PatAg said:

---

Seems like she had a sporadic approach to applying her training. So according to some she followed her training when taking the shots, but then others say she should have taken cover and continued to make demands. Then she leaves the victim to die on the ground, and is out in the apartment as the next police officers arrive. I'm fairly certain that is not how they are trainedm considering those officers immediately started applying cpr.

---

TOUCHDOWN! said:

---

The facts of this case are very simple.

Is there any evidence that AG and BJ had any prior interaction or previous relationship? -No (just getting this out of the way first, as I'm tired of seeing people insist that they were secret lovers or she had some sort of grudge with him).

Is it reasonable that AG parked on the wrong floor of the garage without realizing it? - Yes

Is it reasonable that AG walked to what she thought was her front door while distracted on her phone (sexting) and inserted her keys? - Yes

Is it reasonable that AG's initial reaction upon seeing that the door was unlocked and unlatched was confusion and fear that someone had been in her house? - Yes

The next step is where reasonableness comes into question. Upon seeing that "your" door was open, is it reasonable to enter "your" apartment and shoot someone who you believe is in "your" apartment, or would most people have taken a moment to asses their surroundings and try to figure out was was going on? Personally, I think most of us would have done the latter. In my opinion, it was at this point where she acted unreasonably and therefore should be held accountable. Murder or manslaughter, I really don't care, we're just getting into the weeds about the number of years she would be in jail.

In my opinion, this case speaks more to the quality of people recruited into the police department and the type of "shoot first ask questions later" mindset that is drilled into them during training. I believe that police departments around the country are training their officers to be fearful of their lives with every interaction, rather than training them to be prepared for every interaction.

---

Quote:

---

The current DA displayed a lack of leadership and fortitude by choosing not to lower the charge to the appropriate charge of manslaughter

---

TOUCHDOWN! said:

---

I guess I'm of the opinion that pulling a gun and killing someone shouldn't be your first reaction to an unusual situation.

---

Bocephus said:

---

double aught said:

---

Quote:

---

The current DA displayed a lack of leadership and fortitude by choosing not to lower the charge to the appropriate charge of manslaughter

---

But according to your post from the former DA, manslaughter isn't appropriate because it involves recklessness.

---

I would bet huge sums of money that he offered pleas of manslaughter to hardened criminals while he was DA who he had much better cases for murder against than the one the current DA has vs Guyger.

---

Bocephus said:

---

TOUCHDOWN! said:

---

I guess I'm of the opinion that pulling a gun and killing someone shouldn't be your first reaction to an unusual situation.

---

A man is 100 pounds heavier than you and taller than you is moving towards you in your home. You perceive him as a threat and you have access to a gun. What do you do? Ask him to stop advancing bc you want to assess this unusual situation?

---

tysker said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

double aught said:

---

Quote:

---

The current DA displayed a lack of leadership and fortitude by choosing not to lower the charge to the appropriate charge of manslaughter

---

But according to your post from the former DA, manslaughter isn't appropriate because it involves recklessness.

---

I would bet huge sums of money that he offered pleas of manslaughter to hardened criminals while he was DA who he had much better cases for murder against than the one the current DA has vs Guyger.

---

Undoubtedly but I'd venture to guess those hardened criminals dont have the specialized training that Guyger has received and did not take an oath to protect the city and residents of Dallas.

---

MGS said:

---

You guys are overthinking this. Remember a couple of years ago when those cops in Ft. Worth went to the wrong house and killed a guy in his own backyard? They weren't convicted either.

---

Bocephus said:

---

tysker said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

double aught said:

---

Quote:

---

The current DA displayed a lack of leadership and fortitude by choosing not to lower the charge to the appropriate charge of manslaughter

---

But according to your post from the former DA, manslaughter isn't appropriate because it involves recklessness.

---

I would bet huge sums of money that he offered pleas of manslaughter to hardened criminals while he was DA who he had much better cases for murder against than the one the current DA has vs Guyger.

---

Undoubtedly but I'd venture to guess those hardened criminals dont have the specialized training that Guyger has received and did not take an oath to protect the city and residents of Dallas.

---

So her failing at her job (while she was not at her job) means she should be held to a higher standard criminally? So if a doctor gets into a car wreck bc he's drunk and kills someone, we should punish him worse bc he took the Hippocratic oath?

When officers are on duty and commit a crime, the punishment is bumped up one level. When they are off duty, they should have the same protections of any Dallas citizen. You can't coddle all the criminals and then try to nail the officer to the wall. That is exactly what is happening here though. Bc Faith Johnson was scared of the mob and Cruezot wants a scalp to put on his wall.

---

Bob Loblaws Law Blog said:

---

Does this case change if she was drunk and entered the wrong apartment? If so, why does being in the wrong state of mind due to alcohol matter instead of being in the wrong state of mind due to being tired/horny?

---

Quote:

---

The question above about being drunk is a different situation entirely, because that impairment would not permit her an opportunity to form a "reasonable belief".

---

MW03 said:

---

Bob Loblaws Law Blog said:

---

Does this case change if she was drunk and entered the wrong apartment? If so, why does being in the wrong state of mind due to alcohol matter instead of being in the wrong state of mind due to being tired/horny?

---

Texas Penal Code 8.02 Mistake of Fact


(a) It is a defense to prosecution that the actor through mistake formed a reasonable belief about a matter of fact if his mistaken belief negated the kind of culpability required for commission of the offense.

(b) Although an actor's mistake of fact may constitute a defense to the offense charged, he may nevertheless be convicted of any lesser included offense of which he would be guilty if the fact were as he believed.

So if you form a "reasonable belief" about a fact, and had you been correct that fact would have negated your culpability, then it's a defense.

Guyger was a police officer, so there are laws that protect police officers. Additionally, there is new law out there that says a police officer, even when off duty as Guyger was, in deemed to be on duty under certain circumstances where they are responding to what is deemed the commission of a felony (maybe even some misdemeanors, I'm not sure).

Aside from that, she could also be protected by the "castle doctrine". Under that evaluation, my opinion is that if Guyger were correct about the mistaken fact, that's only half the battle; she still needs to prove that she was justified under Sec 9.32 to use deadly force. I think that's why it's crucial for the defense to establish that she was being charged and that he was not sitting there calmly.

The question above about being drunk is a different situation entirely, because that impairment would not permit her an opportunity to form a "reasonable belief".

---

mavsfan4ever said:

---

MW03 said:

---

Bob Loblaws Law Blog said:

---

Does this case change if she was drunk and entered the wrong apartment? If so, why does being in the wrong state of mind due to alcohol matter instead of being in the wrong state of mind due to being tired/horny?

---

Texas Penal Code 8.02 Mistake of Fact


(a) It is a defense to prosecution that the actor through mistake formed a reasonable belief about a matter of fact if his mistaken belief negated the kind of culpability required for commission of the offense.

(b) Although an actor's mistake of fact may constitute a defense to the offense charged, he may nevertheless be convicted of any lesser included offense of which he would be guilty if the fact were as he believed.

So if you form a "reasonable belief" about a fact, and had you been correct that fact would have negated your culpability, then it's a defense.

Guyger was a police officer, so there are laws that protect police officers. Additionally, there is new law out there that says a police officer, even when off duty as Guyger was, in deemed to be on duty under certain circumstances where they are responding to what is deemed the commission of a felony (maybe even some misdemeanors, I'm not sure).

Aside from that, she could also be protected by the "castle doctrine". Under that evaluation, my opinion is that if Guyger were correct about the mistaken fact, that's only half the battle; she still needs to prove that she was justified under Sec 9.32 to use deadly force. I think that's why it's crucial for the defense to establish that she was being charged and that he was not sitting there calmly.

The question above about being drunk is a different situation entirely, because that impairment would not permit her an opportunity to form a "reasonable belief".

---

From the statute, if the jury decides that the Mistake of Fact Defense gets her off for Murder, I don't see why it also wouldn't get her off for manslaughter (if they end up bringing that charge). She would not be guilty of manslaughter if the facts were as she believed.

---

TSUAggie said:

---

If she wasn't a cop, everyone would be claiming it was murder. Unarmed man shot and killed in his own home by intruder.

---

hatchback said:

---

I've only been loosely following the trial, but did she have a body camera and was it recording? Forgive me if this has been covered...

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

hatchback said:

---

I've only been loosely following the trial, but did she have a body camera and was it recording? Forgive me if this has been covered...

---

No. Since off duty, any cams were back at the station. She wasn't wearing her vest either; she was carrying it.

---

proc said:

---

The path of the bullet that did not hit the victim is really high. Looks like a wild shot to me.

---

Goose said:

---

mavsfan4ever said:

---

MW03 said:

---

Bob Loblaws Law Blog said:

---

Does this case change if she was drunk and entered the wrong apartment? If so, why does being in the wrong state of mind due to alcohol matter instead of being in the wrong state of mind due to being tired/horny?

---

Texas Penal Code 8.02 Mistake of Fact


(a) It is a defense to prosecution that the actor through mistake formed a reasonable belief about a matter of fact if his mistaken belief negated the kind of culpability required for commission of the offense.

(b) Although an actor's mistake of fact may constitute a defense to the offense charged, he may nevertheless be convicted of any lesser included offense of which he would be guilty if the fact were as he believed.

So if you form a "reasonable belief" about a fact, and had you been correct that fact would have negated your culpability, then it's a defense.

Guyger was a police officer, so there are laws that protect police officers. Additionally, there is new law out there that says a police officer, even when off duty as Guyger was, in deemed to be on duty under certain circumstances where they are responding to what is deemed the commission of a felony (maybe even some misdemeanors, I'm not sure).

Aside from that, she could also be protected by the "castle doctrine". Under that evaluation, my opinion is that if Guyger were correct about the mistaken fact, that's only half the battle; she still needs to prove that she was justified under Sec 9.32 to use deadly force. I think that's why it's crucial for the defense to establish that she was being charged and that he was not sitting there calmly.

The question above about being drunk is a different situation entirely, because that impairment would not permit her an opportunity to form a "reasonable belief".

---

From the statute, if the jury decides that the Mistake of Fact Defense gets her off for Murder, I don't see why it also wouldn't get her off for manslaughter (if they end up bringing that charge). She would not be guilty of manslaughter if the facts were as she believed.

---

I disagree. Entering the wrong apartment thinking it was your own still counts as reckless. And if that recklessness resulted in the death of someone else, then manslaughter would seem to fit the bill in my opinion.

---

Bones08 said:

---

Obligatory, I'm not a legal expert.

But, yea, the more I think about it the more I have an issue with the Mistake of Fact defense and it applying to someone carrying a gun and potentially leading to no legal consequences. I have no issues with gun. My job has me working with guns every day. But shouldn't carrying a gun come with some sort of disclaimer that because a series of honest mistakes could lead to the unnecessary end of a life that Mistake of Fact almost gets thrown out the window as a potential defense option?

Basically, an individual that chooses to carry a gun should be held to a higher standard of knowing your surroundings and of making right decisions when it comes to the use of that gun leading to injury/death.

That make be unrealistic as no one can be expected to be "on" all the time. I don't know. Still trying to work out my beliefs in my head.

---