hypeiv said:

---

I Am Mine said:

---

Here's the thing. If she's not a badass cop with a gum and she thinks that someone broke into her apartment she calls 911.

And a police officer should be able to determine what is and is not a threat to their lives.

A stoned accountant eating ice cream is not a threat to her.

She was ill trained, panicked, and killed a man.

As a police officer, she had a higher accountability to not make this mistake, panic, and kill someone.

Honestly, the failure is with the DPD for giving her a badge and gun.

---

If anything the fact she was a cop helped her case... i.e. some argue the victim should have shown his hands and not moved when he saw a uniformed officer.

As pointed out above, if she was just a LTC holder and made the same mistake it would have clearly been murder. Or worse... if the male was a LTC holder and he went into an off duty police officer's apartment by mistake and killed her, they would have been seeking the death penalty.

---

Did the defense ever argue that? Or was this just people on the internet? I never heard the defense accuse Jean of doing anything wrong.

Her being a white police officer fit neatly into a false narrative that the geniuses of our time have been trying to push for years. It did not help in any manner.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Yeah, well, not to **** on cops, but let's be honest, who in their right mind would really want to do that job in a big city these days. This doesn't go for everyone, but chances are you are probably kind of a meathead.

---

I think it is reasonable to say those who are accepting police positions in Dallas and staying there are not going to be high-end individuals. I'm sure there are exceptions, but generally, it is not a desirable position.

TOUCHDOWN! said:

---

I know that feelings and emotions shouldn't really be taken into consideration in a court of law...

But damn. You put Botham's texts side-by-side with Amber's texts and you realize how different these two people are, and what a special person Bo was.

---

She was convicted based on feelings & emotions.

ElephantRider said:

---

Brad 98 said:

---

She is going to get a minimum of 50 years. They are going to throw the book at her as an example. What is the appeal time frame? This case will be overturned on appeal. Can they fast track it?

---

How is it going to be overturned on appeal?

---

No change of venue, Cruezot interview the night before trial started, entering texts conversations that could inflame and bias the jury, not allowing multiple experts to testify on behalf of defense, not recusing juror with a previous business relationship with the lead investigator, a big one that I have not seen anyone mention is having Jean's picture facing the jury the entire trial.

I Am Mine said:

---

Totally disagree. If anything, her training should've prevented this from happening.

She panicked.

---

So she never has the right to be a human and make a mistake?

Let me ask you this, how many times in your life have you been told that someone was going to be in your home and kill you? Someone was going to find you later and kill you and your family? How many people would have to tell you that before the thought entered the back of your mind that one of these crazy people might actually try that? Is it possible that thought in the back of your mind would affect your anxiety level when you entered your home and saw someone standing there?

WFAA guy just said he thinks it will be in the 20 year range

DannyDuberstein said:

---

TOUCHDOWN! said:

---

I know that feelings and emotions shouldn't really be taken into consideration in a court of law...

But damn. You put Botham's texts side-by-side with Amber's texts and you realize how different these two people are, and what a special person Bo was.

---

Yeah, well, not to **** on cops, but let's be honest, who in their right mind would really want to do that job in a big city these days. This doesn't go for everyone, but chances are you are probably kind of a meathead.

---

Or a true believer in right vs wrong etc.

ElephantRider said:

---

Yeah, I don't have an issue with law enforcement in general, but most cops I know are fairly ****ty people on a personal level. It's almost worse at the small-town level; a girl I went to HS with just became a cop after a failed career as a hairdresser.

---

As one retired officer pointed out, they all test perfectly on a battery of psychological exams before they hire. So what does the job do to them?

Dealing with the scum of the earth on a daily basis can **** up your mindset about humanity. I will give them that. Of course, that also goes into my comment about taking that job.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

TOUCHDOWN! said:

---

I know that feelings and emotions shouldn't really be taken into consideration in a court of law...

But damn. You put Botham's texts side-by-side with Amber's texts and you realize how different these two people are, and what a special person Bo was.

---

Yeah, well, not to **** on cops, but let's be honest, who in their right mind would really want to do that job in a big city these days. This doesn't go for everyone, but chances are you are probably kind of a meathead.

