Dallas officer goes home to wrong apartment, kills man inside

cubrock said:
Wonder if the Ranger would have said that had it been the other way around - Guyger was off duty chilling in her apartment and some guy walks in thinking it is his place and shoots her.
Click to expand...

Yeah, exactly.

And to make it clear, the Ranger was apparently testifying before the jury came in. Not sure why, but it was objected too and not entered into the record. But it's out there on TV for the world to see how he really feels.
 
I read an update a couple days ago that said she may have been distracted due to sexting on her phone. I have been looking for pictures or videos from her phone but haven't found any yet. I will keep looking, she was pretty hot
 
Firemedic54 said:
I read an update a couple days ago that said she may have been distracted due to sexting on her phone. I have been looking for pictures or videos from her phone but haven't found any yet. I will keep looking, she was pretty hot
Click to expand...

Define "hot". She cleans up but.....still....woof.
Amber1.jpg Amber2.jpg
 
chiefjason said:
Trial has started if anyone is interested. Wife has it on and been watching it since the start. The lead investigator for the Texas Rangers was testifying and said there was no crime committed by Guyger. Wow, just wow. If folks want to know what's wrong with LE I think that guy may need to be the poster child. No crime? I don't think she'll get Murder 1 but she went into someones apartment and shot them. That's not an accident. It may be a mistake, but that mistake has legal implications when the homeowner ends up with 2 bullets to the chest.
Click to expand...

Did he say in what basis there was no crime committed?

Edited to add, I found it:

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/cou...wrong-floor-ranger-testifies-at-murder-trial/

There were issues in apartment identification (???), where as many as 15% (46 of 297 residents) of residents went to the wrong apartment and/or wrong floor, and the floors and apartments were poorly marked. It is based on this that Armstrong (the Ranger) believes it was a mistake but not a crime:

“After finishing your investigation and looking at the totality of the circumstances and considering everything, do you believe today that you have probable cause to believe that Amber Guyger committed a crime?” Rogers asked.

“Based on the totality of the circumstances, based on the complete investigation, no, sir,” Armstrong said.

Armstrong said he believed Guyger acted reasonably after perceiving Jean as a deadly threat.

Wow.
 
Last edited:
SCshooter57 said:
Define "hot". She cleans up but.....still....woof.
View attachment 156522 View attachment 156523
Click to expand...

Looks like one of the characters from the old 1932 black and white movie "Freaks".
iu
 
One question I have yet to hear answered: How did she enter his apartment unless she had a key to his apartment? Was the door unlocked?

Terry
 
specops56 said:
One question I have yet to hear answered: How did she enter his apartment unless she had a key to his apartment? Was the door unlocked?

Terry
Click to expand...

His door was not unlocked according to the electronic lock system. It track events in the lock. He locked the door shortly before she shot him. How she came to be face to face with him has not been established. At least the above is my understanding of it. I’m getting bits and pieces of it but not sitting through the whole thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Chuckman said:
Did he say in what basis there was no crime committed?

Edited to add, I found it:

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/cou...wrong-floor-ranger-testifies-at-murder-trial/

There were issues in apartment identification (???), where as many as 15% (46 of 297 residents) of residents went to the wrong apartment and/or wrong floor, and the floors and apartments were poorly marked. It is based on this that Armstrong (the Ranger) believes it was a mistake but not a crime:

“After finishing your investigation and looking at the totality of the circumstances and considering everything, do you believe today that you have probable cause to believe that Amber Guyger committed a crime?” Rogers asked.

“Based on the totality of the circumstances, based on the complete investigation, no, sir,” Armstrong said.

Armstrong said he believed Guyger acted reasonably after perceiving Jean as a deadly threat.

Wow.
Click to expand...

What gets me about this knuckleheads comments is that SHE was the perceived threat in the situation SHE created. Stunning lack of perception on his part to ignore that. She had no right or authority to be there. And get this, her defense is talking about using Castle Doctrine. It’s not her castle!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
chiefjason said:
His door was not unlocked according to the electronic lock system. It track events in the lock. He locked the door shortly before she shot him. How she came to be face to face with him has not been established. At least the above is my understanding of it. I’m getting bits and pieces of it but not sitting through the whole thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That would really be something. I was always under the impression that it was unlocked.
 
When I lived in an apartment, I once had someone jiggle the handle and try to get in. I was sitting with a firearm in close proximity.

I later found out it was an LEO looking for someone that had fled a stolen car in the area and he was checking to see if the guy had made it in to an apartment.

If that door had been unlocked, both of us would be in very different situations right now. That thought has always stuck with me.
 
Didnt read back through.

Why is this news? She went into a other person's home.

While carrying a means of deadly force, by choice or by career it doesn't matter..

Then regardless of whatever details, situation, blah, blah, blah.

One person killed another, innocent person......

It's open and shut. If they wanna get all situational circumstances, if not murder. Then clearly manslaughter...



Race, gender, profession, what the hell ever has ZERO to do with it.

She walked into someone else's home, escalated to deadly force as a first reaction, not as a last resort...

Again if not obvious murder charges, then at least manslaughter.....
 
The judge ruled today that the Defense can argue that Castle Doctrine applies and can be considered by the jury.

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2019/09/30/jury-consider-castle-doctrine-amber-guyger-murder-trial/

How many lowly citizens do you suppose would enjoy the government's courts allowing them to argue a Castle defense for breaking into a home that wasn't theirs and murdering those inside?

But it's "librul Hollywood and the leftist mainstream media" that makes cops out to be bad and makes people distrust them and and think of them as enemies?

The Thin Blue Line doesn't protect you, your Rights, your Liberty, your city, your county, your State, or our Republic.

They protect the political class, enforce politicians' wills on the People at large, and are protected from accountability.

They are the Standing Army the Founders always feared and the reason for the Militia clause of Amendment the Second.
 
Last edited:
I'm not up on the nuances of all the different castle doctrine laws but I thought a major element of most of them was that it applied in places "where you have a legal right to be" or similar....

IF that's a requirement of Texas law the legalese behind why that applies to this situation would be interesting to read.
 
I hope she gets convicted but I am not counting on it. To me the evidence is overwhelmingly against her. I think there is a good chance that she gets convicted of manslaughter which I believe would be the right verdict.

According to the testimony, Guyger texted Rivera, “I need you ... hurry," and another a minute later confessing, "I f***ed up," one minute later.

The trial continued when Dallas county prosecutors examined the bookbag Guyger was wearing that fateful evening. The bag contained a first aid kit, along with combat gauges designed specifically to stop bleeding. The gauge packet was unopened.

Guyger only admitted to conducting a “sternum rub” on Jean’s upper left chest where she shot him, but stopped when authorities arrived on the scene. Tu Minh Nguygen revealed how Jean was “still alive” when officers began CPR. He died later at the hospital from the gunshot wound.
Click to expand...

She knew immediately she had messed up. She admits to intending to kill him. She barely administered CPR and failed to use the quick lot she had in her bag. IMHO she didn't because she knew she had a better chance of beating a conviction if the guy was dead vs being able to tell his side of the story.
 
Taking the cop out of the equation this was a tragic mistake and one that, unfortunately, if not a cop then would most likely see a conviction.

Now, being a cop, she should not only be held to the same standard but I would argue to a higher standard when it comes to use of deadly force.

Regardless, allowing the use of the castle doctrine in this instance is a complete failure of the legal system. There is nothing in either the letter or the spirit of that law that would allow it to be used as a defense while you are in someone else’s castle.

If the state doesn’t throw the prosecution then they have a pretty clear cut case of, at least, manslaughter. Their burden of proof is met by her confession. She entered his home and she killed him.
 
rantingredneck said:
I'm not up on the nuances of all the different castle doctrine laws but I thought a major element of most of them was that it applied in places "where you have a legal right to be" or similar....

IF that's a requirement of Texas law the legalese behind why that applies to this situation would be interesting to read.
Click to expand...

They are using it under was it "reasonable for her to believe". Their entire defense is she fully "believed" she was in her own apartment where her actions would be covered by the castle doctrine. It does not matter what the actual reality was it is what she believed and did she act "Reasonably".
 
Why do they always try CPR? To make it look good.
DWI plastic surgeon did this when he ran his Benz 85mph in a 45 zone into a toyota corolla near my home,
'I tried CPR but it was too late', he killed the young lady who was a ballet dancer.
 
Should be a policy that you must call 911 and not try to clear our own residence.

Career LEO went to see who was breaking into his shed, he ended up dead in the yard,
he was to retire the next few days.
 
wvsig said:
They are using it under was it "reasonable for her to believe". Their entire defense is she fully "believed" she was in her own apartment where her actions would be covered by the castle doctrine. It does not matter what the actual reality was it is what she believed and did she act "Reasonably".
Click to expand...
Not singling you out, but your comment spawned a different line of thinking....

I can't recall the details, but wasn't she out drinking or weren't there other drugs involved? What about any sort of prohibitions on carrying while under the influence? Also, if any influencing substances were involved, would this affect the "reasonableness" of the act?
 
noway2 said:
Not singling you out, but your comment spawned a different line of thinking....

I can't recall the details, but wasn't she out drinking or weren't there other drugs involved? What about any sort of prohibitions on carrying while under the influence? Also, if any influencing substances were involved, would this affect the "reasonableness" of the act?
Click to expand...
No just finished a twelve hours shift and completely on autopilot is the argument. Their defense pretty much spells out manslaughter.
 
I'm sorry, who walks in to the wrong house? I used to work double 12s way back, I was the walking dead on my way home, not once did I every go to the wrong apartment... her entire defense is bs
 
noway2 said:
Not singling you out, but your comment spawned a different line of thinking....

I can't recall the details, but wasn't she out drinking or weren't there other drugs involved? What about any sort of prohibitions on carrying while under the influence? Also, if any influencing substances were involved, would this affect the "reasonableness" of the act?
Click to expand...

No drugs and her BAC was 0. She was sexting her married partner who she had previously sent nude photos of herself to. She said she wanted to get drunk that evening and hook up I believe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom