#101  
Old 09-11-2018, 01:17 PM
mikecurtis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: chicago
Posts: 1,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
This is, shockingly, a completely inaccurate statement of the felony murder rule's application to this set of facts.

why?

Last edited by mikecurtis; 09-11-2018 at 01:18 PM.
  #102  
Old 09-11-2018, 01:34 PM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucas Jackson View Post
The part you are glossing over is the part where she shoots and kills a man for not obeying her. Iím not convinced that is legal. Even if she was on her own home. As I pointed out earlier, she was not on call. What about her story, as she relates it, warrants killing someone?
In Texas, Sec. 9.42 of the Penal Code provides that deadly force is legal when used by a person protecting their own property from burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime.

Sec. 9.32 provides that force is lawfully used against a person who unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment.

So if she entered her own home, and encountered someone she reasonably believed to be present unlawfully to commit theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime, Texas law seems to permit deadly force.

This analysis addresses your comment, "Even if she was on her own home." It does not address the actual situation at hand, where she was not in her own home.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #103  
Old 09-11-2018, 01:35 PM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 13,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
Again, really? Have some imagination. As I said earlier, I didn't mention the fact that Texas has castle doctrine legislation because I thought it was a valid legal defense if you are not actually inside your home. I mentioned it because it may have affected her state of mind - her inclination to shoot rather than retreat if she thought she was in her own home. Castle doctrine and stand your ground laws that reduce the obligation to retreat can have disastrous consequences.
Ok, fair enough.
  #104  
Old 09-11-2018, 01:39 PM
Falchion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
So do we have any confirmation that she walk directly from the wrong parking level to the wrong apartment floor?
I don't know what level of confirmation would be convincing or available. But the arrest affidavit says that she "arrived at the apartment complex and parked her vehicle on the fourth floor of the parking garage, which should correspondence to the floor the resident lives on. Guyger entered the building and walked down the fourth floor hallway to what she thought was her apartment."
  #105  
Old 09-11-2018, 01:40 PM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikecurtis View Post
why?
Because you misapprehend the "intent is irrelevant," aspect of felony murder. Intent to cause a death is not necessary to apply the felony murder rule, but intent to commit the predicate crime is necessary.

In other words, you must intend to commit some crime such as burglary, and if a death occurs during the burglary, the felony murder rule may well apply. But if you lack any criminal intent, the felony murder rule is not triggered.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #106  
Old 09-11-2018, 01:41 PM
mikecurtis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: chicago
Posts: 1,518
ah, after a little research I see that breaking and entering with intent to commit burglary is a felony, otherwise it's a misdemeanor. Bricker is absolutely correct. Felony murder does not apply. . .nevermind. . .

eta: and I see Bricker has answered as well

mc

Last edited by mikecurtis; 09-11-2018 at 01:42 PM.
  #107  
Old 09-11-2018, 01:44 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
In Texas, Sec. 9.42 of the Penal Code provides that deadly force is legal when used by a person protecting their own property from burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime.

Sec. 9.32 provides that force is lawfully used against a person who unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment.

So if she entered her own home, and encountered someone she reasonably believed to be present unlawfully to commit theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime, Texas law seems to permit deadly force.
Yup, and as I said earlier - I hope that one outcome from this might be that people think long and hard about the potential consequences of laws that reduce the obligation to retreat and appear to lower the legal standard for what it's reasonable to do in defense of your home. It might be a freakish occurrence for a resident to be mistaken about where they are, but it's far more plausible that a bona fide visitor might be at the wrong door; a door that happens to be the home of some trigger happy asshole who thinks they are entitled to shoot first and ask questions later.

Last edited by Riemann; 09-11-2018 at 01:47 PM.
  #108  
Old 09-11-2018, 01:57 PM
bucketybuck is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ireland
Posts: 3,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceplace57 View Post
Reports say this officer is on a elite response team.
So she had probably put a lot of practise into shooting black people and this was all just muscle memory?
  #109  
Old 09-11-2018, 02:15 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falchion View Post
I don't know what level of confirmation would be convincing or available. But the arrest affidavit says that she "arrived at the apartment complex and parked her vehicle on the fourth floor of the parking garage, which should correspondence to the floor the resident lives on. Guyger entered the building and walked down the fourth floor hallway to what she thought was her apartment."
Thank you.
  #110  
Old 09-11-2018, 02:31 PM
echoreply's Avatar
echoreply is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
Yup, and as I said earlier - I hope that one outcome from this might be that people think long and hard about the potential consequences of laws that reduce the obligation to retreat and appear to lower the legal standard for what it's reasonable to do in defense of your home. It might be a freakish occurrence for a resident to be mistaken about where they are, but it's far more plausible that a bona fide visitor might be at the wrong door; a door that happens to be the home of some trigger happy asshole who thinks they are entitled to shoot first and ask questions later.
We've had a long time to think about it, and the consensus has been more guns.
  #111  
Old 09-11-2018, 02:40 PM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 13,942
The fact that the guy was in his underwear, on top of all the other little gnawing inconsistencies that should have been needling at her elite law enforcement-trained brain (or seemingly any sober moron's brain for that matter) didn't give her any pause? It didn't slow down the decision making process to draw and fire her lethal weapon at all? What would have given her pause? A banner draped across the front door saying "This is not your home Ms. Guyger"? I dont mean to sound crass or flippant bit nothing about this story seems plausible to me. I know i really should reserve my judgment until more comes out tho. But damn.
  #112  
Old 09-11-2018, 02:44 PM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
Yup, and as I said earlier - I hope that one outcome from this might be that people think long and hard about the potential consequences of laws that reduce the obligation to retreat and appear to lower the legal standard for what it's reasonable to do in defense of your home. It might be a freakish occurrence for a resident to be mistaken about where they are, but it's far more plausible that a bona fide visitor might be at the wrong door; a door that happens to be the home of some trigger happy asshole who thinks they are entitled to shoot first and ask questions later.
I don't think gun control or repeal of castle laws would matter here, but don't let that stop you from trying to make political hay. Since she's a cop, she'd have had a gun no matter what. We don't do the unarmed police thing here, if you hadn't noticed. Castle law doesn't matter, either. She's a cop and they get to play by different rules from the rest of us.

Last edited by Scumpup; 09-11-2018 at 02:44 PM.
  #113  
Old 09-11-2018, 02:44 PM
Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 28,957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
The fact that the guy was in his underwear, on top of all the other little gnawing inconsistencies that should have been needling at her elite law enforcement-trained brain (or seemingly any sober moron's brain for that matter) didn't give her any pause? It didn't slow down the decision making process to draw and fire her lethal weapon at all? What would have given her pause? A banner draped across the front door saying "This is not your home Ms. Guyger"? I dont mean to sound crass or flippant bit nothing about this story seems plausible to me. I know i really should reserve my judgment until more comes out tho. But damn.
It was about 10pm, and the apartment was dark (as you might expect). That, perhaps, is why she didn't notice that he was in underwear or realize the significance of that.

Last edited by Dewey Finn; 09-11-2018 at 02:44 PM.
  #114  
Old 09-11-2018, 02:46 PM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
The fact that the guy was in his underwear, on top of all the other little gnawing inconsistencies that should have been needling at her elite law enforcement-trained brain (or seemingly any sober moron's brain for that matter) didn't give her any pause? It didn't slow down the decision making process to draw and fire her lethal weapon at all? What would have given her pause? A banner draped across the front door saying "This is not your home Ms. Guyger"? I dont mean to sound crass or flippant bit nothing about this story seems plausible to me. I know i really should reserve my judgment until more comes out tho. But damn.
If I came into what I thought was my house and encountered a stranger in his underwear that would alarm me. Even more, I think, if I were a woman.
  #115  
Old 09-11-2018, 02:59 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
I don't think gun control or repeal of castle laws would matter here, but don't let that stop you from trying to make political hay. Since she's a cop, she'd have had a gun no matter what. We don't do the unarmed police thing here, if you hadn't noticed. Castle law doesn't matter, either. She's a cop and they get to play by different rules from the rest of us.
She wasn't on duty. Setting aside questions about whether her account is plausible, let's take it at face value and assume that she believed that she was in her own home, and that the victim was an intruder. Under those hypothetical circumstances, the Texas castle doctrine statute that Bricker posted would likely have exonerated her actions, even if she could easily have turned around and safely retreated from the apartment and called for assistance. So it's entirely plausible that the Texas castle doctrine contributed to her decision to shoot rather than withdraw.

And "trying to make political hay"? Is that the this is not the time argument? Would you say that to the victim's family? Oh, right, it's Scumpup - you probably would.

Last edited by Riemann; 09-11-2018 at 03:00 PM.
  #116  
Old 09-11-2018, 03:04 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
And "trying to make political hay"? Is that the this is not the time argument? Would you say that to the victim's family? Oh, right, it's Scumpup - you probably would.
Have you tried offering thoughts and prayers instead of continuously trying to determine what can be done about all these shootings?
  #117  
Old 09-11-2018, 03:06 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
If I came into what I thought was my house and encountered a stranger in his underwear that would alarm me. Even more, I think, if I were a woman.
Yup, but the "if I came into what I thought was my house" clause is the key to that sentence, isn't it. It's why any sensible society should hold people who are armed and prepared to kill (whether police officers or otherwise) to a high enough standard of sobriety and awareness that they would not be in the wrong fucking apartment without realizing it.

Last edited by Riemann; 09-11-2018 at 03:08 PM.
  #118  
Old 09-11-2018, 03:11 PM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,382
I've open the doors of cars identical to mine and realized almost instantly it wasn't mine due to the contents. Did she think he bought and rearranged all new furniture too? I don't care how tired you are, how big an idiot could this person be? She was awake enough to see a black guy, draw her gun, and shoot without warning.

It's more believable to me that she had a beef with this neighbor and used this "excuse" to murder him. Either that or she just ate a bagful of shrooms...
  #119  
Old 09-11-2018, 03:17 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
It's more believable to me that she had a beef with this neighbor and used this "excuse" to murder him. Either that or she just ate a bagful of shrooms...
I'm skeptical about the first idea, precisely because it's so implausible as an excuse. I'm much more inclined to suspect that she was impaired; or at least something like extreme exhaustion combined with a highly emotional state for some unrelated reason.

Last edited by Riemann; 09-11-2018 at 03:18 PM.
  #120  
Old 09-11-2018, 03:31 PM
Gray Ghost is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
This is, shockingly, a completely inaccurate statement of the felony murder rule's application to this set of facts.
It's also not 'breaking and entering.' I'm not a lawyer, but Texas has two different crimes that might fit for 'breaking and entering': Burglary and Criminal Trespass. Their definitions can be found in Chapter 30 of the Texas Penal Code. I've discussed this in the Pit thread covering this, but for Burglary, you need the intent to commit some other crime when you enter the premises, which no one is yet claiming she had. For Criminal Trespass, you need "notice that the entry was forbidden." That she then ignored. She didn't have notice that the property was someone else's; she thought it was her apartment.

Anyone have any info about how far away Mr. Jean was when he got shot? I guess she's now claiming he was halfway across the apartment, in the dark, when she shot him? Seems to be something that ballistics/crime scene investigators should be able to clear up; whether the shooting appeared at close (1-3 feet) range, like you'd expect if she shot him when he opened the door, or further away, as might be the case if the door was ajar and she opened it.

The door ajar might lead her to immediately suspect burglary. When my apartment was burglarized, my first clue was that the door opened easily, with a piece of door jamb coming along with it. A cop may suspect that an ajar door, when it's her apartment, and she's pretty sure she locked it, might mean she was the victim of a burglary, where s/he kicked in the door to gain entry. Then she'd start thinking about the burglary, worrying about what she's going to have to do next, and not paying attention to all of the signs that she might not be at her own place.

I find the idea of leaving that Mr. Jean would leave his front door ajar at 11 o'clock in that part of Dallas to be frankly bizarre, but stranger things have happened.
  #121  
Old 09-11-2018, 03:44 PM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 13,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
It was about 10pm, and the apartment was dark (as you might expect). That, perhaps, is why she didn't notice that he was in underwear or realize the significance of that.
Ok, if that alone were the only weird anomaly I could understand. But leaving aside the fact that it wasnt dark in the hallway outside her door-where she was-its just one too many hard to swallow things that must be taken in concert for her story to jibe.
  #122  
Old 09-11-2018, 03:48 PM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 13,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
Yup, but the "if I came into what I thought was my house" clause is the key to that sentence, isn't it. It's why any sensible society should hold people who are armed and prepared to kill (whether police officers or otherwise) to a high enough standard of sobriety and awareness that they would not be in the wrong fucking apartment without realizing it.
I apologize if this has already been established but was she actually inside the apartment when she shot Mr. Jean? Or was she still in or right outside of the doorway? And would that fact substantially change things re a Castle Doctrine defense?
  #123  
Old 09-11-2018, 03:51 PM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
She wasn't on duty. Setting aside questions about whether her account is plausible, let's take it at face value and assume that she believed that she was in her own home, and that the victim was an intruder. Under those hypothetical circumstances, the Texas castle doctrine statute that Bricker posted would likely have exonerated her actions, even if she could easily have turned around and safely retreated from the apartment and called for assistance. So it's entirely plausible that the Texas castle doctrine contributed to her decision to shoot rather than withdraw.

And "trying to make political hay"? Is that the this is not the time argument? Would you say that to the victim's family? Oh, right, it's Scumpup - you probably would.
The incident has fuck all to do with castle doctrine or gun control. You do keep trying, though. Is there anything else you'd like to try to piggyback on the case? Gay rights? Income inequality? Global warming? Oh, it's Riemann - you probably do.
  #124  
Old 09-11-2018, 03:51 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,674
Ok, let's suppose the door was ajar. She finds that suspicious, suspects an intruder. She opens the door and the apartment is dark. Although she's off duty, she's in uniform and has drawn her weapon, and is presumably following a combination of police training and instincts as a resident of the flat.

Presumably there's a light switch inside the front door, and I'm trying to work out in my mind if it's reasonable that she would not turn the light on at this stage? What would police training dictate? Would turning on the light be against training because it would make you visible as a target?
  #125  
Old 09-11-2018, 03:55 PM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
Ok, let's suppose the door was ajar. She finds that suspicious, suspects an intruder. She opens the door and the apartment is dark. Although she's off duty, she's in uniform and has drawn her weapon, and is presumably following a combination of police training and instincts as a resident of the flat.

Presumably there's a light switch inside the front door, and I'm trying to work out in my mind if it's reasonable that she would not turn the light on at this stage? What would police training dictate? Would turning on the light be against training because it would make you visible as a target?
If she thought something was awry, she could/should have backed out through the same door she came in and summoned assistance. The training I received is that one doesn't clear dwellings alone absent a very pressing emergency.
  #126  
Old 09-11-2018, 03:58 PM
Just Asking Questions is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 7,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
Ok, let's suppose the door was ajar. She finds that suspicious, suspects an intruder. She opens the door and the apartment is dark. Although she's off duty, she's in uniform and has drawn her weapon, and is presumably following a combination of police training and instincts as a resident of the flat.

Presumably there's a light switch inside the front door, and I'm trying to work out in my mind if it's reasonable that she would not turn the light on at this stage? What would police training dictate? Would turning on the light be against training because it would make you visible as a target?
Standing in the doorway of a darkened (?) room, in a lighted hallway, has already made you a large highly visible target. You would not do that in any tactical situation.