---

When guys like Lee Merritt and Shaun King are free to lie and defame you with impunity, you'd have to be crazy.

Just ask the State Trooper accused of rape and Lee Merritt went after recently.

went to high school & played soccer w/ Roy (Woody) Oliver (balch springs)... pretty out there

Bocephus said:

---

I Am Mine said:

---

Totally disagree. If anything, her training should've prevented this from happening.

She panicked.

---

So she never has the right to be a human and make a mistake?

---

Removing the law, how many mistakes are you allowed when it results in the death of an innocent person?

She went to the wrong floor
She went to the wrong door
She didn't notice a bright red rug...only one on that floor
She was sexting a married man on that day and the day after
She entered an apartment knowing there was an intruder
She shot the man in the chest when she had an opportunity to retreat
She did not administer CPR
While he was dying, she was worried about her job status.

Let's face it, it was a horrible mistake but there were a lot of mistakes that happened in the totality of events. This wasn't just an oops one time. A lot happened that led up to her panic moment and a lot happened after that doesn't paint her in the greatest of light. Yet people want to give her a complete pass because they put themselves in only one or two of those scenarios and understand it could have happened to them. But there are numerous situations to where you start to question whether it was reasonable to assume the average person would respond the same way.

Facts dont care about your Bo's feelings

hypeiv said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

hypeiv said:

---

I Am Mine said:

---

Here's the thing. If she's not a badass cop with a gum and she thinks that someone broke into her apartment she calls 911.

And a police officer should be able to determine what is and is not a threat to their lives.

A stoned accountant eating ice cream is not a threat to her.

She was ill trained, panicked, and killed a man.

As a police officer, she had a higher accountability to not make this mistake, panic, and kill someone.

Honestly, the failure is with the DPD for giving her a badge and gun.

---

If anything the fact she was a cop helped her case... i.e. some argue the victim should have shown his hands and not moved when he saw a uniformed officer.

As pointed out above, if she was just a LTC holder and made the same mistake it would have clearly been murder. Or worse... if the male was a LTC holder and he went into an off duty police officer's apartment by mistake and killed her, they would have been seeking the death penalty.

---

Did the defense ever argue that? Or was this just people on the internet? I never heard the defense accuse Jean of doing anything wrong.

Her being a white police officer fit neatly into a false narrative that the geniuses of our time have been trying to push for years. It did not help in any manner.

---

No. I am not talking about the trail... I am just pointing that out to people who think she is getting treated worse because she is a police officer. (i.e. being held to a higher standard)

I think she is getting treated better because she was a cop (i.e. actually being held to a lower standard). She wasn't arrested right away, she had a private convo with the chief and time to clean up her text and social media, she had dirt on the victim leaked to the press, and I bet she gets a lower sentence b/c of the whole "cops get treated worse than normal inmates in prison" rumors.

So I disagree that she is being overly punished just because she is a white cop by pointing out if the roles were reversed this wouldn't even have been argument.

---

She never spoke to the chief. I addressed the 3-day delay above. Anyone can scrub social media at any time. The media REQUESTED the contents of the search warrant through s freedom of information request and then posted it online. Then the "activists" accused Dallas PD of leaking that Jean has weed in his apartment. Those that do not pay attention then blame a conspiracy by Dallas PD trying to make Jean look bad, or Guyger leaking info to the press (who she was trying to avoid at all costs). The Dallas Morning News our that out there and people continue to blame Dallas PD for it. Did the defense team ever mention the weed? No one cares! I don't think the defense team said a single disparaging thing about Jean during the entire trial.

Bocephus said:

---

ElephantRider said:

---

Again, she was convicted because she walked into an innocent man's residence and shot him. That's basically the one indisputable fact in this case, and in my mind is enough for a conviction. I really don't give a rat's ass what races are involved or what her profession was; you shouldn't be able to do that.

---

No one is saying she was in the right. No one is arguing she does not deserve to be punished.

The state was tasked with proving that this WAS NOT a mistake bc mistake of fact is an affirmative defense to murder just like self defense is. The state did not come close to proving that this was not a horrible mistake with a tragic outcome. What they did do effectively was make the jury dislike her so they would convict her.

