TX - Former Dallas Police Officer Amber Guyger, indicted for Murder of Botham Shem Jean #5

[Jax49]

I think that she was chasing Officer Rivera, and he wasn't that interested in her. She seemed like she was the aggressive one in the "sexting" conversation about how "horny" she is...and he didn't respond with, "Well, come on over.". That is a blow, when a guy isn't that interested in you.

She was distracted and pissed off, because she was basically throwing herself at a man, who wasn't interested.

The Latest: Ex-lover denies rendezvous planned with Guyger

Yep, that seems to explain her actions, imo.

 

[mickey2942]

The marijuana issue is a completely "non issue" to me. People should be able to do what they want in their own home.

I can't smoke marijuana, still against federal law. But I am waiting for the day when the White House is alight with green, when marijuana is legalized in the United States.

 

[gitana1]

True, but many of those "racy" texts were hours before this event. The prosecution built this up like she was getting ready to get home and get laid...super horny and distracted.

However, when the love-interest officer takes the stand, he admits they broke up a long time ago and they were just flirting and he had no intent on seeing her that night. Even admitted that the text from her stating 'I need you hurry' didn't elicit anything but fear from him that she was in trouble. Sure, he could be full of crap. It's hard to judge given that both their testimonies are just weird. I mean who flirts with people they're not seeing anymore? Who sends pics of your junk when you have no interest in seeing them that night?

So she wasn't texting the night of the shooting? On the way home?

 

[SoCalDavidS]

As usual, none of this stuff matters. It is irrelevant whether he is smoking pot or shooting up with heroin. The police cannot just enter your residence without a search warrant.

Some believe that All cops are Perfect, and can do no wrong. Even a clear cut incident like this one cannot sway their minds. Debating the Indefensible is a complete waste of time.

<modsnip - racial comment>
And would these cop defenders be criticizing the cop if they were smoking some po?
I guess we will see if the common cop "I Was Afraid For My Life" get out of jail free card, will even work when they're in someone Else's apartment.

 

[VAgirlatheart]

I found him less than believable. moo

He’s not gonna admit anything. Not over here. 16 year veteran with a 4 year veteran who possibly will behind bars.

 

[Handsome Sailor]

Anti-cop narrative. From the beginning corruption was happening, from her texts messages to her being able to remain at the crime scene, to her not getting arrested for 3 days and the police association was the one that posted her bond... see it’s people who always think others are attacking the police when in reality, this type of coverup happens every single time.Enough is Enough. Hold the ones responsible. Charge the ones who are scared to death cowards so we can give the good ones the praise that they deserve. Trust me, when things like these happen - the community pushes back.

the only problem with your post is that, all the things you listed as "corruption" are perfectly legal, legitimate, and are how things are done throughout US.. By the way, when did texting become "corruption"?

 

[mickey2942]

So she wasn't texting the night of the shooting? On the way home?

Texts between Amber Guyger, Dallas police partner revealed at murder trial

"Hermus said that at about 9:30 p.m., as Guyger finished her 13-1/2-hour shift, she sent Rivera a Snapchat message that read, “Wanna touch?”

"After Guyger got off from work, she and Rivera had a 16-minute phone conversation that ended as she arrived at her apartment complex’s parking garage. The police department is about two blocks from the complex.

After getting off the phone with Rivera, Guyger had parked on the fourth level, instead of the third, where her apartment was, Hermus said."

So, she was talking to a guy who was blowing her off, and it distracted her to the point that she parked in the wrong spot. And I bet she was very angry.

 

[Mickey Mouse]

I found him less than believable. moo

Agree. I thought he was pretty obviously trying to downplay their relationship and trying to avoid getting pulled into this any further with their hookup plans.

 

[wyome]

One thing I'm curious about from today's testimony: the Chemistry teacher/football coach stated that after he parked his car in the garage (4th Floor), he saw Amber driving fast through the garage before parking her vehicle. He was a bit alarmed by that and it was one reason her noticed her.

