TexasCHLforum.com

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:41 pm

C-dub wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:32 pm The problem I have with all of those "could haves" is the next time someone does shoot someone in their own home will some of those "could haves" be applied to them? If she were in her own apartment with the same outcome, would they have gone down that road? She had no legal requirement to retreat or call for back up, 911 for us, did she? Would a prosecutor attempt to put that requirement on us?

These are the things that bother me about this trial and the prosecutor's tactics.

That does not worry me because the could haves don't apply when defending ones own home. It was not her home. Thinking it is doesn't cut it and should not be OK. Her actions were in no way analogous to a person exercising their rights under the castle doctrine. Not even close.

Let's be real here. She walked into someone elses home and killed them. End of story. That is and always should be punishable by time in jail at the least. Put yourself in his place rather than hers.

I didn’t state my issues with all this very well. What I was really trying to get at was all about the mistake of fact stuff. She was unable to convince the jury that she really thought she was in her own apartment. Then she had the horrible testimony where she affirmed that her intention was to kill him.

My issue with the mistake of fact in this and possible future cases is when someone really is in fear for their life even when it is determined later that their life wasn’t really in any danger at all. The easiest example is when someone points an air soft gun at an LEO. The LEO(s) shoots and kills the air soft armed idiot and nothing happens to the LEO(s).

Am I over analyzing this?

The problem I have with all of those "could haves" is the next time someone does shoot someone in their own home will some of those "could haves" be applied to them? If she were in her own apartment with the same outcome, would they have gone down that road? She had no legal requirement to retreat or call for back up, 911 for us, did she? Would a prosecutor attempt to put that requirement on us?

These are the things that bother me about this trial and the prosecutor's tactics.

WOW

WOW

WOW

When they appeal, I wonder how much of the testimony this jury didn’t get to hear will be presented or allowed. Then if this is overturned that’s it, right? It doesn’t go down to manslaughter, right?

And if that happens she is free because they dumped their mag in this trial with regards to convicting on murder instead of manslaughter.

srothstein wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:35 pm That means she had the culpable mental state required for murder.

Wouldn't that then apply to anyone who shoots another person? That seem like a really broad brush.

hondo44 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:18 pm

C-dub wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:07 pm

hondo44 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 12:55 pm The bottom line is that as a LEO she did have the right to be there, technically.

Whoa there cowboy. Why?

The police were not called to that apartment. She was not investigating a crime. She was not in pursuit of anyone. I'm curious about your assertion that she technically had a right to be in someone elses home.

It wasn't a home, it was an apartment. There is a significant difference between the occupant and the owner. The owner of the property probably didn't have a problem with a LEO resident keeping an eye on things to make sure they are safe. In Texas, tenants do not have an absolute 4th amendment privacy right because it's not their home. The apartment owner can enter the apartment or have a PROXY enter the apartment such as a repairman or a security guard.

It certainly is their home. They just don't own it. I don't think "home" is a legal term, so residence might be more apt in this case. The landlord might be able to enter without notice, but that depends upon the lease. The landlord can be denied entry if the occupant has a good reason and has a deadbolt that locks form the inside. They cannot keep the landlord out indefinitely, but that can on specific occasions. The landlord also cannot enter so much that it becomes an annoyance. There are no details in Texas renters laws on this issue and it is up to whether or not any specifics are spelled out in the lease. I don't know if it is the case in this case, but some people do own their apartments. I don't think they are called apartments in those situations, but possibly condos or something else.

Guyger was not acting in an official capacity at the time of this incident. She had absolutely no right to be in his apartment legally or technically. She was not acting as an agent of the landlord or anyone else at that time. She was, basically, do different than you or I at that time. Not minding a DPD officer keeping an eye on things is drastically different from allowing them to enter another tenant's residence without probable cause is a major leap that I doubt very much was the case here.

hondo44 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 12:55 pm The bottom line is that as a LEO she did have the right to be there, technically.

Whoa there cowboy. Why?

The police were not called to that apartment. She was not investigating a crime. She was not in pursuit of anyone. I'm curious about your assertion that she technically had a right to be in someone elses home.

A mistake of fact has lead to the death of many people without any charges or convictions.

This is a very unfortunate situation no matter the outcome of this trial. An innocent man lost his life and this woman's life is ruined.

jason812 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 7:39 pm

Grayling813 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:21 pm

thatguyoverthere wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 4:43 pm

jason812 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:15 pm I have caught bits and pieces of the trial. Mainly reporting on the AM radio. Why did the jury not get to hear the Texas Ranger say she acted reasonably? I haven't seen an explanation why that statement was not in front of the jury.

I, too, have only heard bits and pieces. But I did hear that quote from the Texas Ranger. IIRC, he not only said that she acted reasonably, but also that no crime was committed (in his opinion).

Don't know why the judge did not allow it, but also not sure why the Ranger thinks that would not be a crime of some kind, to kill someone minding their own business in their own home by someone else who had no reason or right to be there at all. So how does the Ranger think it's supposed to work then? You just say "oops, sorry. My bad." Then everybody goes home at the end of the day (well, except for the innocent dead guy, of course)?

If the Ranger said that, he is helping destroy the reputation of the Texas Rangers as a fair and impartial investigative force.

I think it would have destroyed the prosecution's case. I don't think 1st degree murder is an appropriate charge and from what I heard of the opening statement, the prosecutor sounds like a slime ball. Sad thing is if she walks or even convicted of a lesser crime, I bet there will be riots stoked by outside agitators.