---

It's been a while since I took Texas crim pro, but isn't there also an initial burden of proof on the defense w/r/t the affirmative defense? i.e., the defense initially has to prove (maybe by PoE?) that this WAS a mistake of fact, and then the state has to prove BRD that this WAS NOT a mistake? I haven't been following the day-to-day evidentiary proceedings that closely, but was that initial burden satisfied?

ElephantRider said:

---

WFAA guy just said he thinks it will be in the 20 year range

---

Higher than a guy who pulled his rifle out at a loud music call and shot into a vehicle that was leaving the scene. Let's punish her for Sandra Bland!!!

Dan 07 said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

ElephantRider said:

---

Again, she was convicted because she walked into an innocent man's residence and shot him. That's basically the one indisputable fact in this case, and in my mind is enough for a conviction. I really don't give a rat's ass what races are involved or what her profession was; you shouldn't be able to do that.

---

No one is saying she was in the right. No one is arguing she does not deserve to be punished.

The state was tasked with proving that this WAS NOT a mistake bc mistake of fact is an affirmative defense to murder just like self defense is. The state did not come close to proving that this was not a horrible mistake with a tragic outcome. What they did do effectively was make the jury dislike her so they would convict her.

---

It's been a while since I took Texas crim pro, but isn't there also an initial burden of proof on the defense w/r/t the affirmative defense? i.e., the defense initially has to prove (maybe by PoE?) that this WAS a mistake of fact, and then the state has to prove BRD that this WAS NOT a mistake? I haven't been following the day-to-day evidentiary proceedings that closely, but was that initial burden satisfied?

---

You'd have to ask the jury. But I think the testimony clearly pointed out he below. It's up to each individual as to how they decide.

She went to the wrong floor
She went to the wrong door
She didn't notice a bright red rug...only one on that floor
She was sexting a married man on that day and the day after
She entered an apartment knowing there was an intruder.
There is no clear evidence to support whether he was Coming at her as she stated.
She shot the man in the chest when she had an opportunity to retreat
She stated she intended to kill him.
She did not administer CPR.
While he was dying, she was worried about her job statu

Dan 07 said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

ElephantRider said:

---

Again, she was convicted because she walked into an innocent man's residence and shot him. That's basically the one indisputable fact in this case, and in my mind is enough for a conviction. I really don't give a rat's ass what races are involved or what her profession was; you shouldn't be able to do that.

---

No one is saying she was in the right. No one is arguing she does not deserve to be punished.

The state was tasked with proving that this WAS NOT a mistake bc mistake of fact is an affirmative defense to murder just like self defense is. The state did not come close to proving that this was not a horrible mistake with a tragic outcome. What they did do effectively was make the jury dislike her so they would convict her.

---

It's been a while since I took Texas crim pro, but isn't there also an initial burden of proof on the defense w/r/t the affirmative defense? i.e., the defense initially has to prove (maybe by PoE?) that this WAS a mistake of fact, and then the state has to prove BRD that this WAS NOT a mistake? I haven't been following the day-to-day evidentiary proceedings that closely, but was that initial burden satisfied?

---

My understanding was that the state had to prove it was not a mistake (innocent until proven guilty) but I am not a lawyer. I also think this defense definitely proved it was a mistake. Evidence clearly showed that. Prosecutors said in their opening statement that it was a mistake, but that Guyger should not have made it. No shtt Sherlock!

HouseDivided06 said:

---

jeffdjohnson said:

---

uneedastraw said:

---

She shot the man in the chest when she had an opportunity to retreat

---

This is the one I can't get past. She opened the door, entered the apartment and had the hallway (exit) to her back. She was not cornered in anyway. She could have pulled her weapon, held what she considered to be a suspect at bay and began moving back towards perceived safety. This would have allowed her to both assess the threat as well as call for backup. I believe that the vast majority of police officers would have been able to handle this situation without firing a shot.

---

And while that is understandable, the problem is by letter of the law, if this had been her resident which she believed it was, she had not duty to retreat and was well within her right. It wasn't her apartment. But the sticking point is if she believed it was then her mistake of fact defense requires the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she did not have mistake of fact. That's a high burden of proof that I don't think was met, although I do understand the guilty verdict.

