Posted on 09/24/2019 8:31:35 AM PDT by Presbyterian Reporter
DALLAS - The second day of testimony in the murder trial for former Dallas police officer Amber Guyger started out with audio and video evidence from the night she shot her upstairs neighbor.
Guyger is charged with murder for the death of 26-year-old Botham Jean in September of Jean last year.
She claims the shooting was accidental. She told police she went into Jean’s apartment thinking it was her own and shot him because she thought he was an intruder.
The state’s first witness Tuesday morning was the 911 call taker who received Guyger’s call. Guyger listened and occasionally wiped away tears as her 911 call was played in court.
“Oh my God, I thought it was my apartment. F***!,” she says on the call.
“I thought it was my apartment,” she repeats over and over.
Jurors also saw graphic body camera video from Officer Michael Lee. He was one of the first officers to arrive on the scene the night of the shooting.
The video shows Lee running up four flights of stairs and through hallways to find Guyger in Jean’s apartment.
“I thought it was my apartment,” Gugyer frantically repeats once the officer arrives.
In the video, Lee gives Jean CPR, trying heroic efforts to keep him alive until paramedics arrive.
“Come on, Chief!” he yells repeated.
As the trial began Monday, the state showed the jury explicit text messages and talked about Snapchats Guyger sent to her police partner Martin Rivera that night in September 2018.
She also spent 16 minutes on the phone with him on her way home. She then parked on the wrong floor at the Southside Flats and went into Jean’s apartment instead of her own.
Prosecutors also said Guyger missed several other cues that she was on the wrong floor including a bright red door mat outside Jean’s door and the smell of marijuana in his apartment.
After the shooting, Guyger called 911 and continued sending Rivera messages. One stated, “I need you.” Guyger and Rivera deleted their messages after the shooting, prosecutors said.
Guyger’s said argued what happened that night was just an unfortunate set of circumstances that led to Jean’s untimely death.
“She's thinking. ‘Oh, my God. There's an intruder in my apartment’ and she's face-to-face with him. She's within ten yards of him and he starts approaching her. And she reacts like any police officer would, who has a gun with confronting a burglary suspect,” said Robert Rogers, Gugyer’s defense attorney.
How would they handle it if she was off duty, but in uniform and the VICTIM?
We all know.
She murdered him.
Yeah, there has to be more to it.
“If it was a “hit”, why did she call and report it to the police? “
Eyewitness says it didn’t sound like she was talking to police.
We do all know. But that is not the case which is being tried right now, so it is a moot point. A sad one, but still moot.
Another factor to consider is this:
If Cathy Citizen had been the women who allegedly entered the wrong apartment and immediately shot and killed the occupant, what would the police have done?
Would the police have arrested/taken in for questioning Cathy Citizen? Would the police have immediately taken possession of Cathy Citizen’s cell phone to see if there was incriminating information?
OR would the police let Cathy Citizen wander about for 4 days while deciding what to do? Like they did with Amber.
In those four days while Amber was free as a bird, she and her cop lover were able to delete an unknown amount of incriminating data from their cell phones.
The Dallas police are looking pretty bad in how they handled the situation after the shooting.
The jury is hearing about the cell phone deletions by Amber and her cop lover and that will be a major factor when the jury deliberates.
Deleting evidence is a major sign of being guilty.
“Which does not PROVE that she intended to MURDER Mr. Jean.“
She intentionally committed an act of violence with a deadly weapon that any reasonable person would conclude would likely lead to his death. Her state of mind is irrelevant to the legal question at hand.
She’ll be lucky to get off with a conviction for manslaughter. Malice aforethought is not required for that.
L
See post #38.
Obviously you do not understand Texas Murder law.
Intent is VERY relevant to the legal question at hand!
“””If they thought they were in their own house, in Texas?”””
Amber was not IN her own house. Amber was OUTSIDE what she thought was her own house.
What would you do if came to the front door of your house and saw the door unlocked? Would you open the door and immediately start shooting at whatever moved? That is what Amber did. The prosecution painted a very clear timeline of Amber’s arrival at the parking garage and her call to 9-11.
Too bad Botham Jean didn't react the way any American homeowner would, who has a gun with confronting a burglar.
Apparently she was in uniform. Do you really want to go down this idiotic line of reasoning? Perhaps this police officer was actually impersonating a police officer? WTF?
“If they thought they were in their own house, in Texas?”
Would a reasonable person think they were in their own house when they were not?
Ok, that’s YOUR opinion.
Apparently you want me to agree that she should get the death penalty after one day of testimony. I’m sorry, but so far there are still far more questions for me; you have obviously already convicted her...probably did so before yesterday’s testimony, so the next few days are just “window dressing” for you.
I pray that you are NEVER allowed on a jury trial, if this is your idea of jury of your peers and “reasonable doubt.”
LOL
The words 'thought they were in their own home' does not appear in the Texas Castle Doctrine. This cop had zero legal right to be where she was. She did have the legal obligation to be sure she was where she 'thought' she was before she dropped the hammer.
Texas law provides for a justifiable defense at trial when using deadly force if the person claiming self defense:
Reasonably believed the deadly force was immediately necessary;
Had a legal right to be on the property;
Did not provoke the person against whom deadly force was used; and
Was not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force was used.
Dude, this is not a jury. It’s a bunch of posters stating opinions without access to the arguments.
“What would you do if came to the front door of your house and saw the door unlocked? “
Self-closing door with keycard.
Texas has very liberal laws regarding defense of person and property. I believe the prosecutor wanted manslaughter and the GJ listening to the mob wanted murder charged. I do not see a murder conviction here probably manslaughter or less.
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.