Dallas officer goes home to wrong apartment, kills man inside

If I get home and my front door is unlocked it would raise a huge red flag. I would look around outside for anything out of place before entering. She didn’t even bother to check the door number or anything?


If this woman doesn’t get manslaughter then there is a bigger hand at play. Maybe she made a series of honest mistakes but the end result is that she killed a man in his own home.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
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...


It's been stated time and again by judges that ignorance is not a defense of the law...
 
If the apartments all were furnished the same way, I could see her mistake but I doubt it.
When they realized she was in the wrong apartment, she should have been taken outside the crime scene.
Manslaughter, three years suspended.
 
bigfelipe said:
It's been stated time and again by judges that ignorance is not a defense of the law...
Click to expand...

That is not what the defense is claiming. They are arguing she knew and understood the law. A misunderstanding of "facts" caused a mistake but that she acted as any reasonable person would who "believed" she was in her home. I think it is bullshit but it is the best defense she has. It will at least get her out of a murder conviction into manslaughter and no jail time.
 
Button Pusher said:
If the apartments all were furnished the same way, I could see her mistake but I doubt it.
When they realized she was in the wrong apartment, she should have been taken outside the crime scene.
Manslaughter, three years suspended.
Click to expand...

nn_ggu_amber_guyger_trial_190925_1920x1080.jpg
 
wvsig said:
That is not what the defense is claiming. They are arguing she knew and understood the law. A misunderstanding of "facts" caused a mistake but that she acted as any reasonable person would who "believed" she was in her home. I think it is bullshit but it is the best defense she has. It will at least get her out of a murder conviction into manslaughter and no jail time.
Click to expand...

Ignorance of your location... Samey same... If I believe I am in Michigan and legal with my pistol, but I am actually across the Illinois line and not legal, am I covered by my "belief" that I am legal when I am arrested?
 
bigfelipe said:
Ignorance of your location... Samey same... If I believe I am in Michigan and legal with my pistol, but I am actually across the Illinois line and not legal, am I covered by my "belief" that I am legal when I am arrested?
Click to expand...

Not the same because your example has no basis in what "a reasonable person" would believe to be true. The defense is arguing that lots of people in that apartment complex get off at the wrong floor and mistake someone else's apartment for theirs. That was the meat of the TX Rangers testimony. They are arguing that she is not the only person to make this "factual" mistake. Others have made the same mistake but the consequences were not the same but it could have been. It is a well crafted defense within the law. I hope it doesn't work but there is a reason the Judge allowed the Castle Doctrine to be used as a defense.
 
bigfelipe said:
Ignorance of your location... Samey same... If I believe I am in Michigan and legal with my pistol, but I am actually across the Illinois line and not legal, am I covered by my "belief" that I am legal when I am arrested?
Click to expand...
I don't believe it is samey same to the legal system. First, I believe the status of gun carry laws tend to be strict liability, whereas a crime like manslaughter requires something more like mens rea. There's also a major distinction between mistakes of fact and mistakes of law. The latter don't excuse, while the former can.

I posted this in an earlier thread. It's not any help in terms of giving a clear idea of how all of this comes into play specifically in the Guyer case, of course, but it does give what looks like a decent general summary. https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/mens-rea-a-defendant-s-mental-state.html
 
"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?"

The answer of course, is "none" .

I don't know about this cop, but while I spent several lost decades with some serious substance abuse problems before I got clean, I *never* walked into the wrong apartment, no matter how wadded up I was at the time.

I hope they fry her, same as they would, say.... a white male NRA member concealed carrier who burst in on someones apartment and murdered the occupant for no reason.
 
If there was truly no connection between the victim and shooter then this is just(not saying that to lower the value to this man's life)manslaughter. I heard this morning that his door was locked but had not latched shut. Which would explain how she got in. I don't agree with the castle doctrine decision.
 
Last edited:
Ferrisfan said:
The same people who forget they had a kid in their car.
Click to expand...

I was coming back from walking the dog once and mistakenly opened my downstairs neighbors door about an inch before I realized my error. I verrry quietly closed it and went upstairs to reflect. Very unsettling.

I haven't left my child in the car yet because she's usually screaming about chicken nuggets or something.
 
It's premature to make any overreaching statements about cops getting special privileges until the verdict is read (and possibly sentencing).
 
frakncylons said:
I was coming back from walking the dog once and mistakenly opened my downstairs neighbors door about an inch before I realized my error. I verrry quietly closed it and went upstairs to reflect. Very unsettling.

I haven't left my child in the car yet because she's usually screaming about chicken nuggets or something.
Click to expand...

Bet you never once thought about shooting your neighbor though!
 
Op,
Just my two cents,
But since words do I fact have meanings,
and since I am sure you don’t want to be lumped in with the leftards that disagree with the first part of this sentence, you are wrong-
She did, in fact, homicide him. That is fact and not debatable.
However, she is on trial for murder, and she is innocent until proven guilty, that is, unless you are in fact a leftard and have already convicted her.
 
Button Pusher said:
If the apartments all were furnished the same way, I could see her mistake but I doubt it.
Click to expand...
Once on a multi night school field trip event, we stayed in a hotel that was round. Going down the hall you lacked sense of perception of the end of the hall because it was a continuous circle. I opened the unlocked door to what I thought was my room, opened the unlocked door to the bathroom and discovered a female classmate sitting on the toilet. :oops: I thought I was in the correct (my) room.
Spartan01 said:
However, she is on trial for murder, and she is innocent until proven guilty, that is, unless you are in fact a leftard and have already convicted her.
Click to expand...
I sense that the prevailing thought and desire is that she be treated like any of us would and not be given the blue light special treatment.
 
