Dallas cop claims self-defense in apt. mix-up murder trial

[marvin8]

She shot and murdered a man sitting on his own couch eating ice cream.

Jean was neither sitting on his own couch nor eating ice cream, at the time he was shot. Other than self defense, what motive did Amber have for killing Jean? Manslaughter (recklessness) would seem a more likely fit. Though she testified she intended to kill him in self defense. But like Steve James said, the jury may have chose the more just verdict over following the letter of the law.

What was she worried about after murdering him? Not that she had done something terrible. No. She was worried about losing her job.

Being a selfish person doesn't necessarily make her a murderer.

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

Jean was neither sitting on his own couch nor eating ice cream, at the time he was shot. Other than self defense, what motive did Amber have for killing Jean? Manslaughter (recklessness) would seem a more likely fit. Though she testified she intended to kill him in self defense. But like Steve James said, the jury may have chose the more just verdict over following the letter of the law.

How do you know any of this? I have not seen any contradiction to the fact that he was eating ice cream. Do you think I am making it up? Obviously, there was ice cream sitting out on the table in front of the couch.

Your interpretation of Castle Law is pretty out there and I don't know why you think you have it right. It wasn't her house. You can't change that fact just because she got confused. Think of the precedent that would set.

As for motive? Well, she said she was scared to death.

You seem to be confused about Texas law

Murder

Murder charges are further divided based on the severity and other circumstances surrounding the crime. While many states separate murder charges into first and second degree murder, Texas law makes a distinction between “capital murder” and “murder.”

In order to be charged with murder, the defendant must have knowingly and willingly caused the death of another person. The biggest distinguishing factor between murder and manslaughter involves the intent of the perpetrator. If the defendant intended to cause serious bodily harm or death, or intended to commit a felony other than manslaughter that resulted in death, he or she can be charged with murder.

She shot to kill, from all indications.

[Steve James]

efense will appeal. The hung jury concensus was less about race (as you seemed to want to make it) than the conflict of the laws.

Sorry. You were the one who brought up race first, after you brought up "minorities." I haven't edited a single line I've written in this thread, but I specifically said that I had never considered the makeup of the jury in my opinion. As I said, specifically, there could be differences of opinion among the jury. It didn't matter whether there was one minority or twelve, or twelve non-minorities (which one had then to assume you meant "White" jurors). Moreover, I didn't believe that you could predict the verdict (guilty or not) based on the jury makeup. And, you specifically cited jury makeup to predict that it would not reach a consensus. That means they wouldn't agree either way. Well, surprise, they did. So, either way, they proved that you were wrong.

Now, let's see what they come up with as a sentence.

[marvin8]

Jean was neither sitting on his own couch nor eating ice cream, at the time he was shot. Other than self defense, what motive did Amber have for killing Jean? Manslaughter (recklessness) would seem a more likely fit. Though she testified she intended to kill him in self defense. But like Steve James said, the jury may have chose the more just verdict over following the letter of the law.

How do you know any of this? I have not seen any contradiction to the fact that he was eating ice cream. Do you think I am making it up? Obviously, there was ice cream sitting out on the table in front of the couch.

The crime scene. If he was eating ice cream when he was shot, ice cream would be on him, not on the table. The position of his body did not reflect him sitting on the couch either.

Your interpretation of Castle Law is pretty out there and I don't know why you think you have it right. It wasn't her house. You can't change that fact just because she got confused. Think of the precedent that would set.

Right. However, Judge Kemp included "mistake of fact" in the jury instructions which if not disproved gave Amber the legal right to believe it was her own house and defend herself. But like I said, the jury may have made the right decision having felt she was disproved.

As for motive? Well, she said she was scared to death.

You seem to be confused about Texas law

Murder

Murder charges are further divided based on the severity and other circumstances surrounding the crime. While many states separate murder charges into first and second degree murder, Texas law makes a distinction between “capital murder” and “murder.”

In order to be charged with murder, the defendant must have knowingly and willingly caused the death of another person. The biggest distinguishing factor between murder and manslaughter involves the intent of the perpetrator. If the defendant intended to cause serious bodily harm or death, or intended to commit a felony other than manslaughter that resulted in death, he or she can be charged with murder.

She shot to kill, from all indications.

Legally, it's not murder if you reasonably believe it's your own home by "mistake of fact" and defend yourself (castle doctrine).

