Bocephus said:

---

schwack schwack said:

---

What if the all circumstances where the same, but she wasn't a cop?

---

This does not make it through the grand jury if she is not a cop

---

aggietony2010 said:

---

All the way to the point she opens the door I can find believable, and from there it's a matter of a few seconds before he's dead.

I've wound up at the door of the wrong apartment before. Had finished a workout at the apartment gym, got in the elevator, pressed 3, and it stopped at 2 (I guess someone pressed the call button on 2 and gave up on it). It wasn't until my key was going towards the door that I realized I was wrong.

Anyone who thinks they know exactly what they'd do from the point of discovering "their" door ajar is kidding themselves, unless they've actually encountered it.

I think the only thing clear from this case is that she isn't cut out to be a cop.

---

tysker said:

---

powerbelly said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

ElephantRider said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

double aught said:

---

Enviroag02 said:

---

The other criteria the self defense strategy requires is the defendant to not be the aggressor. I thought the prosecution did a good job hammering that home as well.

---

If you believe mistake of fact (which I think most people do), then isn't she supported by the castle doctrine?

---

In a home that isn't hers?

---

Judge allowed it

---

I would hope the jury would recognize that the spirit of that law is to protect the guy who in this instance, got killed.

If she walks in there and he blows her head off, he's protecting himself from an invader and he can use lethal force with the shield of the castle doctrine.
She kills him, in his home, so it shouldn't be castle doctrine. (opinion, one I hope the jury agrees with)

---

Mistake of Fact is also at play right now.

She could reasonably believe that was her apartment. If she had a true and reasonable belief she was in her apartment (and by her actions at the time and her exclamations on the phone, I believe she did) then it comes into play.

---

In my opinion, mistake of fact doesn't matter because the state has proven he was getting up off the couch, in a non threatening position, thus lethal force isn't justified.

---

That doesn't matter if she thought he was in her home. If you are in my home in Texas against my will I can use lethal force. It doesn't matter if you are in a "threatening" position.

---

It seems against the spirit of the Castle Doctrine to extend it to places you 'think' are your home.

---

proc said:

---

We have another note from the jury.

---

aggietony2010 said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

ElephantRider said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

double aught said:

---

Enviroag02 said:

---

The other criteria the self defense strategy requires is the defendant to not be the aggressor. I thought the prosecution did a good job hammering that home as well.

---

If you believe mistake of fact (which I think most people do), then isn't she supported by the castle doctrine?

---

In a home that isn't hers?

---

Judge allowed it

---

I would hope the jury would recognize that the spirit of that law is to protect the guy who in this instance, got killed.

If she walks in there and he blows her head off, he's protecting himself from an invader and he can use lethal force with the shield of the castle doctrine.
She kills him, in his home, so it shouldn't be castle doctrine. (opinion, one I hope the jury agrees with)

---

Mistake of Fact is also at play right now.

She could reasonably believe that was her apartment. If she had a true and reasonable belief she was in her apartment (and by her actions at the time and her exclamations on the phone, I believe she did) then it comes into play.

---

In my opinion, mistake of fact doesn't matter because the state has proven he was getting up off the couch, in a non threatening position, thus lethal force isn't justified.

---

The state hasn't proven that. There was no blood on the couch. That fact alone provides at least reasonable doubt.

---

wbt5845 said:

---

proc said:

---

We have another note from the jury.

---

proc - the instructions previously given are all the jury is gonna get, right? When I was on a jury, we asked for a clarification on some point and were told to refer to the instructions, which didn't address the question we had at all. We took it to mean it was up to us to figure it out.

---

proc said:

---

tysker said:

---

powerbelly said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

ElephantRider said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

double aught said:

---

Enviroag02 said:

---

The other criteria the self defense strategy requires is the defendant to not be the aggressor. I thought the prosecution did a good job hammering that home as well.

---

If you believe mistake of fact (which I think most people do), then isn't she supported by the castle doctrine?

---

In a home that isn't hers?

---

Judge allowed it

---

I would hope the jury would recognize that the spirit of that law is to protect the guy who in this instance, got killed.

If she walks in there and he blows her head off, he's protecting himself from an invader and he can use lethal force with the shield of the castle doctrine.
She kills him, in his home, so it shouldn't be castle doctrine. (opinion, one I hope the jury agrees with)

---

Mistake of Fact is also at play right now.

She could reasonably believe that was her apartment. If she had a true and reasonable belief she was in her apartment (and by her actions at the time and her exclamations on the phone, I believe she did) then it comes into play.

---

In my opinion, mistake of fact doesn't matter because the state has proven he was getting up off the couch, in a non threatening position, thus lethal force isn't justified.

---

That doesn't matter if she thought he was in her home. If you are in my home in Texas against my will I can use lethal force. It doesn't matter if you are in a "threatening" position.

---

It seems against the spirit of the Castle Doctrine to extend it to places you 'think' are your home.

---

That is precisely where Mistake of Fact comes in.

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

ElephantRider said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

double aught said:

---

Enviroag02 said:

---

The other criteria the self defense strategy requires is the defendant to not be the aggressor. I thought the prosecution did a good job hammering that home as well.

---

If you believe mistake of fact (which I think most people do), then isn't she supported by the castle doctrine?

---

In a home that isn't hers?

---

Judge allowed it

---

I would hope the jury would recognize that the spirit of that law is to protect the guy who in this instance, got killed.

If she walks in there and he blows her head off, he's protecting himself from an invader and he can use lethal force with the shield of the castle doctrine.
She kills him, in his home, so it shouldn't be castle doctrine. (opinion, one I hope the jury agrees with)

---

Mistake of Fact is also at play right now.

She could reasonably believe that was her apartment. If she had a true and reasonable belief she was in her apartment (and by her actions at the time and her exclamations on the phone, I believe she did) then it comes into play.

---

In my opinion, mistake of fact doesn't matter because the state has proven he was getting up off the couch, in a non threatening position, thus lethal force isn't justified.

---

The state didn't prove that. That is their theory. But they had no evidence presented at trial to support that theory.

Your opinion can be that mistake of fact doesn't matter, and that I'd fine, but it is a very ill-informed opinion.

The judge's charge to the jury said that the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Guyger was not mistaken when she went to Jean's door. They had to prove to that she knew it wasn't her apartment. They did not meet that burden.

https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-8-02.html

---

Bocephus said:

---

aggietony2010 said:

---

All the way to the point she opens the door I can find believable, and from there it's a matter of a few seconds before he's dead.

I've wound up at the door of the wrong apartment before. Had finished a workout at the apartment gym, got in the elevator, pressed 3, and it stopped at 2 (I guess someone pressed the call button on 2 and gave up on it). It wasn't until my key was going towards the door that I realized I was wrong.

Anyone who thinks they know exactly what they'd do from the point of discovering "their" door ajar is kidding themselves, unless they've actually encountered it.

I think the only thing clear from this case is that she isn't cut out to be a cop.

---

By all reports she was actually a very good officer. She actually came in on her day off and put in a 14-hour shift helping catch some robbers they had been pursuing before all this happened. She was clearly dedicated to her job.

---

tysker said:

---

proc said:

---

tysker said:

---

powerbelly said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

ElephantRider said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

double aught said:

---

Enviroag02 said:

---

The other criteria the self defense strategy requires is the defendant to not be the aggressor. I thought the prosecution did a good job hammering that home as well.

---

If you believe mistake of fact (which I think most people do), then isn't she supported by the castle doctrine?

---

In a home that isn't hers?

---

Judge allowed it

---

I would hope the jury would recognize that the spirit of that law is to protect the guy who in this instance, got killed.

If she walks in there and he blows her head off, he's protecting himself from an invader and he can use lethal force with the shield of the castle doctrine.
She kills him, in his home, so it shouldn't be castle doctrine. (opinion, one I hope the jury agrees with)

---

Mistake of Fact is also at play right now.

She could reasonably believe that was her apartment. If she had a true and reasonable belief she was in her apartment (and by her actions at the time and her exclamations on the phone, I believe she did) then it comes into play.