Here's a quote from a Texas Tribune article:

According to Schulte and Fort Worth law firm Barnett Howard & Williams, a person can claim self-defense if:
  • They believed someone was on their property illegally. It wasn't HER property.
  • They reasonably believed the deadly force was immediately necessary.
  • They did not provoke the person against which the deadly force was used.
  • They weren’t engaged in criminal activity (other than a minor traffic offense) at the time the deadly force was used. She was trespassing on his property. The fact that his door was open, or even unlocked, didn't give her the right to be on his property.
As is usual in these cases, the DA is probably overreaching in going for Murder One. She didn't plan to kill him in advance, and even Murder Two might not apply. Voluntary Manslaughter is probably doable.

More from the article:

The doctrine is further complicated in this case because Guyger was operating under what's considered a mistake of fact. She said she thought she was in her own apartment when she was actually in Botham Jean’s apartment, and that “fact” carries through into her self defense argument.

If Guyger has a reasonable belief that she was in her own apartment then the doctrine applies, Schulte said. The state has to disprove that she thought she was in her apartment, he said.

So, now the "thought police" can rule on crimes?

Her "mistake" of fact should end up with her "mistakenly" being incarcerated for a substantial amount of time. YMMV
 
Last edited:
On the plus side the prosecutor went pretty hard on the closing arguments. I don't think he is sandbagging this one. And the jury can find guilt on lower charges than murder 1.

I think the CD use is insane but as said above, it's because TX has the mistake of fact defense too.

One thing she really has going against her, outside of her initial bad decisions, is she testified that she intended to kill him. Not sure who thought that was a good idea, but the prosecutor got her to say it multiple times.
 
The whole thing is bizarre.

My brother visited me once when we were young. We walked home from a friend's house separately. We had been drinking. He entered the house next door after midnight. They confronted him in the hall, saw he was confused, and ended up bringing him next door to me. They kept saying, thank God we didn't have a gun! Of course, they would have been in the wrong, in Massachusetts, if they had shot him!
 
noway2 said:
Once on a multi night school field trip event, we stayed in a hotel that was round. Going down the hall you lacked sense of perception of the end of the hall because it was a continuous circle. I opened the unlocked door to what I thought was my room, opened the unlocked door to the bathroom and discovered a female classmate sitting on the toilet. :oops: I thought I was in the correct (my) room.
Click to expand...

Dear Penthouse...
 
SPM said:
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.
Click to expand...

Did not the investigation reveal that she used her own apartment key?
 
dmarbell said:
Here's a quote from a Texas Tribune article:

According to Schulte and Fort Worth law firm Barnett Howard & Williams, a person can claim self-defense if:
  • They believed someone was on their property illegally. It wasn't HER property.
  • They reasonably believed the deadly force was immediately necessary.
  • They did not provoke the person against which the deadly force was used.
  • They weren’t engaged in criminal activity (other than a minor traffic offense) at the time the deadly force was used. She was trespassing on his property. The fact that his door was open, or even unlocked, didn't give her the right to be on his property.
As is usual in these cases, the DA is probably overreaching in going for Murder One. She didn't plan to kill him in advance, and even Murder Two might not apply. Voluntary Manslaughter is probably doable.

More from the article:

The doctrine is further complicated in this case because Guyger was operating under what's considered a mistake of fact. She said she thought she was in her own apartment when she was actually in Botham Jean’s apartment, and that “fact” carries through into her self defense argument.

If Guyger has a reasonable belief that she was in her own apartment then the doctrine applies, Schulte said. The state has to disprove that she thought she was in her apartment, he said.

So, now the "thought police" can rule on crimes?

Her "mistake" of fact should end up with her "mistakenly" being incarcerated for a substantial amount of time. YMMV
Click to expand...

She is only going to get acquitted if the jury believes that this is a common mistake in that apartment building due to its layout.
 
wvsig said:
She is only going to get acquitted if the jury believes that this is a common mistake in that apartment building due to its layout.
Click to expand...

Which supposedly had happened with about 30% of other residents as well. If she is acquitted because of that then I would sue the apartment complex using the same witnesses.
 
Cowboy said:
Which supposedly had happened with about 30% of other residents as well. If she is acquitted because of that then I would sue the apartment complex using the same witnesses.
Click to expand...
Agree they will win a civil suit with that even if she is convicted.
 
Last edited:
Cowboy said:
Guilty of murder so much for that blue line
Click to expand...

It might now shut up some of the naysayers here. But now that I think about it I doubt it and they will spend their day looking for more anti police articles somewhere on this earth to post and beat up.
 
Last edited:
Cowboy said:
Which supposedly had happened with about 30% of other residents as well. If she is acquitted because of that then I would sue the apartment complex using the same witnesses.
Click to expand...

For what crime? That a police officer too exhausted to identify her own resident but wide awake enough to sext her married lover might barge in and kill you, then subsequently escape justice?

I'm truly curious what angle the suit would take....
 
Jim1392 said:
It might now shut up some of the naysayers here. But now that I think about it I doubt it and they will spend their day looking for more anti police articles somewhere on this earth to post and beat up.
Click to expand...

Step back and check that Texas Rangers comments, the lead investigator in the case. I try to stay middle of the road but I can’t even ignore him thinking she did nothing wrong. IMO that guy and guys like him are a problem. Luckily the judge did not let him testify to such, he tried.

That said, the prosecutor, judge, and jury were not buying it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Gee guys, see, this is proof that the police are held to the exact same standard as we are. We should immediately cease any and all discussions of events that may shed a negative light on them because, you know, checks and balances from us little civilians are completely unnecessary and we should just allow them to go about their business
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom