GUILTY TX - Former Dallas Police Officer Amber Guyger, indicted for Murder of Botham Shem Jean #6

[mickey2942]

This would be an incredible risk. Actually getting an appeal is not very easy. I think even awful lawyers want to win in court, because an appeal is even more difficult. That said, anything is possible.

I just checked, it would be Fifth District Court of Appeals. Guyger won't do well there. I thought that it was Third District.

 

[blue22]

On a larger scale, I have a big problem with someone who instigates a confrontation, kills someone, and then claims self-defense. The self-defense argument in these instances assaults the conscience. There have been many high profile cases like this. Curtis Reeves comes to mind at the moment. I’m specifically quoting that case bc both shooter and victim are white. Reeves is a former officer and elderly. Reeves instigated an altercation, shot the guy, then claimed he was in fear for his life.

In this case, of course, she’s claiming mistake of fact but the underlying argument is the same from the perspective of the victim. She entered his home, claimed she was in fear for her life, and killed him. I can’t stomach it and I never will.

You put into words what I've been feeling. A wonderful young man was sitting in his underwear eating ice cream. She killed him and wants the word to accept she was afraid? I can't. Morally, I can't accept that.

 

[MsFacetious]

It does not matter what the jury THINKS the case is.
They can THINK it's an assault case if they'd like.
The statute they will be instructed to follow, paired with Amber's statements, makes it clear it's a murder case.
No motive is required, no premeditation is needed, no grand plan or scheme.
All that is required is that she intended to kill him when she pulled the trigger.
It's that simple. The jury has to apply the law, not their feelings.

 

[blue22]

It does not matter what the jury THINKS the case is.
They can THINK it's an assault case if they'd like.
The statute they will be instructed to follow, paired with Amber's statements, makes it clear it's a murder case.
No motive is required, no premeditation is needed, no grand plan or scheme.
All that is required is that she intended to kill him when she pulled the trigger.
It's that simple. The jury has to apply the law, not their feelings.

Yes! The jury instructions the judge gives is the most important thing in this case, IMO. Everything hinges on their clarity and understanding of the law and the requirements.

 

[VAgirlatheart]

My biggest issue is the Police/Citizen argument that her defense wants us to believe.

So mistake of fact, okay, you are just like every citizen that lives in this complex who have went to the wrong apartment. Okay, maybe that’s the case. But you can’t bounce back and forth between being a police officer that night and a regular ol’citizen who is off from work.

You walked down the wrong hall like everyone else, so you want us to believe you are citizen at that time and it could have happened to anyone.

Then when you get to the door, your cop instincts kick in when you hear someone walking in the apartment (her words not mine) and then you see that the door is ajar. (Again, her words not mine) so instead of possibly looking around to see if it’s your apartment after you see two major clues and a couple others if you count the red mat and the red light indicating it’s not your lock, you ignore all of that.

Then all of a sudden you are a police officer again telling the man that lived in his own apartment, minding his own business to show me your hands.

Then all of a sudden you go back to a citizen again and claim that he was coming at you and your whole police training when out the window and you were scared for your life because you thought it was your apartment.

Doesnt provide cpr, doesn’t use gloves, doesn’t use the stuff that helps with bleeding because all of a sudden you are in shock. And suddenly you are an innocent citizen again.

EXCEPT for when you call 911 when you state that you are an off duty police officer that needs EMS and Police. Why announce that? I’m just guessing here but she’s announcing that for the simple fact that she knows that it will somehow benefit her.

I can’t show remorse for someone who doesn’t have remorse for another human life. As far as I’m concerned - she should never became a cop. You cant be paranoid and a cop.

And how do you and your partner/bootycall have three people that have been shot? 2 killed, and one wounded.

She’s lucky that wasn’t able to be brought up bc that would have not been a good look.

 

[gitana1]

It does not matter what the jury THINKS the case is.
They can THINK it's an assault case if they'd like.
The statute they will be instructed to follow, paired with Amber's statements, makes it clear it's a murder case.
No motive is required, no premeditation is needed, no grand plan or scheme.
All that is required is that she intended to kill him when she pulled the trigger.
It's that simple. The jury has to apply the law, not their feelings.