I wonder what AG's frame of mind was at that point. Was she angry about something/at someone? Was she in a hurry because she had plans for that night? IIRC, she had pulled over in the garage before that to text her partner.

I didn't watch this witness' entire testimony. I do remember he was chewing gum and was overly enthusiastic when addressing his football coaching. As a mom that's had to deal with their HS kids' coaches also teaching academic subjects, well...based on his reaction to football and my experience, he may not have the same passion for chemistry, which sucks.

 

[VAgirlatheart]

When she texted her boyfriend/partner asking what she should do or say that’s when texting becomes corruption. When texts messages about the shooting are deleted from both phones that’s when it’s corruption.

I’m not sure if you have been watching since the beginning including the motions before the state started opening statements but during that time they argued about if certain text can be brought up including the ones that she was texting her partner back and forth which is relevant to the case.

That’s when it is corruption. As far as I’m concerned, she and him both have should be charged with obstruction charges.

 

[Medstudies]

Sure. He wasn't a threat to her. And weed doesn't come with a death penalty in this country.

If she were on duty and wanted to arrest him for weed possession...knock yourself out, Amber. But that's not what happened. What if it were you, doing something illegal or even just unsavory? Would it really be okay for someone to walk into your apartment and attack you?

BBM- right! that it is was even implied that the victim had it coming, because he had weed in his home is (MOO) contemptible.

our LAWS clearly tell us that it is not the job of LE to play jury, judge, and executioner. But if we are told this behavior is acceptable (?!) we need to put out a message “hey kids, don’t do illegal stuff in your apartments because LE is authorized to kill.”

MOO : AG’s actions prior to the shooting were reckless, her actions after were callous. self serving, and disgusting.

Fun fact: oral sex and sodomy are still illegal in my state.

 

[Reasonable & Just]

I didn't watch this witness' entire testimony. I do remember he was chewing gum and was overly enthusiastic when addressing his football coaching. As a mom that's had to deal with their HS kids' coaches also teaching academic subjects, well...based on his reaction to football and my experience, he may not have the same passion for chemistry, which sucks.

Maybe, maybe not. But you don't have to be good at either football, teaching, or chemistry to notice if someone is driving recklessly. Sounds like she didn't care who she hurt.

 

[SoCalDavidS]

some people just drive too fast

Some people shoot too fast also.

 

[Reasonable & Just]

BBM- right! that it is was even implied that the victim had it coming, because he had weed in his home is (MOO) contemptible.

our LAWS clearly tell us that it is not the job of LE to play jury, judge, and executioner. But if we are told this behavior is acceptable (?!) we need to put out a message “hey kids, don’t do illegal stuff in your apartments because LE is authorized to kill.”

MOO : AG’s actions prior to the shooting were reckless, her actions after were callous. self serving, and disgusting.

Fun fact: oral sex and sodomy are still illegal in my state.

Good points. Though not really a fun fact there at the end Lotta people need to lock their doors if they don't wanna get "justifiably" shot.

 

[Handsome Sailor]

Texts between Amber Guyger, Dallas police partner revealed at murder trial

"Hermus said that at about 9:30 p.m., as Guyger finished her 13-1/2-hour shift, she sent Rivera a Snapchat message that read, “Wanna touch?”

"After Guyger got off from work, she and Rivera had a 16-minute phone conversation that ended as she arrived at her apartment complex’s parking garage. The police department is about two blocks from the complex.

After getting off the phone with Rivera, Guyger had parked on the fourth level, instead of the third, where her apartment was, Hermus said."

So, she was talking to a guy who was blowing her off, and it distracted her to the point that she parked in the wrong spot. And I bet she was very angry.

<modsnip> You say Amber is super angry at the guy, yet he's the one she calls in her moment in extremis??

 

[Reasonable & Just]

<modsnip> You say Amber is super angry at the guy, yet he's the one she calls in her moment in extremis??

Well...I've been in a relationship or two Let's just say I can see it.

