TexasCHLforum.com

Mike S wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 6:19 am

Scott B. wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:17 pm

Scott B. wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:50 am Could be random, could be bad luck, could be the people he procured his herb from were less than stellar citizens.

And the early verdict, "Killed in a drug deal." In this exchange, looks like he was the seller and not the buyer.

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/speci ... urces-say/

I couldn't get Scott's link to WFAA to work (404 Error), but here is the Dallas Asst Police Chief giving a press report about the drug deal-gone-bad.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2019/10/0 ... t-vpx.ktvt

Includes names of the 3x subjects who came from Louisiana to buy drugs from Brown; both sides shooting each other; drug buyer stealing Brown's backpack & gun after shooting him; 1 of the 3 drug buyers in hospital with GSW; & amounts/types of drugs & cash found in Brown's apartment.

New WFAA link:
https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/speci ... 6baf42cacd

Grayling813 wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:10 am

Mike S wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 6:19 am

Scott B. wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:17 pm

Scott B. wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:50 am Could be random, could be bad luck, could be the people he procured his herb from were less than stellar citizens.

And the early verdict, "Killed in a drug deal." In this exchange, looks like he was the seller and not the buyer.

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/speci ... urces-say/

I couldn't get Scott's link to WFAA to work (404 Error), but here is the Dallas Asst Police Chief giving a press report about the drug deal-gone-bad.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2019/10/0 ... t-vpx.ktvt

Includes names of the 3x subjects who came from Louisiana to buy drugs from Brown; both sides shooting each other; drug buyer stealing Brown's backpack & gun after shooting him; 1 of the 3 drug buyers in hospital with GSW; & amounts/types of drugs & cash found in Brown's apartment.

New WFAA link:
https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/speci ... 6baf42cacd

That's a really long way to go to buy drugs. From what WFAA says the 3 drove over 300 miles from Louisiana to steal drugs from Brown.

Paladin wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:26 am ...
That's a really long way to go to buy drugs. From what WFAA says the 3 drove over 300 miles from Louisiana to steal drugs from Brown.

Perhaps because they had done business with him in the past and thought he had a lot of drugs to steal?

Interesting.

Did the prosecution know their witness against a police officer was a drug dealer? Did the defense lawyers know?

I wonder if this will work its way into the appeals.

ELB wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:23 am

Paladin wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:26 am ...
That's a really long way to go to buy drugs. From what WFAA says the 3 drove over 300 miles from Louisiana to steal drugs from Brown.

Perhaps because they had done business with him in the past and thought he had a lot of drugs to steal?

Interesting.

Did the prosecution know their witness against a police officer was a drug dealer? Did the defense lawyers know?

I wonder if this will work its way into the appeals.

If he didn't have any arrests I don't think they would know.

WildBill wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 12:00 pm ...
If he didn't have any arrests I don't think they would know.

I Bing'ed his name for Texas arrests, turns out "Joshua Brown" is a VERY popular name under which to be arrested. Too many for me to sort through.

ELB wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 1:11 pm

WildBill wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 12:00 pm ...
If he didn't have any arrests I don't think they would know.

I Bing'ed his name for Texas arrests, turns out "Joshua Brown" is a VERY popular name under which to be arrested. Too many for me to sort through.

I don't know the laws in Texas, but usually the attorney can impeach a witness if they are a felon.

WildBill wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:01 pm

ELB wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 1:11 pm

WildBill wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 12:00 pm ...
If he didn't have any arrests I don't think they would know.

I Bing'ed his name for Texas arrests, turns out "Joshua Brown" is a VERY popular name under which to be arrested. Too many for me to sort through.

I don't know the laws in Texas, but usually the attorney can impeach a witness if they are a felon.

That's what I was thinking. At the very least I would think the defense would want to get before the jury the fact that the witness is a drug dealer (and presumably not a fan of police) for when the jury is evaluating his credibility.

WildBill wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:01 pm

ELB wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 1:11 pm

WildBill wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 12:00 pm ...
If he didn't have any arrests I don't think they would know.

I Bing'ed his name for Texas arrests, turns out "Joshua Brown" is a VERY popular name under which to be arrested. Too many for me to sort through.

I don't know the laws in Texas, but usually the attorney can impeach a witness if they are a felon.

Another reason for a higher court to declare the verdict void and to be retried?

Grayling813 wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:26 pm

WildBill wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:01 pm

ELB wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 1:11 pm

WildBill wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 12:00 pm ...
If he didn't have any arrests I don't think they would know.

I Bing'ed his name for Texas arrests, turns out "Joshua Brown" is a VERY popular name under which to be arrested. Too many for me to sort through.

I don't know the laws in Texas, but usually the attorney can impeach a witness if they are a felon.

Another reason for a higher court to declare the verdict void and to be retried?

If I was Guyger I don’t know that I would want to gamble that 10 year sentence and serving just 5 years. If she is retired and again on murder it is possible she would get double the 10 or more.

carlson1 wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:34 pm

Grayling813 wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:26 pm

WildBill wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:01 pm

ELB wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 1:11 pm

WildBill wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 12:00 pm ...
If he didn't have any arrests I don't think they would know.

I Bing'ed his name for Texas arrests, turns out "Joshua Brown" is a VERY popular name under which to be arrested. Too many for me to sort through.

I don't know the laws in Texas, but usually the attorney can impeach a witness if they are a felon.

Another reason for a higher court to declare the verdict void and to be retried?

If I was Guyger I don’t know that I would want to gamble that 10 year sentence and serving just 5 years. If she is retired and again on murder it is possible she would get double the 10 or more.

She won't be found innocent. No way, no how. So the only thing to be gained is a lighter sentence. The risk of it doubling are just as possible.

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?

Don't know if this has been previously posted but did some looking around and found on Youtube the trial judge's charge to the jury on guilt/innocence--well worth watching and thinking about:
'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gk7ArfokWRo

C-dub wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 8:28 pm

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?

Oh, I get what you are driving at now. I have been in that very situation using a firearm for self defense and at the time of defending myself was in fear for my life and the second time in fear for mine and my sons life. Both times I was concerned with whether or not my fear was real, after the fact on hindsight. I was fortunate in that nobody died and both times it never went to trial and was considered self defense by the law. These happened in 1983 and 1996. Times were different then and more gun self defense friendly I guess. These days it seems the courts are more critical of the victims than they are the criminals. I still believe she made a huge mistake and deserved to pay for it. But I do get what you are driving at.

Amber Guyger’s Defense Team Says Former Dallas Officer Got Fair Trial: ‘She Shot And Killed Such A Wonderful, Innocent Young Man’

I hadn't seen anything about the defense lawyers for Amber Guyger. This link shows some video of the three lawyers
talking to a reporter. I find it very strange. The lawyers are saying that she got a fair trial, but then at the
last second they mention an appeal. It is like they gave up before the trial started. Like they weren't trying to
get her acquitted.

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2019/10/02/amb ... air-trial/

This is a cautionary tale in many respects. One that stands out to me is that should I be force to use my self-defense handgun, I will be; 1) in fear for my life, 2) under extreme stress, 3) deciding and acting in seconds. Conversely, the jury will be; 1) in complete safety and relative comfort, 2) under relatively little stress, 3) deciding and acting in hours/days/weeks. What seemed reasonable to me in the moment may not appear reasonable to the jury in hindsight.