And no matter what, you don't shoot if you don't know what is going on. Even if it were her apartment, and even if some guy had broken in with criminal intent, if he's not threatening you, you don't get to shoot him!
  #127  
Old 09-11-2018, 04:04 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
The incident has fuck all to do with castle doctrine or gun control.
Ok, I concede that if you have convinced yourself that people getting shot in general has no conceivable connection to gun control, that by similar reasoning you can probably convince yourself that someone who believed that they were in their own home shooting a supposed intruder has no conceivable connection to castle doctrine laws.
  #128  
Old 09-11-2018, 04:05 PM
Lemur866's Avatar
Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 22,401
You don't get the legal right to shoot someone just because they're in your house, not even in Texas.
  #129  
Old 09-11-2018, 04:07 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur866 View Post
You don't get the legal right to shoot someone just because they're in your house, not even in Texas.
Sure, but any law that weakens the required justification for shooting someone, or that lessens the burden to retreat, is likely to make people more trigger happy.
  #130  
Old 09-11-2018, 04:11 PM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
Ok, I concede that if you have convinced yourself that people getting shot in general has no conceivable connection to gun control, that by similar reasoning you can probably convince yourself that someone who believed that they were in their own home shooting a supposed intruder has no conceivable connection to castle doctrine laws.
You do insist on ignoring that she is a cop, for some reason. Is there a city in the US, even among those with the absolute strictest guns laws, where cops don't take their guns home? Even if everybody else in Dallas was disarmed, I expect Dallas PD officers would still be armed. Did she or her lawyer offer Castle Doctrine laws as a defense? It seems that Castle Doctrine is under discussion here only because you brought it up back on page 1 of the thread.
  #131  
Old 09-11-2018, 04:19 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,116
You pointed out that we don't do the "unarmed cops" thing. You also say that this has nothing to do with gun control. Pop quiz: why don't we do the "unarmed cops" thing? Here's a hint: It has something to do with the lack of gun control in this country.
  #132  
Old 09-11-2018, 04:31 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
You do insist on ignoring that she is a cop, for some reason....Did she or her lawyer offer Castle Doctrine laws as a defense?....
You yourself just said that she acted contrary to police training, by which you would not "clear" an apartment alone except under exigent circumstances. How is that you are now asserting that her knowledge of her legal rights as a civilian to defend what she believed was her home could not possibly have been relevant to her state of mind in deciding to enter, and more importantly in her decision to open fire rather than retreat? (Obviously it's not relevant to any legal defense, or I would hope not, given that she was mistaken in her belief.)

Last edited by Riemann; 09-11-2018 at 04:35 PM.
  #133  
Old 09-11-2018, 04:39 PM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
You pointed out that we don't do the "unarmed cops" thing. You also say that this has nothing to do with gun control. Pop quiz: why don't we do the "unarmed cops" thing? Here's a hint: It has something to do with the lack of gun control in this country.
Is your solution to disarm everybody? Cool. Let's start with the cops.
  #134  
Old 09-11-2018, 04:40 PM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
You yourself just said that she acted contrary to police training, by which you would not "clear" an apartment alone except under exigent circumstances. How is that you are now asserting that her knowledge of her legal rights as a civilian to defend what she believed was her home could not possibly have been relevant to her state of mind in deciding to enter, and more importantly in her decision to open fire rather than retreat? (Obviously it's not relevant to any legal defense, or I would hope not, given that she was mistaken in her belief.)
Dude, did she or her lawyer offer Castle Doctrine as a defense? No? Then this is just you riding a personal hobbyhorse of your own and we are done.
  #135  
Old 09-11-2018, 04:41 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
Is your solution to disarm everybody? Cool. Let's start with the cops.
Is your solution to arm everybody? Cool, lets start with people who are angry irresponsible drunkards.
  #136  
Old 09-11-2018, 04:44 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
Dude, did she or her lawyer offer Castle Doctrine as a defense?
Seriously, can you read for comprehension? Disagree with what I said if you like, but if you expect to be taken seriously in a discussion, at least read and acknowledge that I have commented on your point already. I never raised the castle doctrine as a potential defense here, I raised the issue because it may have affected her state of mind, the likelihood of her opening fire rather than retreating. It's not that difficult an idea to grasp, unless your state of sobriety is similar to someone who can't tell what apartment they are in.

Last edited by Riemann; 09-11-2018 at 04:48 PM.
  #137  
Old 09-11-2018, 04:58 PM
scr4 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 16,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
The incident has fuck all to do with castle doctrine or gun control.
Someone shot a guy thinking he was an intruder in her own home. Which would only be alowable under the castle doctrine. It has everything to do with the castle doctrine. If you lived in a place that didn't have a castle doctrine, you would think twice before shooting an intruder; your first reaction would be to get away from the intruder.

And obviously every crime or accident caused by a gun has something to do with gun control.

