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 ...
“She entered the mans apartment without his permission or an invitation, she admits the door was closed.
That is a crime called trespassing. “
Entering another’s apartment is not criminal trespassing.
I had heard that they knew each other. And that they were not on good terms.
She got 10 years, which is exactly what a fair sentence should be on a case like this one with too many gray circumstances.
Clearly.
“I find people’s lack of knowledge and thereby lack of judgement to be repugnant. I didn’t make up this concept of “mens rea”. “
She testified she intended to kill him!
I just read post #212 to you.
She committed murder, and was properly convicted of it.
Trying to make excuses for the poor dear, because she was “hot” and horny and sexting her partner in adultery is complete garbage.
I see elsewhere that she got 10 years. Not enough, IMO, but I wasn’t on the jury so I won’t argue it.
I didn’t follow the trial all that much - but from what I heard it sounds like her legal team took a gamble that didn’t pay off.
They argued that she did intentionally kill Botham John, but that it wasn’t a crime. That she had made a “mistake of fact” and thought it was her apartment. Had it been her apartment, the shooting of an intruder would have been legal. Basically trying to say the only thing she did wrong was mistake his apartment for hers, and that wasn’t a crime.
But the downside is that she admitted to intentionally killing him - so it was either not guilty or murder.
She chose poorly.
“The intent was to kill a criminal she believed to be a threat to her in her own home. ‘
Please cite where she stated such.
“Had it been her apartment, the shooting of an intruder would have been legal. “
Shooting intruders is NOT legal, even in Texas.
Trouble with this is that it's factually not true. In Texas, numerous individuals have been shot and killed without it being "murder."
Therefore, the simple act of intentionally killing someone cannot be murder, because the reality that this happens quite a lot without resulting in murder charges, contradicts the asserted definition.
Murder cannot be defined this way because it factually contradicts known facts of people killing other people and no charges being filed against them.
You cannot have inconsistency in law. Either you have to charge and convict everyone who kills someone with murder, or you have to use a definition for murder that allows for "killing with intent" exceptions.
But inconsistencies and contradictions seldom seem to slow down the courts anyways. They just go on full speed ahead with whatever they prefer to believe.
Texas law doesn’t work that way. If you intentionally kill someone, it is murder. Motivation doesn’t matter. (Well, technically motivation can play into whether or not it is capital murder - but it is still murder).
Seems reasonable. I think anything from 5 to 20 would have been reasonable.
The question wasn't how to operate an unlocked door, it is how she got inside a supposedly locked door?
That works on a door one floor above her? It is this sort of coincidence that would reassure someone they were at their own door, because most people believe their locking mechanism is not easily or accidentally breached.
What people are telling you isn’t quite correct.
The charge is just murder. And you are found guilty or not guilty of that. However during the sentencing part of the trial, the defendant can make the argument that if they “caused the death under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause”, then it becomes a second degree felony.
So the charge is murder. The conviction is murder. But it could be made a second degree felony at sentencing.
Botham’s Younger Brother Brandt Hugs Amber Guyger and Forgives Her:
Don't sweat it. Most people don't need to know this sort of stuff until they get in trouble. Often times ignorance is bliss.
It isn't my "reality" that she got through that door. The shot man who died demonstrates conclusively, and beyond any reasonable doubt that she did in fact get through that door.
An effort to claim that she did not is contradictory to reality.
No kidding!
Clearly someone who thought this "training" would prevent mistakes, was wrong.
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.