Amber Guyger Trial
120,080 Views |
1267 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by Bocephus
ElephantRider said:
Freedom from Religion Foundation has filed a complaint against the judge for giving her a bible
Typical BS.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/florida-man-accidentally-shoots-kills-son-law-surprise/story?id=66031955
No charges for this in Florida, apologize for odd formatting here something is up.
No charges for this in Florida, apologize for odd formatting here something is up.
Bocephus said:ElephantRider said:
Freedom from Religion Foundation has filed a complaint against the judge for giving her a bible
Typical BS.
The judge was out of line doing that as a judge. As a human it was a kind effort to comfort her.
The jury came to the conclusion that it was a mistake but still came to a verdict of murder?
n_touch said:
The jury came to the conclusion that it was a mistake but still came to a verdict of murder?
It was a mistake to go into the apartment. It was a mistake not to call back up or the police. It was a mistake that she thought he was attacking her.
Those are all not reasonable mistakes.
There seems to be some confusion on my point of view so I will clarify again:
I felt Guyger would be charged with manslaughter and receive a sentence somewhere between probation and 20 years and that was fine.
I think there is a flaw in the way the law is written when you can kill someone by accident in their home, and essentially walk free bc of mistake of fact.
Everyone and their dog is claiming that this was murder bc she intended to kill him when she pointed the gun at him. Then why don't we have hundreds of more murder charges in Dallas every year? We have plenty of people who die by gunfire. Do you think the people who pointed a gun at them and pulled the trigger did not intend to kill them?
Here is where my frustration comes from. I've watched the Dallas County ADAs give every excuse in the book for YEARS on why they could charge people with the crimes that they committed.
Then I watched them go full bore after Guyger. My frustration is NOT that they went after Guyger, it is that they REFUSE to go after the predators who are really a threat to our community.
I've seen guys who have 10 felony convictions pick up their 11th for a violent felony and given probation. I participated in a case where a convicted felon was the driver in an aggravated robbery where the guy he was with shot and killed the man they were attempting to rob. I had arrested this same guy for holding his pregnant girfriend's head down in a bathtub and pistol whipping her. She dropped the charges. So he's a violent person, lifelong criminal, participates in a capital murder and gets pled out to 10 years bc the judge had tickets to the Ranger's World Series game that afternoon and wanted to wrap up the trial before noon. The Dallas County justice system has been broken for decades, and to come together and follow the letter of the law bc the offense involved an off duty police officer and fits into a false national narrative, is ridiculous. If you want to follow the letter of the law, do it across the board.
I do not care about the racial makeup of the jury. I do care that it be a jury of unbiased peers that did not know about the case before the trial. I do not think you can get that in Dallas County in this case. You ended up with a juror with a previous business relationship with the lead investigator (we don't know if that was a good or bad relationship) and they were not recused?
I think this case exposes a hole in the law bc she did not have a motive, she had intent to kill when she fired the gun, but mistake of fact should negate that according to the letter of the law. I think there needs to be something put into place between murder and manslaughter that will encapsulate a case like this.
I know there are people who will read this and say that she is a police officer so she should be held to a higher standard. That is fine, as long as you hold lifelong criminals accountable to half the standard you are holding police to.
I felt Guyger would be charged with manslaughter and receive a sentence somewhere between probation and 20 years and that was fine.
I think there is a flaw in the way the law is written when you can kill someone by accident in their home, and essentially walk free bc of mistake of fact.
Everyone and their dog is claiming that this was murder bc she intended to kill him when she pointed the gun at him. Then why don't we have hundreds of more murder charges in Dallas every year? We have plenty of people who die by gunfire. Do you think the people who pointed a gun at them and pulled the trigger did not intend to kill them?
Here is where my frustration comes from. I've watched the Dallas County ADAs give every excuse in the book for YEARS on why they could charge people with the crimes that they committed.
Then I watched them go full bore after Guyger. My frustration is NOT that they went after Guyger, it is that they REFUSE to go after the predators who are really a threat to our community.
I've seen guys who have 10 felony convictions pick up their 11th for a violent felony and given probation. I participated in a case where a convicted felon was the driver in an aggravated robbery where the guy he was with shot and killed the man they were attempting to rob. I had arrested this same guy for holding his pregnant girfriend's head down in a bathtub and pistol whipping her. She dropped the charges. So he's a violent person, lifelong criminal, participates in a capital murder and gets pled out to 10 years bc the judge had tickets to the Ranger's World Series game that afternoon and wanted to wrap up the trial before noon. The Dallas County justice system has been broken for decades, and to come together and follow the letter of the law bc the offense involved an off duty police officer and fits into a false national narrative, is ridiculous. If you want to follow the letter of the law, do it across the board.