Last edited by scr4; 09-11-2018 at 04:59 PM.
  #138  
Old 09-11-2018, 05:13 PM
Randolph is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NxnyC
Posts: 1,234
Neighbors Dispute Dallas Copís Account of Botham Jeanís Death

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Daily Beast
They heard knocking down the hallway followed by a womanís voice that they believe to be officer Guyger saying, ĎLet me in. Let me in.' ... One of the neighbors then heard gunshots and a manís voice, ĎOh my god, why did you do that?í

That account of the incident differs from what Guyger, who is currently charged with manslaughter, told police. She claims she mistakenly thought Jeanís apartment was hers, and opened fire after he did not respond to ďverbal commands,Ē believing him to be an intruder.
  #139  
Old 09-11-2018, 05:19 PM
filmore is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,570
Even if this was her apartment and there was someone in it, that doesn't seem sufficient justification to shoot on that alone. There are many other people who can legitimately enter her apartment without prior notification. If there is an urgent maintenance issue (water leak, smoke, etc.), someone from the apartment staff will go in to check on it. If this was during normal hours, there could even be people doing pest control or routine maintenance, although that would typically require a notice to be posted some days before hand. So I would think there would need to be some threat established in the situation. From what we've learned about Jean, it's highly doubtful he was threatening in any way.
  #140  
Old 09-11-2018, 05:30 PM
Roy Batty is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 120
I've been following this case closely ever since the news broke last week, and I find this whole tragic event heinous & sickening. And, this just further illustrates that LE ALWAYS gets preferential treatment in cases like this.

I also don't think we're getting the true story here re: what actually happened:

#1 Scenario: When this story first broke late last week, the details were that the woman was trying to get into the wrong apt. & her door key wouldn't work, and then she was knocking on the door & yelling, trying to get in - apparently witnesses heard this yelling, which corroborates this story. Apparently, that's when the resident of the apt. opened the door (due to her trying to get in), and then she killed him - due to her thinking he was an intruder - despite the fact that she apparently couldn't get in the door, which should have been an indication to her that she was @ the wrong apt. Also, apparently the resident had a red door mat, which she did not have - that again should have clued her in to the fact that she WAS AT THE WRONG APT. If that's the way it happened, then I don't see how this could be anything other than murder in cold blood.

#2 Scenario: However, the 2nd scenario that's been presented (a couple of days after the first story) was that she entered the apt. due to the door being unlocked, yelled at the person she saw there (who she allegedly couldn't see well due to it being a dark room), he didn't comply with her commands (makes perfect sense, since who would comply if someone you didn't know suddenly burst into your home at night), and then she killed him as a result of her thinking he was an intruder. In this case, the charge should also be murder due to her going to the wrong apt. & killing the resident there, who was in his own home. However, I find this scenario EXTREMELY UNLIKELY, since I don't see that someone living in Dallas (a high crime city) would leave their apartment door unlocked - especially at night. Bullshit.

That being said, Scenario #1 above makes the woman look like a trigger-happy killer, while Scenario #2 "softens" this somewhat, especially IF she claims she didn't see the race of the person in the apt. before firing on him. However, I think Scenario #2 is a load of bull crap - I think she made Scenario #2 up in order to make her seem more like a victim.

My take is this: Scenario #1 is what actually happened, but Scenario #2 was made up by the woman so that it would make the killing seem more justified.

Will we ever know what happened? Probably not - unfortunately, the one person who could tell us the other side of the story is dead.

Last edited by Roy Batty; 09-11-2018 at 05:33 PM.
  #141  
Old 09-11-2018, 05:40 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Batty View Post
...When this story first broke late last week, the details were that the woman was trying to get into the wrong apt. & her door key wouldn't work, and then she was knocking on the door & yelling, trying to get in...
It has been asserted in various places (and earlier in the thread) that the story somehow changed from an earlier more incriminating account after it broke. But I've yet to see any reliable explanation of what this really means. Of course it's plausible that she or her police buddies might try to change their account to try to make her actions seem less egregious. But it's not plausible that all the news outlets are also in on this conspiracy, that news websites would then just delete an older statement from their websites simply because the police released a new version.
  #142  
Old 09-11-2018, 05:53 PM
Roy Batty is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 120
Well, the initial story that she was trying to get into a locked apartment sounds the most likely, and it's not just me saying this. This article seems to corroborate that she did indeed try to get into the apartment, which was locked - neighbors heard someone knocking on a door and a woman yelling "Let me in!" right before the shooting, which no one would say if they could just walk into an apartment. So, ergo, her story about walking into an unlocked apartment is complete & unadulterated bullshit:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/attorneys...1&guccounter=1

Again, Dallas is a high crime city (I know from personal experience), and I don't see why anyone would be stupid enough to leave their door unlocked - unless you're a complete idiot. And, B. Jean did not strike me as stupid.