 

[Mickey Mouse]

BBM- right! that it is was even implied that the victim had it coming, because he had weed in his home is (MOO) contemptible.

our LAWS clearly tell us that it is not the job of LE to play jury, judge, and executioner. But if we are told this behavior is acceptable (?!) we need to put out a message “hey kids, don’t do illegal stuff in your apartments because LE is authorized to kill.”

MOO : AG’s actions prior to the shooting were reckless, her actions after were callous. self serving, and disgusting.

Fun fact: oral sex and sodomy are still illegal in my state.

YES! It is completely irrelevant what he was or was not doing in his home, and it is completely irrelevant what he may have had in his home. AG was off duty. AG did not have a warrant. AG did not have probable cause. AG walked into his home uninvited and shot him as he sat on his couch in his underwear eating a bowl of ice cream and watching a football game.

And let's not forget... BJ was an accountant at one of the most prestigious accounting firms in the world. He was well educated and devout. He wasn't some lowlife running a meth lab in his bedroom. He was a success, a high achiever, with a promising career and life ahead of him, and AG stole that future from him.

I would love to see her get life.

 

[Hraefn]

Okay, so I am waiting for the "smoking gun" that made the grand jury up the charges. From "manslaughter" to "murder".

I don't think there is one. I think murder was what they had to indict with under the facts, but I also think TX law allows the jury to charge her with a lesser crime. I've been digging through a lot of statutes, bear with me LOL.


The murder statute states:

Sec. 19.02. MURDER. (a) [Snipped by me]
(b) A person commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual

So IMO it is pretty clear that's exactly what she did, so the burden has shifted to the defense team to prove the murder was justified under the law.

The mistake of fact statute states:

Texas Penal Code § 8.02. Mistake of Fact
(a) It is a defense to prosecution that the actor through mistake formed a reasonable belief about a matter of fact if his mistaken belief negated the kind of culpability required for commission of the offense.
(b) Although an actor's mistake of fact may constitute a defense to the offense charged, he may nevertheless be convicted of any lesser included offense of which he would be guilty if the fact were as he believed.

Texas Penal Code § 8.02 | FindLaw
JMO but this mistake of fact statute is horribly written. Attempting to translate it from legalese, I think it means "Murder is justified if the defendant's reasonably mistaken belief negates the defendant's culpable mental state."

The culpable mental state definitions for murder in TX:

Sec. 6.03. DEFINITIONS OF CULPABLE MENTAL STATES.
(a) A person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.
(b) A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 6. CULPABILITY GENERALLY
IMO AG could be found to have either/both these mental states in this case.

Sec. 6.02. REQUIREMENT OF CULPABILITY. [SBM]
(d) Culpable mental states are classified according to relative degrees, from highest to lowest, as follows:
(1) intentional;
(2) knowing;
(3) reckless;
(4) criminal negligence.
(e) Proof of a higher degree of culpability than that charged constitutes proof of the culpability charged.

[BBM] (same link as previous) The bolded part secures for me that the jury can convict her of a lesser charge. Her intent/knowing mental state can be transferred down to the lesser charges if the jury sees them fit better IMO.

So it's confusing, especially because the case relies on a highly confusing mistake of fact statute. I'm sure case law in TX has fleshed it's meaning out way more clearly, and gosh I hope so.

 

[VAgirlatheart]

Some people shoot too fast also.

Clearly. Lol

 

[gitana1]

When she texted her boyfriend/partner asking what she should do or say that’s when texting becomes corruption. When texts messages about the shooting are deleted from both phones that’s when it’s corruption.

I’m not sure if you have been watching since the beginning including the motions before the state started opening statements but during that time they argued about if certain text can be brought up including the ones that she was texting her partner back and forth which is relevant to the case.

That’s when it is corruption. As far as I’m concerned, she and him both have should be charged with obstruction charges.

Yes. It's clear obstruction to delete test messages in the course of an investigation.