---

In my opinion, mistake of fact doesn't matter because the state has proven he was getting up off the couch, in a non threatening position, thus lethal force isn't justified.

---

That doesn't matter if she thought he was in her home. If you are in my home in Texas against my will I can use lethal force. It doesn't matter if you are in a "threatening" position.

---

It seems against the spirit of the Castle Doctrine to extend it to places you 'think' are your home.

---

That is precisely where Mistake of Fact comes in.

---

Which, imo, is a serious flaw in the code. I could easily see this defense being used for more egregious crimes.

---

aggietony2010 said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

ElephantRider said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

double aught said:

---

Enviroag02 said:

---

The other criteria the self defense strategy requires is the defendant to not be the aggressor. I thought the prosecution did a good job hammering that home as well.

---

If you believe mistake of fact (which I think most people do), then isn't she supported by the castle doctrine?

---

In a home that isn't hers?

---

Judge allowed it

---

I would hope the jury would recognize that the spirit of that law is to protect the guy who in this instance, got killed.

If she walks in there and he blows her head off, he's protecting himself from an invader and he can use lethal force with the shield of the castle doctrine.
She kills him, in his home, so it shouldn't be castle doctrine. (opinion, one I hope the jury agrees with)

---

Mistake of Fact is also at play right now.

She could reasonably believe that was her apartment. If she had a true and reasonable belief she was in her apartment (and by her actions at the time and her exclamations on the phone, I believe she did) then it comes into play.

---

In my opinion, mistake of fact doesn't matter because the state has proven he was getting up off the couch, in a non threatening position, thus lethal force isn't justified.

---

The state didn't prove that. That is their theory. But they had no evidence presented at trial to support that theory.

Your opinion can be that mistake of fact doesn't matter, and that I'd fine, but it is a very ill-informed opinion.

The judge's charge to the jury said that the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Guyger was not mistaken when she went to Jean's door. They had to prove to that she knew it wasn't her apartment. They did not meet that burden.

https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-8-02.html

---

I've been following this case form the beginning.
Saying the state didn't prove that is an opinion, buy saying they did not have evidence is just wrong. They even had the medical examiner say that in his opinion, botham was most likely rising to a standing position at the time the bullet entered him.

Perhaps you are the ill informed one.

---

The burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt". The state has cleared that bar for the facts of the case (that she intended to kill)

They also have to clear that bar for both mistake of fact and self defense.

"Most likely" is nowhere near that standard. Beyond a reasonable doubt, you're the ill-informed one.

---

wbt5845 said:

---

Some ******* started clapping

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

tysker said:

---

proc said:

---

tysker said:

---

powerbelly said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

ElephantRider said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

double aught said:

---

Enviroag02 said:

---

The other criteria the self defense strategy requires is the defendant to not be the aggressor. I thought the prosecution did a good job hammering that home as well.

---

If you believe mistake of fact (which I think most people do), then isn't she supported by the castle doctrine?

---

In a home that isn't hers?

---

Judge allowed it

---

I would hope the jury would recognize that the spirit of that law is to protect the guy who in this instance, got killed.

If she walks in there and he blows her head off, he's protecting himself from an invader and he can use lethal force with the shield of the castle doctrine.
She kills him, in his home, so it shouldn't be castle doctrine. (opinion, one I hope the jury agrees with)

---

Mistake of Fact is also at play right now.

She could reasonably believe that was her apartment. If she had a true and reasonable belief she was in her apartment (and by her actions at the time and her exclamations on the phone, I believe she did) then it comes into play.

---

In my opinion, mistake of fact doesn't matter because the state has proven he was getting up off the couch, in a non threatening position, thus lethal force isn't justified.

---

That doesn't matter if she thought he was in her home. If you are in my home in Texas against my will I can use lethal force. It doesn't matter if you are in a "threatening" position.

---

It seems against the spirit of the Castle Doctrine to extend it to places you 'think' are your home.

---

That is precisely where Mistake of Fact comes in.

---

Which, imo, is a serious flaw in the code. I could easily see this defense being used for more egregious crimes.

---

It is nearly never used. Not a lot of cases where an honest mistake like this was made.

---