And the law specifically allows them to find her guilty of a lesser included.

 

[kodi]

I get you. But I don't think his mistake could've happened to anyone and I don't think it has. Because mistakenly going to and/or even trying to enter someone else's home is not the same as immediately shooting someone to death when doing so. You know what I mean?

The fact that she is LE and had a loaded gun that she used contrary to department protocol is what sets her apart I think. What do you think?

I totally agree it sets her apart. She has more responsibility and that higher standard that’s been discussed so much over these threads. Does it make her even more negligent and reckless? Typing that out was the first time I’ve asked myself that question. And I do think it does. Where does that leave me? Still conflicted. And frustrated.

 

[gitana1]

My biggest issue is the Police/Citizen argument that her defense wants us to believe.

So mistake of fact, okay, you are just like every citizen that lives in this complex who have went to the wrong apartment. Okay, maybe that’s the case. But you can’t bounce back and forth between being a police officer that night and a regular ol’citizen who is off from work.

You walked down the wrong hall like everyone else, so you want us to believe you are citizen at that time and it could have happened to anyone.

Then when you get to the door, your cop instincts kick in when you hear someone walking in the apartment (her words not mine) and then you see that the door is ajar. (Again, her words not mine) so instead of possibly looking around to see if it’s your apartment after you see two major clues and a couple others if you count the red mat and the red light indicating it’s not your lock, you ignore all of that.

Then all of a sudden you are a police officer again telling the man that lived in his own apartment, minding his own business to show me your hands.

Then all of a sudden you go back to a citizen again and claim that he was coming at you and your whole police training when out the window and you were scared for your life because you thought it was your apartment.

Doesnt provide cpr, doesn’t use gloves, doesn’t use the stuff that helps with bleeding because all of a sudden you are in shock. And suddenly you are an innocent citizen again.

EXCEPT for when you call 911 when you state that you are an off duty police officer that needs EMS and Police. Why announce that? I’m just guessing here but she’s announcing that for the simple fact that she knows that it will somehow benefit her.

I can’t show remorse for someone who doesn’t have remorse for another human life. As far as I’m concerned - she should never became a cop. You cant be paranoid and a cop.

And how do you and your partner/bootycall have three people that have been shot? 2 killed, and one wounded.

She’s lucky that wasn’t able to be brought up bc that would have not been a good look.

Wow. That's an interesting analysis. I never thought about it that way. She wants to be treated either like a cop or like a civilian depending on her conduct at a particular moment.

 

[Weki]

But in order to find her guilty of the lesser charges they’d have to find the elements for those charges were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no evidence this was recklessness or any such thing. She intended to kill. She said so. So it’s either she’s guilty of murder or not guilty due to self-defense. I think folks need to watch her cross-exam to understand why the lesser charges have been rendered moot.

ETA: Additionally, she acknowledged she had other options (seek cover and call it in) but chose to pursue “the threat”. She knowingly entered the apartment and chose to engage. I think it depends on how you wanna look at that decision but I don’t call that reckless or negligent behavior. I guess we’ll see.

 

[blue22]

Wow. That's an interesting analysis. I never thought about it that way. She wants to be treated either like a cop or like a civilian depending on her conduct at a particular moment.

This is totally JMO, but I think she was bumping from one privilege to another as it benefited her narrative.

 

[BeachSky]

In the end, I think that the end game for the defense was to set this whole "Dog and Pony show", trial, was to get it out of the way, and get the judgement set aside on appeal. That could be why their entire defense so far has been pretty lame.

Much like dogs chasing a parked car.

Will she be locked up - or out if appeal?
I’m like Bo’s mom..don’t want to see her
walking around( free).
JMO

 

[CrimeDawg123]

This is totally JMO, but I think she was bumping from one privilege to another as it benefited her narrative.

Absolutely she exploited that situation to the fullest. Getting to talk to her friends, the police union rep, and her lawyers all before answering any questions and then going home is really upsetting. A citizen would have possibly gotten beaten to a pulp, thrown in a cell, questioned by LE, and then gotten to talk to a lawyer. At the end of the trial day, they'd be going back to jail.

