of murder if the person 1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual or 2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits and act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.
"Our law provides a person commits the offense of manslaughter if she recklessly causes the death of an individual. A person acts recklessly or is reckless with respect to the result of her conduct when she is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor’s standpoint."
Guyger testified that she intentionally caused his death. She wasn't acting recklessly, she didn't "consciously disregard" that he might die as a result of her shooting him in the chest. Her testimony is that she saw a man, pulled her gun, took aim and shot him dead. Her confusion about where she was doesn't come into it. Her own testimony took Manslaughter off the table.
Thanks for clearing that up. That's what I thought, and it was confusing the H3ll out of me the way bgill kept talking about her climbing stairs. I had heard no such thing as this during all the time i've heard reports about this crime.
She got 10 years.
Here we go again with this stupid point.
How the f*** did she get in then? Hmmmm????
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.