Last edited by Roy Batty; 09-11-2018 at 05:57 PM.
  #143  
Old 09-11-2018, 06:00 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,674
nm

Last edited by Riemann; 09-11-2018 at 06:01 PM.
  #144  
Old 09-11-2018, 06:10 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Batty View Post
...This article seems to corroborate that she did indeed try to get into the apartment, which was locked - neighbors heard someone knocking on a door and a woman yelling "Let me in!" right before the shooting...
Based on that article, this is hearsay passed on by activist attorneys for the victim. I agree that the police account is implausible, but I'm not going to take that as reliable either until we get first hand accounts from reliable sources. Unfortunately, the activist side have repeatedly undermined credibility just as much as the police side by their lack of concern for the truth when a case doesn't fit their agenda.

Last edited by Riemann; 09-11-2018 at 06:11 PM.
  #145  
Old 09-11-2018, 06:15 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
Based on that article, this is hearsay passed on by activist attorneys for the victim. I agree that the police account is implausible, but I'm not going to take that as reliable either until we get first hand accounts from reliable sources. Unfortunately, the activist side have repeatedly undermined credibility just as much as the police side by their lack of concern for the truth when a case doesn't fit their agenda.
The "activist" side?
Which side would that be, again?
  #146  
Old 09-11-2018, 06:18 PM
Roy Batty is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 120
No problem. You can choose to believe that someone would leave a door unlocked in a high crime city - especially in an apartment, when numerous people are coming and going at all hours. I do not believe this. I can guarantee that you'd have to be a naive fool to leave your door unlocked in Dallas - and, again, an risk assurance associate doesn't strike me as naive or a fool.

Last edited by Roy Batty; 09-11-2018 at 06:22 PM.
  #147  
Old 09-11-2018, 06:25 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Batty View Post
No problem. You can choose to believe that someone would leave a door unlocked in a high crime city - especially in an apartment, when numerous people are coming and going at all hours. I do not believe this. You'd have to be a fool to leave your door unlocked in Dallas.
When I said I find the police account "implausible", what did you think I meant?

The fact that I don't think that second-hand hearsay claims from people with a strong agenda the other way are not a reliable source does not mean I believe the police.
  #148  
Old 09-11-2018, 06:28 PM
monstro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 20,735
I can believe that someone might have left their door unlocked in a high crime city. I live in a high crime city, but I am absent-minded enough to occasionally leave my freakin' keys in the door. Because I am stupid sometimes.

But never have I ever left my door ajar. Not at 10:00PM, dressed only in my underwear. If the apartment was dark and the hallway was brightly lit, it would have been hard for Jean to not notice that his door was open. So an ajar door seems way too pat to me.
  #149  
Old 09-11-2018, 06:41 PM
aceplace57 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: CentralArkansas
Posts: 26,304
It won't take investigators long to find any connection between Guyger and Jean.

For now, it's 2nd hand info from neighbors they heard Guyger demanding to be let in. A personal connection between these two people would shift the focus of the entire case. It wouldn't be a tragic error anymore.

This case is going to a Grand jury. They'll decide what charges are indicated.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn...est/index.html
Quote:
a prosecutor would not rule out a more serious charge Monday.
"The grand jury will be that entity that will make the final decision in terms of the charge or charges that will come out of this case," Dallas County District Attorney Faith Johnson told reporters. "We prepare to present a thorough case to the grand jury of Dallas County, so that the right decision can be made in this case."
  #150  
Old 09-11-2018, 06:43 PM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,382
If that's true (IF), then that bolsters my belief that she had a beef with this guy and murdered him, using mistaken house as an excuse. I mean, if she said "let me in" that indicates she was expecting a person in there.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:36 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017