 

[blue22]

Absolutely she exploited that situation to the fullest. Getting to talk to her friends, the police union rep, and her lawyers all before answering any questions and then going home is really upsetting. A citizen would have possibly gotten beaten to a pulp, thrown in a cell, questioned by LE, and then gotten to talk to a lawyer.

I can't imagine the grief and rage his family feels, that she isn't in jail

 

[iluvmua]

Much like dogs chasing a parked car.

Will she be locked up - or out if appeal?
I’m like Bo’s mom..don’t want to see her
walking around( free).
JMO

I doubt she will be walking around free.

I think she will be going to prison for something

Jmo

 

[Poppyflower]

I'm re-watching pros. openings...jic you want to too, here is a link:

defense:

 

[gitana1]

But in order to find her guilty of the lesser charges they’d have to find the elements for those charges were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no evidence this was recklessness or any such thing. She intended to kill. She said so. So it’s either she’s guilty of murder or not guilty due to self-defense. I think folks need to watch her cross-exam to understand why the lesser charges have been rendered moot.

ETA: Additionally, she acknowledged she had other options (seek cover and call it in) but chose to pursue “the threat”. She knowingly entered the apartment and chose to engage. I think it depends on how you wanna look at that decision but I don’t call that reckless or negligent behavior. I guess we’ll see.

That's incorrect. The elements of a lesser included are necessarily within the higher charge. That's why they are called "lesser includeds".

And I disagree that there is no evidence she was reckless. Intending to kill doesn't mean she wasn't also reckless. Her actions in entering a home that clearly wasn't hers, were reckless. Her actions in then deciding to pull out her service revolver instead of retreating and calling for backup, despite being super exhausted and distracted, were clearly reckless.

Her actions in shooting a man who was sitting on a couch in his own apartment because she was so exhausted and distracted se mistook his place for hers and because she chose not to confirm where she was or follow her own department's protocol and retreat and call for back up, was definitively reckless. That's my legal opinion.

Here is the definition of lesser included:

"Lesser included offense" is a criminal law term for a crime that’s contained within a more serious crime. Sometimes described as “necessarily included offense," the term refers to a situation where it's impossible to commit a greater offense without committing a lesser one.
Lesser Included Offenses

In Texas, manslaughter is a lesser included of murder and criminally negligent homicide is a lesser included of manslaughter.

 

[mickey2942]

I can't imagine the grief and rage his family feels, that she isn't in jail

She really is getting special treatment. From the beginning, when there was not one search warrant for her apartment. And now, she merits special detail for protection. Like she is a "Queen" with her court.

 

[Weki]

I think in order to believe she was acting recklessly or negligently you’d have to buy into her defense. Once you do that then you’re effectively removing the possibility of murder. And once you do that, then she’s justified in the killing itself and it’s just a question of punishment for her error. That’s really what the argument for lesser charges is about.

That standing on the door on top of the red carpet realizing the door was unlocked she didn’t know or look around to realize she was at the wrong door. That is completely unreasonable imo. Then you’d have to believe she didn’t shoot him while he was squatting off the couch. That he was coming towards the door and was a genuine threat to her when she fired. This is refuted by the evidence from the ME. Basically, you’d have to take her word for everything in order to believe she’s only guilty of the lesser charges. And in doing so close your eyes and ears to the objective facts and common sense and logic.

 

[Mickey Mouse]

Botham Jean would have turned 28 tomorrow.

Amber Guyger's murder trial to resume a day after what would have been Botham Jean's 28th birthday

 

[GMG1999]

I was just thinking, is this the kind of case where the jury should be taken to the building and walk the third and fourth floors to get an idea of what the differences were- and if it was reasonable for Amber not to see the differences as walked down the hall passing 16 apartments and arriving at Botham Jean 's Apt with the red mat in front of it-

Do juries ever actually get to see the crime scene itself? just wondering

I read somewhere or maybe heard on a news story that after this, the apartment owner had painted the 3rd and/or 4th floor different and put up more signage to make the floors look different.