If that happens I don't want to be anywhere near Dallas for a few days after that verdict. I'm about 15-20 miles from downtown and that might even be too close on that day.

Mike S wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:25 pm

C-dub wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 2:19 pm It's been a couple days since I heard this on the news and can't remember who said the following. I think it was a defense lawyer, a woman, that was talking about the circumstances the she, Guyger, knew them to be at the time she fired her shots. The lawyer was talking about her options and I thought she mentioned something about whether or not running away was an option if she feared for her life. That part bothered me because we do not have that obligation here in Texas before using deadly force.

I watch Fox4 news in the mornings. Did anyone else see that segment?

You are correct that in Texas we don't have a duty to retreat, as long as these elements of TPC 9.32 are met:

(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.

And, if this applies, then the next section prohibits it from being posed to the jury:

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

I haven't been listening to the trial, but if failure to retreat was mentioned in front of the jury, I'd guess it was decided that either she "wasn't lawfully present", or being in the wrong apartment constituted another crime such as trespassing.

I haven listened to or seen any of the trial either. I only get sound bites on the local news. The lawyer that brought it up is not connected to the case.

WildBill wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:26 pm

jason812 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:15 pm I have caught bits and pieces of the trial. Mainly reporting on the AM radio. Why did the jury not get to hear the Texas Ranger say she acted reasonably? I haven't seen an explanation why that statement was not in front of the jury.

Did the Ranger witness the shooting? If not, that it's his opinion, not evidence.

If that were the precedent, then wouldn't Guyger be the only one the jury should be allowed to hear from?

It's been a couple days since I heard this on the news and can't remember who said the following. I think it was a defense lawyer, a woman, that was talking about the circumstances the she, Guyger, knew them to be at the time she fired her shots. The lawyer was talking about her options and I thought she mentioned something about whether or not running away was an option if she feared for her life. That part bothered me because we do not have that obligation here in Texas before using deadly force.

I watch Fox4 news in the mornings. Did anyone else see that segment?

In order to use deadly force don't there have to be justifications?

Whether she intended to kill or stop the "intruder" she did intend to use deadly force. Her justification is that she thought she was in her apartment. She wasn't. If she had been we wouldn't be discussing this at all. So,we'll have to wait and see if the jury believes her and if that makes a difference.

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Sat Dec 01, 2018 6:53 pm

C-dub wrote: ↑Sat Dec 01, 2018 6:43 pm https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/mansl ... -592469274

While details about why Guyger was charged with manslaughter, specifically, have not been revealed, here's a breakdown of what a manslaughter charge means in Texas:

• A criminal homicide is charged as manslaughter when a person "recklessly causes the death of another individual," according to the Texas penal code. The charge is a second-degree felony, punishable by two to 20 years in prison and up to a $10,000 fine. A prosecutor does not have to prove intent or premeditation to earn a manslaughter conviction.

• Manslaughter is a lesser charge than murder, which is a first-degree felony. According to the penal code, murder is committed when a person "intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual," or "intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits and act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual."

• Manslaughter is a stiffer charge than criminally negligent homicide, a state jail felony that is committed when a person "causes the death of an individual by criminal negligence," according to the penal code.

Bold red emphasis is mine. It seems to fit to me. Will her defense that she believed Jean was an intruder into her apartment? We'll have to wait and see. Ear witnesses seem to contradict her statements so far.

Well if a cop doesn't know that shooting a person will cause death, nobody does. According to the bold type, she knowingly caused the death of the man. Her excuse for it does not come close to being justification.

I don't think so either, but we'll see.

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/mansl ... -592469274

While details about why Guyger was charged with manslaughter, specifically, have not been revealed, here's a breakdown of what a manslaughter charge means in Texas:

• A criminal homicide is charged as manslaughter when a person "recklessly causes the death of another individual," according to the Texas penal code. The charge is a second-degree felony, punishable by two to 20 years in prison and up to a $10,000 fine. A prosecutor does not have to prove intent or premeditation to earn a manslaughter conviction.

• Manslaughter is a lesser charge than murder, which is a first-degree felony. According to the penal code, murder is committed when a person "intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual," or "intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits and act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual."

• Manslaughter is a stiffer charge than criminally negligent homicide, a state jail felony that is committed when a person "causes the death of an individual by criminal negligence," according to the penal code.

Bold red emphasis is mine. It seems to fit to me. Will her defense that she believed Jean was an intruder into her apartment? We'll have to wait and see. Ear witnesses seem to contradict her statements so far.

skeathley wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 6:29 pm I think the charge should be manslaughter. She made a terrible mistake, and should go to prison, but if she had been at her apartment, we wouldn't be having this debate. It was a mistake that many people might make, but was not intentional murder. Mistakes in judgement do not qualify. The main reason they charged murder was because he was black, and it is likely she did not know that when she shot.

Her mistake, if it was a legitimate mistake, was not being in her own residence. However, she did intend on using deadly force, which if I understand correctly would warrant a murder charge. The other facts might include exceptions to that and I think that will be the only way she avoids prison if that is possible. A couple of the witness accounts seem to contradict Guyger's account and maybe there is other evidence that also contradicts her account that the public is unaware of yet.

On a side note, I also believe Dallas' outgoing DA has/had a racial and police bias in going after this officer because of some of the things she has said on camera. That still doesn't change the facts of the case and that we also still don't know all of them and might never.