I do not care about the racial makeup of the jury. I do care that it be a jury of unbiased peers that did not know about the case before the trial. I do not think you can get that in Dallas County in this case. You ended up with a juror with a previous business relationship with the lead investigator (we don't know if that was a good or bad relationship) and they were not recused?
I think this case exposes a hole in the law bc she did not have a motive, she had intent to kill when she fired the gun, but mistake of fact should negate that according to the letter of the law. I think there needs to be something put into place between murder and manslaughter that will encapsulate a case like this.
I know there are people who will read this and say that she is a police officer so she should be held to a higher standard. That is fine, as long as you hold lifelong criminals accountable to half the standard you are holding police to.
culdeus said:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/florida-man-accidentally-shoots-kills-son-law-surprise/story?id=66031955
No charges for this in Florida, apologize for odd formatting here something is up.
Not really the same, since he was at his own house and not an innocent stranger's.
Bob Loblaws Law Blog said:culdeus said:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/florida-man-accidentally-shoots-kills-son-law-surprise/story?id=66031955
No charges for this in Florida, apologize for odd formatting here something is up.
Not really the same, since he was at his own house and not an innocent stranger's.
True. And that should be manslaughter.
Yeah, but the son was eating Ice Cream. Have you no soul?Bob Loblaws Law Blog said:culdeus said:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/florida-man-accidentally-shoots-kills-son-law-surprise/story?id=66031955
No charges for this in Florida, apologize for odd formatting here something is up.
Not really the same, since he was at his own house and not an innocent stranger's.
Bocephus said:
There seems to be some confusion on my point of view so I will clarify again:
I felt Guyger would be charged with manslaughter and receive a sentence somewhere between probation and 20 years and that was fine.
I think there is a flaw in the way the law is written when you can kill someone by accident in their home, and essentially walk free bc of mistake of fact.
Everyone and their dog is claiming that this was murder bc she intended to kill him when she pointed the gun at him. Then why don't we have hundreds of more murder charges in Dallas every year? We have plenty of people who die by gunfire. Do you think the people who pointed a gun at them and pulled the trigger did not intend to kill them?
Here is where my frustration comes from. I've watched the Dallas County ADAs give every excuse in the book for YEARS on why they could charge people with the crimes that they committed.
Then I watched them go full bore after Guyger. My frustration is NOT that they went after Guyger, it is that they REFUSE to go after the predators who are really a threat to our community.
I've seen guys who have 10 felony convictions pick up their 11th for a violent felony and given probation. I participated in a case where a convicted felon was the driver in an aggravated robbery where the guy he was with shot and killed the man they were attempting to rob. I had arrested this same guy for holding his pregnant girfriend's head down in a bathtub and pistol whipping her. She dropped the charges. So he's a violent person, lifelong criminal, participates in a capital murder and gets pled out to 10 years bc the judge had tickets to the Ranger's World Series game that afternoon and wanted to wrap up the trial before noon. The Dallas County justice system has been broken for decades, and to come together and follow the letter of the law bc the offense involved an off duty police officer and fits into a false national narrative, is ridiculous. If you want to follow the letter of the law, do it across the board.
I do not care about the racial makeup of the jury. I do care that it be a jury of unbiased peers that did not know about the case before the trial. I do not think you can get that in Dallas County in this case. You ended up with a juror with a previous business relationship with the lead investigator (we don't know if that was a good or bad relationship) and they were not recused?
I think this case exposes a hole in the law bc she did not have a motive, she had intent to kill when she fired the gun, but mistake of fact should negate that according to the letter of the law. I think there needs to be something put into place between murder and manslaughter that will encapsulate a case like this.
I know there are people who will read this and say that she is a police officer so she should be held to a higher standard. That is fine, as long as you hold lifelong criminals accountable to half the standard you are holding police to.
Very fair points, and I appreciate your point of view. I also don't think you are totally wrong. Anyone with any connection to the legal field sees the unequal way justice is paid out on a daily basis. The political maneuverings that occur in the courthouse start well before trial.
I Am Mine said:n_touch said:
The jury came to the conclusion that it was a mistake but still came to a verdict of murder?
It was a mistake to go into the apartment. It was a mistake not to call back up or the police. It was a mistake that she thought he was attacking her.
Those are all not reasonable mistakes.
She has no duty to retreat and call the police once she enters the apartment, per the letter of the law. If you're going to say she entered by mistake, she does not have to retreat. This is a typical case where a sequence of events that happened in 1-2 seconds is analyzed and over-analyzed for weeks and months. By the letter of the law she should be free, but is it realistic that someone who entered the wrong home and shoots them go free?
Bob Loblaws Law Blog said:culdeus said:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/florida-man-accidentally-shoots-kills-son-law-surprise/story?id=66031955
No charges for this in Florida, apologize for odd formatting here something is up.
Not really the same, since he was at his own house and not an innocent stranger's.
I think this is why mistake of fact was put into penal code. I think Guyger's case falls somewhere between this and when SWAT officers serve a warrant on the wrong house and shoot the homeowner (not the Houston PD deal).
Bocephus said:I Am Mine said:n_touch said:
The jury came to the conclusion that it was a mistake but still came to a verdict of murder?
It was a mistake to go into the apartment. It was a mistake not to call back up or the police. It was a mistake that she thought he was attacking her.
Those are all not reasonable mistakes.
She has no duty to retreat and call the police once she enters the apartment, per the letter of the law. If you're going to say she entered by mistake, she does not have to retreat. This is a typical case where a sequence of events that happened in 1-2 seconds is analyzed and over-analyzed for weeks and months. By the letter of the law she should be free, but is it realistic that someone who entered the wrong home and shoots them go free?
Yeah. It's a problem with the law.
Someone without a gun calls 911 as soon as they realize someone is in "their" apartment.
I Am Mine said:Bocephus said:I Am Mine said:n_touch said:
The jury came to the conclusion that it was a mistake but still came to a verdict of murder?
It was a mistake to go into the apartment. It was a mistake not to call back up or the police. It was a mistake that she thought he was attacking her.
Those are all not reasonable mistakes.
She has no duty to retreat and call the police once she enters the apartment, per the letter of the law. If you're going to say she entered by mistake, she does not have to retreat. This is a typical case where a sequence of events that happened in 1-2 seconds is analyzed and over-analyzed for weeks and months. By the letter of the law she should be free, but is it realistic that someone who entered the wrong home and shoots them go free?
Yeah. It's a problem with the law.
Someone without a gun calls 911 as soon as they realize someone is in "their" apartment.
So people should not carry guns or they should have a duty to retreat?
I live in the country. If I hear something in my house I'm going to investigate what kind of varmint got in there whether I'm armed or unarmed.
AG live(d) in the city, and if there were somebody (or somebodies) inside, they had only 1 entrance/exit. The reasonable thing for most people would have been to not go in guns'a'blazing, retreat, and call for back-up.
Bocephus said:I Am Mine said:Bocephus said:I Am Mine said:n_touch said:
The jury came to the conclusion that it was a mistake but still came to a verdict of murder?
It was a mistake to go into the apartment. It was a mistake not to call back up or the police. It was a mistake that she thought he was attacking her.
Those are all not reasonable mistakes.
She has no duty to retreat and call the police once she enters the apartment, per the letter of the law. If you're going to say she entered by mistake, she does not have to retreat. This is a typical case where a sequence of events that happened in 1-2 seconds is analyzed and over-analyzed for weeks and months. By the letter of the law she should be free, but is it realistic that someone who entered the wrong home and shoots them go free?
Yeah. It's a problem with the law.
Someone without a gun calls 911 as soon as they realize someone is in "their" apartment.
So people should not carry guns or they should have a duty to retreat?
I live in the country. If I hear something in my house I'm going to investigate what kind of varmint got in there whether I'm armed or unarmed.
Whether or not you carry a gun is a personal decision. I personally choose not to carry one for numerous reasons. That doesn't mean others shouldn't be allowed to carry.
I'm saying that people carrying are more likely to get into deadly mistakes than those that do not carry.
Shooting someone by mistake is a mistake you cannot take back.
I'm glad that we don't have so many laws that there would be one that perfectly fits the situation. I think the jury did the best they could given the insanely tragic and complex circumstances.
(Let me preface my comment below that yes, I am aware that Guyger was not in her home)
I just argued this with a Brazilian guy in town for business. I said if I walked into my home (knowing family will not be there) and I see a dude inside, the only thing Im doing is point and pull (many times). He looked at me like I had nine heads then suggested if I were to shoot then I should shoot him in the leg?!?!?!?! WTF?!?!
I told him that I am not sure how they do it in Brazil but in this country/state when you are threatened in your home you never pull a gun on somebody to threaten, intimidate or freakin shoot them in the leg.
I just argued this with a Brazilian guy in town for business. I said if I walked into my home (knowing family will not be there) and I see a dude inside, the only thing Im doing is point and pull (many times). He looked at me like I had nine heads then suggested if I were to shoot then I should shoot him in the leg?!?!?!?! WTF?!?!
I told him that I am not sure how they do it in Brazil but in this country/state when you are threatened in your home you never pull a gun on somebody to threaten, intimidate or freakin shoot them in the leg.
BoDog said:
(Let me preface my comment below that yes, I am aware that Guyger was not in her home)
I just argued this with a Brazilian guy in town for business. I said if I walked into my home (knowing family will not be there) and I see a dude inside, the only thing Im doing is point and pull (many times). He looked at me like I had nine heads then suggested if I were to shoot then I should shoot him in the leg?!?!?!?! WTF?!?!
I told him that I am not sure how they do it in Brazil but in this country/state when you are threatened in your home you never pull a gun on somebody to threaten, intimidate or freakin shoot them in the leg.
That's funny because Brazil is not a safe place to live. At all. And that might be why.
Quote:
I told him that I am not sure how they do it in Brazil but in this country/state when you are threatened in your home you never pull a gun on somebody to threaten, intimidate or freakin shoot them in the leg.
Having taken CHL and gun-safety classes, and by virtue of living in Texas, hearing lots gun-owners share off their thoughts and feelings about gun-ownership, I'm of the opinion that a large % of gun owners in the USA are not responsible gun owners, and the statement above definitely fits into that irresponsible category. Responsible gun ownership involves being vigilant and constantly assessing the situations to make the best decision. Just because guns offer an ultimatum-type consequence of killing someone, that does not permit gun owners to think in ultimatum-type thoughts, but that doesn't stop irresponsible gun owners from doing so.
Huh? If coming home to find some dude in your house isn't an ultimatum-type situation I don't know what is? Nevermind if you have a family member/s with you. Its amazing to me how some of you get on here and spew this limp wristed rhetoric. In that situation its likely you or him. You go ahead and talk it out and I'll handle it my way.
BoDog said:
Huh? If coming home to find some dude in your house isn't an ultimatum-type situation I don't know what is? Nevermind if you have a family member/s with you. Its amazing to me how some of you get on here and spew this limp wristed rhetoric. In that situation its likely you or him. You go ahead and talk it out and I'll handle it my way.
So if he puts up his hands and says, "Don't shoot," you'll shoot because he was burglarizing your house?
Because legally you can kill him for that?
BoDog said:
Huh? If coming home to find some dude in your house isn't an ultimatum-type situation I don't know what is? Nevermind if you have a family member/s with you. Its amazing to me how some of you get on here and spew this limp wristed rhetoric. In that situation its likely you or him. You go ahead and talk it out and I'll handle it my way.
I get it if you feel threatened, or feel your life is in danger, they're coming at you or all the other reasons people can and do protect themselves....
but it is bat *** crazy to say that somebody deserves to die just because they broke into your house and you showed up before they left.
The problem is the fact that you decided, entirely by the virtue of somebody being in your home, that it is "you or him".
That doesn't make it okay for them to be there, but it is freaking concerning that we have a large number of gun owners who honestly feel that this is the appropriate way to handle a situation like this.
752bro4 said:
AG live(d) in the city, and if there were somebody (or somebodies) inside, they had only 1 entrance/exit. The reasonable thing for most people would have been to not go in guns'a'blazing, retreat, and call for back-up.
Did she testify that she pulled her gun before she went in there. My understanding was that she put her key in, opened the door and entered all in one motion. Then she saw the guy, dropped everything in her left hand, drew her gun with her right hand and ordered him to show his hands. He gets up from the couch to see who this strange person in his apartment is, sees the gun and says, "Hey, Hey." I can only imagine trying to demonstrate that he is not a threat. She either perceived him moving forward (common if you're facing someone who is getting out of a chair) or sees him moving forward and shoots him.
This is how I think it happened anyways. All in 1-2 seconds.
Bocephus said:752bro4 said:
AG live(d) in the city, and if there were somebody (or somebodies) inside, they had only 1 entrance/exit. The reasonable thing for most people would have been to not go in guns'a'blazing, retreat, and call for back-up.
Did she testify that she pulled her gun before she went in there. My understanding was that she put her key in, opened the door and entered all in one motion. Then she saw the guy, dropped everything in her left hand, drew her gun with her right hand and ordered him to show his hands. He gets up from the couch to see who this strange person in his apartment is, sees the gun and says, "Hey, Hey." I can only imagine trying to demonstrate that he is not a threat. She either perceived him moving forward (common if you're facing someone who is getting out of a chair) or sees him moving forward and shoots him.
This is how I think it happened anyways. All in 1-2 seconds.
What was the distance?
12 to 15 feet
Guitarsoup said:
12 to 15 feet
Yikes.
You "get it" if you feel threatened? WTF?!?!
Hell yes I would feel threatened! There is a unwelcome stranger in my home!!
God forbid if this ever happens I'll tell him that guys on TexAgs think I should just relax. At that point I'll make him a cup of coffee and we can kick back and talk how we think the Cowboys will do this year.
Good God. Some of you are amazing. It's no wonder Beto damn near won.
Hell yes I would feel threatened! There is a unwelcome stranger in my home!!
God forbid if this ever happens I'll tell him that guys on TexAgs think I should just relax. At that point I'll make him a cup of coffee and we can kick back and talk how we think the Cowboys will do this year.
Good God. Some of you are amazing. It's no wonder Beto damn near won.
.... and JD, I never said anyone deserves to die- but I know I will do whatever it takes to make damn sure it isn't me.
Sure - I wouldn't disagree with that at all.
When I first read your posts, it sounded to me like you were saying if somebody was in your home when you got there, you would enter with your gun drawn. From re-reading, it sounds like you mean you stumble upon somebody in which case I would obviously say that is a good reason to feel the situation to be more life and death.
I just think too often folks have a tendency to - at least based on what they say on the internet, where tone is often hard to detect - escalate situations that weren't life and death into becoming life and death.
I don't think it is your job to attempt to de-escalate the situation if you stumble upon somebody and they are coming at you - but if you're able to avoid the confrontation entirely, that is 100% the right answer in my opinion.
Again, it is likely you weren't talking about a situation like that to begin with, so my apologies.
When I first read your posts, it sounded to me like you were saying if somebody was in your home when you got there, you would enter with your gun drawn. From re-reading, it sounds like you mean you stumble upon somebody in which case I would obviously say that is a good reason to feel the situation to be more life and death.
I just think too often folks have a tendency to - at least based on what they say on the internet, where tone is often hard to detect - escalate situations that weren't life and death into becoming life and death.
I don't think it is your job to attempt to de-escalate the situation if you stumble upon somebody and they are coming at you - but if you're able to avoid the confrontation entirely, that is 100% the right answer in my opinion.
Again, it is likely you weren't talking about a situation like that to begin with, so my apologies.
I don't think her Fob key worked...idk how she was able to enter the apartment. Maybe the door was unlocked and the correct fob key was not needed. This was never clearly explained by any report.
It was explained in court.OKC~Ag said:
I don't think her Fob key worked...idk how she was able to enter the apartment. Maybe the door was unlocked and the correct fob key was not needed. This was never clearly explained by any report.
The strike plate was overtorqued so the door wouldn't shut right unless pulled all the way.
So it looked shut, but Jean didn't shut it all the way and it could open without moving the handle or turning the deadbolt.
So as she put her key in, it pushed the door open.
Guitarsoup said:It was explained in court.OKC~Ag said:
I don't think her Fob key worked...idk how she was able to enter the apartment. Maybe the door was unlocked and the correct fob key was not needed. This was never clearly explained by any report.
The strike plate was overtorqued so the door wouldn't shut right unless pulled all the way.
So it looked shut, but Jean didn't shut it all the way and it could open without moving the handle or turning the deadbolt.
So as she put her key in, it pushed the door open.
I thought it had to do with the door frame bowing out when it rained?
That was probably a contributing factor, but the main problem testified in court was that the strike plate was over torqued and bowed out, preventing the handle from catching in the closed position without additional effort.
Featured Stories
See All
Resiliency of McMillan's Aggies to be 'severely' tested in Austin
by Olin Buchanan
35:28
17h ago
4.3k
10:16
16h ago
2.2k
TexAgs Overtime: Aggie basketball's opportunity in Austin
by Billy Liucci
Senior right-hander Josh Stewart picked to wear #12 in 2026
by Richard Zane
58:55
1d ago
11k
Ask Liucci: Offseason begins with a busy portal window & more
by Billy Liucci
Positivelyag512
Lyle Hemphill, Mike Elko's Defense not Alike at All
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
6