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 ...
You've left something out. There are plenty of people that kill someone intentionally and knowingly yet are not accused or convicted of murder.
Ergo, the definition is not correct, or is incomplete.
“Breaking and Entering” doesn’t exist in Texas law.
It is criminal trespass. There is no requirement that any amount of force be used to enter the property for it to be a crime.
I think most of this kerfuffle is the awkwardness of verbiage in Texas law which does not comport with what most people understand to be the norms in law.
I've also pointed out to Bubba Ho Tep that the definition he quoted of Texas statute doesn't seem to have any provision for people who shoot and kill people for lawful reasons. (Like protecting their own life.)
A straight reading of it asserts that anyone who kills anyone for any reason is a "murderer", and that is clearly not correct factually.
I don't care about her sentence, I care about calling something that which it is not.
As Abraham Lincoln said, "Suppose you call a tail a leg. How many legs would a sheep have?"
"Five" replied the man.
"Four." Said Lincoln. "Just because you call a tail a leg, doesn't make it so."
How much time was Mr. Jean sentenced to, just for the crime of sitting down to have some ice cream in his own apartment?
Mr. Jean committed no crime whatsoever, and it is being asinine to suggest that anything he did should be regarded as a crime by anyone, including her.
That is one possible explanation, and I would give it more credence but for the fact that a series of coincidences all aligned to make this event happen.
She doesn't get off on the wrong floor. It doesn't happen.
She notices she is in the wrong place. It doesn't happen.
She doesn't get through the door. It doesn't happen.
It was an odd circumstance in which several random factors aligned to produce a spur of the moment over reaction.
I don't think arrogance was behind this at all. I think fear was behind this. Unwarranted fear, but fear non the less.
Covered this point so many times i'm sick of answering it.
Explain to me how this differs from a home owner shooting an intruder. Did not the home owner intend to kill?
Why is that not murder?
You’ve been arguing against the murder conviction in multiple posts.
But, under Texas law, she was charged with murder because she admitted that she shot to kill.
Apparently, in Texas, murder carries a sentence of 5 years to life. There’s a big gap there because that’s where the jury has some leeway.
She was sentenced to only 10 years.
To sum up: She went to the wrong apartment. She killed an innocent man (when she could’ve retreated). Then she didn’t render aid. During her 911 call, she was still texting her partner (lover). Then both she and her partner deleted their texts to hide them.
And she only got 10 years.
I’ve heard that too, but it turned out to be so much smoke and rumor.
So how is "Castle Doctrine" separated from "murder"?
Same act, but one is treated like murder, while the other is not.
Under Texas law, what she did is murder.
We've all learned something about Texas law here. (The Texans here already knew.)
In Texas, she was charged with murder because she shot to kill. Period.
The definition of murder (including the “intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual”) is in Title 5, Chapter 19 (Criminal Homicide) and the exceptions to it are in Title 2, Chapter 9 (Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility).
All the standard exceptions are there. You can use deadly force to protect yourself, others, your property, and other people’s property. (And plenty of other exceptions).
This just came down to whether or not it was reasonable for her to believe that she was in her own apartment.
If she reasonably believed that he had entered her dwelling with force, then she was justified in using deadly force.
I think I may have just replied with similar information to another post of yours - not trying to duplicate if I did.
There are exceptions detailed in another part of the law. There are circumstances that allow the use of deadly force. But one has to have a reasonable belief about those circumstances.
She intended to kill him. That’s murder, unless it meets one of the exceptions. The jury decided it did not.
“How did she get in”?
She opened an unlocked door and walked in. Then she shot an innocent man.
Trespassing is a crime in each and every state I know of.
You are not looking good here and just took the next step...
VICTIM BLAMING MUCH?????
You are square in the middle of blaming and innocent victim for his own death.
No, she, an admitted racist, took a life and now she pays the price.
“How the f*** did she get in then? Hmmmm???? “
“Maybe she had a keycard?”
She opened an unlocked door then walked in to another persons home and killed them.
Is someone going to victim blame here because the dead victim did not lock his door?
Feel free to call me an old softy if you wish.
“Why is that not murder?”
IT IS MURDER!
“She opened an unlocked door then walked in to another persons home and killed them.”
Every self-closing keycard door I have seen would be locked.
“If you are amused, it just means you don’t grasp the legal principle involved. “
I am positively grasping the legal principle.
“he question wasn’t how to operate an unlocked door, it is how she got inside a supposedly locked door? “
No. You asked how did the door open.
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.