Someone may have suggested this upthread but is it possible he was leaning forward as he was getting up off the sofa?
Joe Horn shot two burglars who were approaching him. You can argue whether Horn should have put himself in a position to where two people burglarizing someone else’s house could have approached him. Certainly his pocketbook didn’t later approve of his decision—this may be bullshit, but I was informed his defense costs were in the upper five digit range.
At the moment he fired though, he had two burglars approaching him at close range, who even the wiki admits had crossed into his yard. He told them to stop, they kept running, he shot. He was on thin ice for shooting the second guy in the back, as the second guy turned to run.
I’m not seeing your ‘generally’ gotcha. Once a person’s made the idiotic decision to leave their place of safety and stand outside, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to assume that two people who that person had just witnessed burglarizing a home, and are approaching the witness, inadvertently or otherwise, are a threat to the witness’s personal safety. If rushing towards the armed witness, in defiance of Horn’s legal command that they stop, it’s reasonable to assume the two might have taken Horn’s shotgun from him.
That the two dead were ex-con pieces of shit did not hurt Horn’s chances either.
Or—and I wouldn’t be shocked if forensics could be used to rule this out, we’ll see—he had just rolled off the couch, feet down on the floor and one hand still on the couch and made to start towards her in a sort of football or lunging stance. Not so much crawling, but lunging or preparing to lunge (or appearing to, anyway).
I am not a lawyer, but for the record, I do think this is murder. It feels like manslaughter, but a read of the Texas penal code (which I see has already been referenced in various places) doesn’t seem to leave room for that. She was not inside her own apartment (and the Texas version of castle doctrine requires that, not simply a belief that you be in your own dwelling/property, but that such actually be the case), and she knowingly (not accidentally, but intentionally) discharged her firearm knowing that she was applying potentially lethal force.
Justice, to me, would be a murder conviction, with possible leniency at sentencing, particularly if her faulty belief that she had a right to self-defense (and that the victim was a threat under that mistaken belief) could be considered to constitute a “provocation,” allowing for sudden passion to be applied as a partial mitigation (which would make it a lesser felony than what a straight, unadulterated murder conviction would be under the Texas penal code).
Again, I am not a lawyer.
I did.
I think that’s exactly what happened. She opens the door, sees giant (to her) guy get up off the sofa, massive adrenaline dump, draws and shoots him. She may or may not have told him to “Stop!”, though I know even before she testified what she was going to say she did.
Gunshot hits him in the heart, on its way to do other damage, and Jean sits back down and bleeds out. Not using any of the first aid/trauma care materials that she was carrying in her backpack doesn’t look good. Probably wouldn’t have mattered one way or the other, to be honest. AIUI, the bullet penetrated Jean’s left ventricle. Not a lot even battlefield first aid is going to do there.
The DA has a problem because no blood was found on the sofa. How could Jean be shot sitting there and not leave a speck of blood?
Apparently that’s what happened. He was just starting to stand when the bullet hit him.
I confess to not watching the trial. Where was blood found, if any? Where was Jean found? Hearing the description of the bullet path, and Jean’s activities at the moment Guyger entered the room—sitting on the couch, eating ice cream, may or may not have been watching a movie—it seemed like a natural explanation for the bullet path.
As to gunshot wounds not leaving blood trails, it can happen. A gunshot wound without a large exit wound, entering the chest, could conceivably cause the pericardium to fill with blood, leading to cardiac arrest. Or cause other cardiac trauma sufficient to send the heart into fibrillation or full arrest. Once the heart stops beating, blood pressure drops, blood may leave the pericardium to fill the rest of the pleural space or into the rest of the body cavity if the diaphragm is punctured. Or out through the entry wound, but the point is the blood may have other places to go than out the initial wound.
Lung shot, with entry and exit, potentially rupturing any of the pulmonary major blood vessels, and the heart continuing to race away? From personal experience on large game, those can bleed extensively on the ground.
They said in the trial that no blood was on the sofa.
I’m sure the DA will address that in closing. Jean’s location when shot is a big part of the DA’s case
Guyger must have walked in and started shooting. Never giving Jean a chance to say anything.
Not that it’s particularly germane, but you got to wonder if the apartment complex has finally done something to address the issue of different parking floors/residential levels all looking confusingly the same.
I’m not sure why some people seem to think that’s weird or unusual. In my experience with dormitories, apartment buildings and hotels, often the layout and decor (paint, flooring, etc) look identical from floor to floor. Most of us manage not to kill strangers when we end up on the wrong floor (and I’ve done it, more than once).
There’s a hearing now. Defense trying to use a crime scene reconstructionist to address the shot trajectory.
Again, not watching the trial, but did she actually just admit on the stand that she was expecting to have a maintenance guy doing work in her unit while she was at work?
Yes, for a moisture inspection. But she expected him during normal 8 to 5 business hours. Not 10 PM
Ranger Armstrong went through a hearing to certify him as an expert in several areas. His testimony will be limited by the court.
Will probably see Ranger Armstrong testify again Sat.
I’m sure the sequestered jurors loved getting transported to the court for 5 mins of testimony. :rolleyes:
Glad I didn’t watch today.
The defense’s expert witnesses had more to say but the judge ruled against a lot of it.
Spoke w/ a buddy yesterday - experienced public defender in a big city. In his opinion, they definitely overcharged, likely fatally. In his words, a manslaughter conviction was a lock. Nothing new for most of you I’m sure.
Having lived in a LOT of apartments in Dallas I can assure you it’s very common for this to be the case. I don’t even think it’s that unusual overall. It has never been confusing for me and I’ve been known to drink a bit in my youth.
IMHO, it’s a ridiculous defense.
They’ve been going over the state’s objections to several jury instructions. In particular the Castle Doctrine. Judge ruled it stays in. Does anyone know what’s the significance of that ruling?
The judge ruled against all the state’s jury instruction objections. It seemed to me the state was trying to limit what the jury could consider.
Closing arguments should begin soon, each side gets one hour.
Look-The DA has to work with police every day, so it wouldn’t surprise me if they overshot the charges on purpose.
I can’t claim to know what was going through the DA’s mind, their ulterior motives, but there was definite public outcry when they initially charged with manslaughter. The decision to up the charge to murder was met with the full approval of the victim’s family. Not that DA’s should make their charging decisions based on public outcry and how the family feels, but this decision was not made in a vacuum and there is prior news coverage about the initial charges and the reaction.
As to why the DA didn’t charge both manslaughter and murder… IANAL, but when Jack McCoy refuses to go for a lesser charge like manslaughter in addition to the top count of murder, it’s usually because he thinks that if he has a strong case for murder according to the letter of the law, but that the issue is so emotionally charged that the jury may seek a “compromise” verdict if given the option to do so, the letter of the law notwithstanding.
ISTM that the public, and many victims + victim families fail to grasp that escalating the charges often means a lower chance of conviction. They think that if 80% chance of conviction for manslaughter, then surely 80% also chance of conviction for murder.