Oh this is good. Dallas PD cop kills man

[ed308]

Yes and yes, many times.

Same here. And as we know, it isn't easy.

 

[alias]

If Botham Jean had shot and killed Amber Guyger, then the Castle Doctrine could apply. I can't see how that could be turned around.

True dat.
But there are going to be those, including a Texas Ranger, that say that Jean "didn't obey her lawful commands" which would somehow override a citizen's rights in his own castle.
Problem is, Guyger wasn't on duty and answering a burglary call. The Ranger overreached on that one. Jean wasn't obligated to obey shit, especially when what she did was tantamount to a home invasion.

 

[easy rider]

True dat.
But there are going to be those, including a Texas Ranger, that say that Jean "didn't obey her lawful commands" which would somehow override a citizen's rights in his own castle.
Problem is, Guyger wasn't on duty and answering a burglary call. The Ranger overreached on that one. Jean wasn't obligated to obey shit, especially when what she did was tantamount to a home invasion.

If this were a police state, I can see them trying to go with that defense. But I don't get how someone that was probably just as confused as Amber and had broken no laws, in his own home, can be the aggressor.

 

[Bithabus]

No, the law does not say that.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

Guyger did not have a right to be there, she did provoke him, she was engaged in criminal activity, and she was required to retreat. She failed every single condition, never mind Castle Doctrine does not have a reasonableness provision.

I wasn't claiming the law says that. I was following up on your post that a certain verdict and appelate decision could lead to case law stating such.

 

[Renegade]

I wasn't claiming the law says that. I was following up on your post that a certain verdict and appelate decision could lead to case law stating such.

Gotcha. The issue though is the jury does not have to explain how it arrived at its decision. 4 could think mistake of fact, 5 Castle Doctrine, 2 think she is hot and 1 just wants to go home.

 

[Bithabus]

Gotcha. The issue though is the jury does not have to explain how it arrived at its decision. 4 could think mistake of fact, 5 Castle Doctrine, 2 think she is hot and 1 just wants to go home.

Yep.

 

[txinvestigator]

Gotcha. The issue though is the jury does not have to explain how it arrived at its decision. 4 could think mistake of fact, 5 Castle Doctrine, 2 think she is hot and 1 just wants to go home.

I think you've been bugging the jury room!

 

[txinvestigator]

If this were a police state, I can see them trying to go with that defense. But I don't get how someone that was probably just as confused as Amber and had broken no laws, in his own home, can be the aggressor.

For the defense to work, he doesn't have to be, she only has to reasonably believe so

 

[txinvestigator]

True dat.
But there are going to be those, including a Texas Ranger, that say that Jean "didn't obey her lawful commands" which would somehow override a citizen's rights in his own castle.
Problem is, Guyger wasn't on duty and answering a burglary call. The Ranger overreached on that one. Jean wasn't obligated to obey shit, especially when what she did was tantamount to a home invasion.

No, it wasn't tantamount to a home invasion. But your observation that she wasn't on duty adds to her defense.

 

[txinvestigator]

I don't think so. I said Judge would allow the Jury to consider it.

Understand.

 

[txinvestigator]

I found the judges instructions. She offered Murder, Manslaughter, Mistake of Fact, and Castle Doctrine. She then gave jury what sounded to me like a circular decision tree. I did not see where she really explained the requirements as you said for either Mistake of Fact or Castle. Nor did she go over all the requirements for Murder or manslaughter. These are complex issues, so I am surprised. Maybe she did in another video, I just have not see it yet.

How bizarre. Did the judge actually the term "Castle Doctrine?

 

[Renegade]

Yep.

I was told today the number 1 cause of appeals is flawed jury instructions. This case seems ripe for that.

 

[Bithabus]

I was told today the number 1 cause of appeals is flawed jury instructions. This case seems ripe for that.

Except if she is found NG, that's all she wrote.

 

[alias]

No, it wasn't tantamount to a home invasion. But your observation that she wasn't on duty adds to her defense.

See, again, this proves my point and why this is a 119 page thread of cop kills innocent citizen vs. the more common three pages of 'Armed home invasion leaves homeowner dead' thread.

Yeah, it was tantamount to a home invasion. Innocent man sitting on his couch, armed intruder enters his domain and threatens and then kills him. Yeah, Home invasion.

 

[Bithabus]

Yeah, it was tantamount to a home invasion. Innocent man sitting on his couch, armed intruder enters his domain and threatens and then kills him. Yeah, Home invasion.

If he had shot her, that would have been interesting.

 

[alias]

If he had shot her, that would have been interesting.

And very much justified, as I move my G19 over so I can type.

 

[Renegade]

And very much justified. As I move my G19 over so I can type.

Make sure it is not in view through your kitchen window.

 

[El Spicoli]

See, again, this proves my point and why this is a 119 page thread of cop kills innocent citizen vs. the more common three pages of 'Armed home invasion leaves homeowner dead' thread.

Yeah, it was tantamount to a home invasion. Innocent man sitting on his couch, armed intruder enters his domain and threatens and then kills him. Yeah, Home invasion.

Maybe it is 119 pages because this was such an odd never before happened case? We were expecting a jilted lover or bad cop scenario and it just doesn't seem so.

I don't see it as a home invasion. Most home invaders forcibly make entry and intend to rob you.

 

[txinvestigator]

See, again, this proves my point and why this is a 119 page thread of cop kills innocent citizen vs. the more common three pages of 'Armed home invasion leaves homeowner dead' thread.

Yeah, it was tantamount to a home invasion. Innocent man sitting on his couch, armed intruder enters his domain and threatens and then kills him. Yeah, Home invasion.

No, it wasn't.

 

[El Spicoli]

Make sure it is not in view through your kitchen window.

Pfft, probably nobody has swatted him so he should be fine. Hide the MJ just in case.