---

How many facts can you miss for it to be a mistake of fact? Does your lack of following common decency on several occasions leading up to and after the event effect a jurors mindset on deciding whether a reasonable person could have a "mistake of fact"?

So yes, the self defense with mistake of fact gives her a pass for killing an intruder as she thought they were in her home. But was she acting reasonable in the events leading up to and after for one to assume the mistake of fact should apply?

I say murder. But I would have so many sleepless nights after that I can't imagine the stress for those jurors.

What I cannot believe is how 12 people Caleb up to the same conclusion so fast. I think it was murder but in no way did I ever believe she would be convicted .

uneedastraw said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

I Am Mine said:

---

Totally disagree. If anything, her training should've prevented this from happening.

She panicked.

---

So she never has the right to be a human and make a mistake?

---

Removing the law, how many mistakes are you allowed when it results in the death of an innocent person?

She went to the wrong floor
She went to the wrong door
She didn't notice a bright red rug...only one on that floor
She was sexting a married man on that day and the day after
She entered an apartment knowing there was an intruder
She shot the man in the chest when she had an opportunity to retreat
She did not administer CPR
While he was dying, she was worried about her job status.

Let's face it, it was a horrible mistake but there were a lot of mistakes that happened in the totality of events. This wasn't just an oops one time. A lot happened that led up to her panic moment and a lot happened after that doesn't paint her in the greatest of light. Yet people want to give her a complete pass because they put themselves in only one or two of those scenarios and understand it could have happened to them. But there are numerous situations to where you start to question whether it was reasonable to assume the average person would respond the same way.

---

What does texting a married man have to do with anything? Is that a crime?

There is no duty to retreat in Texas.

Doing CPR would have been pointless but I agree that is a bad look if she did not do any. I try not to judge people for what they do after traumatic events like shooting another person.

NO ONE has said she deserves a free pass even though in this case that is what the law says with the way it is written with re: to mistake of fact. Everyone thinks she deserves to be punished.

The issue that a lot of people are having is that the evidence presented by the state does not prove that this was not a mistake.

The issue I am having is that they will convict an officer for murder for this mistake, yet you kill a child and you get pled out to a lesser charge than murder.

The people speaking on Amber's behalf are just not near as compelling as people from the other side...

Bocephus said:

---

uneedastraw said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

I Am Mine said:

---

Totally disagree. If anything, her training should've prevented this from happening.

She panicked.

---

So she never has the right to be a human and make a mistake?

---

Removing the law, how many mistakes are you allowed when it results in the death of an innocent person?

She went to the wrong floor
She went to the wrong door
She didn't notice a bright red rug...only one on that floor
She was sexting a married man on that day and the day after
She entered an apartment knowing there was an intruder
She shot the man in the chest when she had an opportunity to retreat
She did not administer CPR
While he was dying, she was worried about her job status.

Let's face it, it was a horrible mistake but there were a lot of mistakes that happened in the totality of events. This wasn't just an oops one time. A lot happened that led up to her panic moment and a lot happened after that doesn't paint her in the greatest of light. Yet people want to give her a complete pass because they put themselves in only one or two of those scenarios and understand it could have happened to them. But there are numerous situations to where you start to question whether it was reasonable to assume the average person would respond the same way.

---

What does texting a married man have to do with anything? Is that a crime?

There is no duty to retreat in Texas.

Doing CPR would have been pointless but I agree that is a bad look if she did not do any. I try not to judge people for what they do after traumatic events like shooting another person.

NO ONE has said she deserves a free pass even though in this case that is what the law says with the way it is written with re: to mistake of fact. Everyone thinks she deserves to be punished.

The issue that a lot of people are having is that the evidence presented by the state does not prove that this was not a mistake.

The issue I am having is that they will convict an officer for murder for this mistake, yet you kill a child and you get pled out to a lesser charge than murder.

---

I have the same issue; they both should be convicted of murder.

CJS4715 said:

---

The people speaking on Amber's behalf are just not near as compelling as people from the other side...

