Oh this is good. Dallas PD cop kills man
- Thread starter Moonpie
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
BillFairbanks
Well-Known
I don’t think she’s smart enough for that. I think she was just being honest. I did wonder if it was a gamble that could’ve hurt the prosecution.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think offering the manslaughter charge works against her. I am surprised the judge offered this when the state objected to it. I would have expected the defense would too.
I am also surprised the judge brought up Castle Law, as that only applies if you are in a place you have a legal right to be. If jury goes with Castle Law, and makes it apply to places you think you have a legal right to be, it could be enormous in others cases throughout the state if held on appeal.
I would love to see the instructions to the jury from the judge. If they were verbal, I might be able to find them online. What the news reported seemed kinda weird.
I am also surprised the judge brought up Castle Law, as that only applies if you are in a place you have a legal right to be. If jury goes with Castle Law, and makes it apply to places you think you have a legal right to be, it could be enormous in others cases throughout the state if held on appeal.
I would love to see the instructions to the jury from the judge. If they were verbal, I might be able to find them online. What the news reported seemed kinda weird.
Last edited:
If she walks or gets a reduced sentence because she's a cop I'm going to be pissed, not loot a Best Buy for a widescreen pissed but very pissed and I'm very white.
This is a 117 page thread here and a 62 page thread over on AR15.com chewing and discussing this case.
There are the usual bootlickers and cop apologists on arfcom saying this is a complicated situation. No it's not.
If she were a citizen that blew an innocent man away sitting on his own couch eating ice cream it would be a three page thread, four maximum, and everyone would say it was intentional murder, as nobody could be that dumb to stand on a strange doormat and shoot some guy in a strange apartment. Simple, cut and dried, case closed.
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.
Last edited:
I think a lot of folks have mis-interpreted the reasonableness standard. Here it is:
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
Note the law says "reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary". This is much different than "reasonably believes they can legally employ deadly force", which is what she mistakenly believed. And she already admitted on the stand, DF was not "immediately necessary". I saw Hermes brought this up in closing arguments.
Hence why I would love to see the Judge's jury instructions on this and above Castle Law.
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
Note the law says "reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary". This is much different than "reasonably believes they can legally employ deadly force", which is what she mistakenly believed. And she already admitted on the stand, DF was not "immediately necessary". I saw Hermes brought this up in closing arguments.
Hence why I would love to see the Judge's jury instructions on this and above Castle Law.
Last edited:
That amount of stupid is not a defense. And she would be the first to tell you if she pulled you over for a traffic violation and you tried to argue you didn't know the illegal lane change was against the law, that ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse.
She broke all kinds of rules, laws and department policies by entering the apartment without waiting for backup to carrying on an affair with a fellow cop in the department and texting him as soon as she shot Mr. Jean instead of putting dispatch on speaker phone and using both hands for CPR.
Well, that's a tough one. She DID have a right to be at those apartments, just not in that particular unit. So this would take a little interpretation.
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.
I can see a lawyer trying to make that argument, since that's what lawyers do. I can't see why a judge would allow the jury to consider it in this trial. The things I've seen from the judge so far led me to believe she was going to steer towards a guilty verdict.
Did the police association recently make a donation to the judges campaign?
txinvestigator
TGT Addict
I don't get Castle Doct either.
If she meets the requirements on the mistake of fact defense and the deady force defense she should be found not guity.
None of her actions after the shooting should really matter.
If she meets the requirements on the mistake of fact defense and the deady force defense she should be found not guity.
None of her actions after the shooting should really matter.
txinvestigator
TGT Addict
Did I miss something, did Amber waive a jury trial?
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.
