Posted on 09/30/2019 2:13:43 PM PDT by Presbyterian Reporter
Ex-Dallas police Officer Amber Guyger was "unreasonable" when she mistakenly entered her neighbor's apartment "commando-style" last year and fatally shot him, thinking he was an intruder, prosecutors said Monday during closing arguments in her murder trial.
"A guilty verdict in this case does not mean you hate police. This has nothing to do with politics," prosecutor Jason Fine told the jurors.
But the defense argued to jurors that at that moment, Guyger truly believed she was acting in self-defense when she thought she was at her apartment, which is one floor directly below that of neighbor Botham Jean.
"It's one of those cases where there are no winners," defense attorney Toby Shook told jurors. "The evidence shows it's just a tragedy. A horrible, horrible tragedy."
The dueling arguments followed state District Judge Tammy Kemp instructing the jury that they can consider a charge of either murder or manslaughter after Guyger fatally shot Jean on Sept. 6, 2018. Jurors began deliberations Monday afternoon.
For jurors to find Guyger, 31, guilty of murder, the state must have proved that she "intentionally or knowingly" caused the death of Jean. The lesser charge of manslaughter requires jurors found she "recklessly" caused his death.
Kemp also said jurors can consider Texas' stand your ground law, known as the Castle Doctrine, to decide whether Guyger was within her rights to use force. The law says that force, including deadly force, can be used to protect one's home or property.
Fine said it was "absurd" for Guyger to think she could use that defense since it wasn't actually her home.
"This has to do with that defendant making unreasonable decisions that put her in that seat," Fine said, pointing toward Guyger, "and Bo in the ground."
Closing arguments began on day seven of Guyger's trial in a case that reignited conversations about police use of force, racial bias and being safe in one's own home. The defense has argued that Guyger, who is white, feared for her life when she entered the apartment of Jean, who was black, and saw a person she thought was an intruder.
Shook, in his closing statements, called the case "tragic," and asked, "Who would not have sympathy for Botham Jean?" But he also asked jurors to look at the evidence without emotion.
The state, he said, "must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant wasn't acting in self-defense. And if they can't do that, it's not guilty."
“She intended to kill him...She testified to that intent.”
Well that seems quite a foolish admission, I also didn’t realize she shot him twice, surely there was NO REASON to do that.
OK, but here’s my question, I see a lot of posts here saying they were having an affair, etc. But NOTHING of that sort has been established, has it?
Not trying to be argumentative, but the case is with the jury now, so the evidence has all been presented and I don’t think I’ve seen any indication that she could have had malice aforethought.
It’s really hard to imagine screwing up that bad, easier to think it was some secret motive, that really makes a lot more sense. But I’m sure we could all do it tomorrow were we unlucky and stupid enough. Maybe not shoot a guy, but who knows what tomorrow will bring?
I read that she said she knew someone was in the apartment before she went in.
She literally failed to pause for 2 seconds even though and assess the situation while standing OUTSIDE the door.
this is not murder....its not racism....its a tragedy for sure.....
convict of some lesser offense if you're out for blood but this was not murder....
But she didnt push it in cautiously! She went in with intent to kill once she knew someone was inside.
she's an idiot....not guilty of 1st degree murder......
and lets face the fact that murder charges were brought because she's white and the vic was black...
In the State of Florida they can. They can’t discuss the case but they can converse among themselves.
Exactly, anyone can claim to be a cop. in fact there were home invaders dressing up to appear at first glance like cops, amd driving similar-detailed vehicles, and busting into peoples homes.
My point is the state generally protects their own to the point of absurdity. For example regular people cops try to interview right away without attorneys, knowing that people misremember things while still in a trauma state. Later they try to screw them when they remember things correctly because now ‘they changed their story’. However they let cops involved inshootings rest a few days before interviewing them because thy know the brain needs time to sort out the order of what actually happened in a fast traumatic event. They try to fuch over regular people though even though they know there are memory issues with folks who just went through a trauma experience. They don’t give two sh1ts.
It would be better without women cops. Because moresituations are prone to scare them, because they are weaker and smaller and more insecure about stuff going bad, they pull their guns more and escalate situations that often wouldn’t have required it.
Years age in the State of Florida, a man caught his wife and her lover in their bedroom. He shot him twice. The prosecutor said first degree murder because he, after shooting him one time , shot him again, thus forming the intent to kill him between shot number one and shot number two. The jury agreed with the prosecutor and brought back a verdict of murder in the first degree.
I agree with you that it was a tragedy. It ruined that guy's night and did not do much for his day. As I stated before, I do not believe she has much to worry about. If the jury convicts her, it will surprise me.
I misspoke. I meant to say they can’t deliberate while sequestered.
The Portland,OR police union tells their members to not answer any questions if they are involved in any incident. If it’s good enough for them, it’s good enough for me.
Think nothing of it. It happens to all of us.
She had her mind on “extra curricular” activities at work (married cop lover) too much to absorb any training about situational awareness and de-escalation of situations. That’s very obvious considering that she wanted to get in touch immediately after this “tragedy” with her fornicating co-worker. Lesson to be learned here. Do not play in the sandbox at work (or anywhere else, if you’re married). Your mind won’t be on things you SHOULD concentrate on.
I am watching closing statements just waiting for prosecutor to mention the red rug outside the door.
Guilty of Murder!!!
She shot an unarmed man sitting on his couch.
______________________________________________
Actually, No. Forensics proved that he got off the couch to confront her entering his apartment. He was immediately shot.
yeah... I’m doing the same if someone barges into my house... on the other hand, being that i have small children... i’m more likely to shoot someone who barges into my house.
“...No-knock raids are very dangerous to the lives of cops...”
They’re not real safe for the victims of wrong-house “no-knock raids” either.
Here’s a solution: Don’t DO No-Knock Raids, and NOBODY has to die... what a concept...
I keep trying to find the whole “No-Knock Raid” clause somewhere in the Constitution, but it keeps eluding me....
/s (as if, but...)
You have small children and are likely to shoot someone barging into your house?
Get a good lawyer now. While you can. And a good therapist too. For when you shoot a child that barges in. Yours or a friend of your children.
She failed to render aid. Murder.
“Get a good lawyer now. “
Murder does not require premeditation. Heed your own advice.
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.