---

I heard she once stole a brownie. Let's tack a few extra years on for that.

ElephantRider said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

uneedastraw said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

I Am Mine said:

---

Totally disagree. If anything, her training should've prevented this from happening.

She panicked.

---

So she never has the right to be a human and make a mistake?

---

Removing the law, how many mistakes are you allowed when it results in the death of an innocent person?

She went to the wrong floor
She went to the wrong door
She didn't notice a bright red rug...only one on that floor
She was sexting a married man on that day and the day after
She entered an apartment knowing there was an intruder
She shot the man in the chest when she had an opportunity to retreat
She did not administer CPR
While he was dying, she was worried about her job status.

Let's face it, it was a horrible mistake but there were a lot of mistakes that happened in the totality of events. This wasn't just an oops one time. A lot happened that led up to her panic moment and a lot happened after that doesn't paint her in the greatest of light. Yet people want to give her a complete pass because they put themselves in only one or two of those scenarios and understand it could have happened to them. But there are numerous situations to where you start to question whether it was reasonable to assume the average person would respond the same way.

---

What does texting a married man have to do with anything? Is that a crime?

There is no duty to retreat in Texas.

Doing CPR would have been pointless but I agree that is a bad look if she did not do any. I try not to judge people for what they do after traumatic events like shooting another person.

NO ONE has said she deserves a free pass even though in this case that is what the law says with the way it is written with re: to mistake of fact. Everyone thinks she deserves to be punished.

The issue that a lot of people are having is that the evidence presented by the state does not prove that this was not a mistake.

The issue I am having is that they will convict an officer for murder for this mistake, yet you kill a child and you get pled out to a lesser charge than murder.

---

I have the same issue; they both should be convicted of murder.

---

Or at least the DA should TRY to convict both for murder. Using prosecutorial discretion to try to implement social change is pretty ridiculous.

When did Michael Chiklis grow a ponytail and start working for DPD?

Bocephus said:

---

uneedastraw said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

I Am Mine said:

---

Totally disagree. If anything, her training should've prevented this from happening.

She panicked.

---

So she never has the right to be a human and make a mistake?

---

Removing the law, how many mistakes are you allowed when it results in the death of an innocent person?

She went to the wrong floor
She went to the wrong door
She didn't notice a bright red rug...only one on that floor
She was sexting a married man on that day and the day after
She entered an apartment knowing there was an intruder
She shot the man in the chest when she had an opportunity to retreat
She did not administer CPR
While he was dying, she was worried about her job status.

Let's face it, it was a horrible mistake but there were a lot of mistakes that happened in the totality of events. This wasn't just an oops one time. A lot happened that led up to her panic moment and a lot happened after that doesn't paint her in the greatest of light. Yet people want to give her a complete pass because they put themselves in only one or two of those scenarios and understand it could have happened to them. But there are numerous situations to where you start to question whether it was reasonable to assume the average person would respond the same way.

---

What does texting a married man have to do with anything? Is that a crime?

There is no duty to retreat in Texas.

Doing CPR would have been pointless but I agree that is a bad look if she did not do any. I try not to judge people for what they do after traumatic events like shooting another person.

NO ONE has said she deserves a free pass even though in this case that is what the law says with the way it is written with re: to mistake of fact. Everyone thinks she deserves to be punished.

The issue that a lot of people are having is that the evidence presented by the state does not prove that this was not a mistake.

The issue I am having is that they will convict an officer for murder for this mistake, yet you kill a child and you get pled out to a lesser charge than murder.

---

If my son is dead, and I knew a woman went to the wrong floor, went to the wrong door that had a bright red rug in front of it and I knew the person who made the mistake of recognizing that was distracted due to potential unethical behavior, in going to have a problem with that.

Look, obviously people went to the wrong apartment. But did they do so based on a simple mistake or did they do so when there were several indicators leading up to the event that a reasonable person wouldn't do it.

The red rug is the key.

The fact that she was "tired" but sexting a married man shows you she wasn't reasonable in her actions that day (in my opinion).

It's my opinion that If you kill an innocent man and you want to use some vague subsection of law that is never used, then you better be squeaky clean. She wasn't.