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

I'm not sure where you are getting this inside line to the crime scene. So, he didn't have the spoon in his mouth when he was shot? So? And, he was on the ground next to the couch (this you can see in the video), so separated by the kitchen island, kitchen, and hallway.

Just because the judge makes the jury aware of a law doesn't mean it is reasonable to use it. Clearly, they thought it was not, but you seem to be admitting that.

Anyway, what's your stake in this? Are you LEO? What do you think she deserves? I don't buy manslaughter because she shot to kill.

Anyway, anyway (PPS), I'm not going to get too hung up on the law, because the law doesn't equate with justice or right and wrong. She fucked up and ended a man's life. She should pay for that. How much? That's hard to say.

[marvin8]

efense will appeal. The hung jury concensus was less about race (as you seemed to want to make it) than the conflict of the laws.

Sorry. You were the one who brought up race first, after you brought up "minorities." I haven't edited a single line I've written in this thread, but I specifically said that I had never considered the makeup of the jury in my opinion.

I brought it up in reply to your question, "What would you say?" which you edited by:

You're misrepresenting by leaving out the other half of my earlier sentence: "and laws are a little confusing to the layperson (regardless of race).

As I said, specifically, there could be differences of opinion among the jury. It didn't matter whether there was one minority or twelve, or twelve non-minorities (which one had then to assume you meant "White" jurors).

But, you did say:

Anyway, if you want to look at the case based on the "ethnicities" of the jurors, then I have to agree that if it were a Black civilian who walked into a White female police officer's apartment and shot her, people would expect some penalty.

Moreover, I didn't believe that you could predict the verdict (guilty or not) based on the jury makeup.

Both prosecution and defense consider court location and makeup (e.g., social environment, economic, education, race, etc) in the jury selection process.

[Steve James]

But, you did say:
Steve James wrote: "Anyway, if you want to look at the case based on the "ethnicities" of the jurors, then I have to agree that if it were a Black civilian who walked into a White female police officer's apartment and shot her, people would expect some penalty."

That's right, "IF" I looked at the case the way you did, I would agree that "if it were a Black civilian...". However, your assertion was prejudiced. I.e., if you had been a jury, your mind was made up. However, the protesters were also prejudiced. The difference is that neither they nor you were in the jury or heard all the evidence that the jurors did. None of my comments before you mentioned "minorities" were about how a reasonable person might judge the situation, and how there could be differences.

Steve James wrote:
Moreover, I didn't believe that you could predict the verdict (guilty or not) based on the jury makeup.

Both prosecution and defense consider court location and makeup (e.g., social environment, economic, education, race, etc) in the jury selection process.

Like I said I don't believe that "you" could predict the verdict based on the jury makeup. I know that trials are often moved because the defense feels that the environment is prejudicial. The Rodney King trial was moved, and there were protests because of it and after the verdict. But, you're right, the defense and prosecution look for people who are not prejudiced. Yeah, they always take other things into consideration, but one side will lose either way. Iow, they don't know any more than you do how a jury will find.

[marvin8]

I'm not sure where you are getting this inside line to the crime scene. So, he didn't have the spoon in his mouth when he was shot? So? And, he was on the ground next to the couch (this you can see in the video), so separated by the kitchen island, kitchen, and hallway.

So, your statements were not accurate changing the context and right to self defense.

Just because the judge makes the jury aware of a law doesn't mean it is reasonable to use it. Clearly, they thought it was not, but you seem to be admitting that.

Anyway, what's your stake in this? Are you LEO? What do you think she deserves? I don't buy manslaughter because she shot to kill.

I don't necessarily have a problem with the verdict itself but how it may have been derived.

I am neither LEO nor have a stake. Right, I don't think it was manslaughter either. She deserves a fair trial. One reason it will be appealed is judge Kemp limited the defense' expert witnesses to testify related to "mistake of error." However, that doesn't mean another jury would not render the same verdict.

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

So, your statements were not accurate changing the context and right to self defense.

You have completely missed my intention. No, I don't see any evidence to show that he was not eating ice cream on his couch. You have not provided any. Me asking you to provide proof does not mean I have made any inaccurate statements. You seem to be making facts up.

I also don't understand your beef with the jury. You are saying that because most of the jury was black, there should be a retrial? Wow, that's fucked up. It certainly seems that you do have a stake in this, you just might not be consciously aware of it.

[marvin8]

So, your statements were not accurate changing the context and right to self defense.

You have completely missed my intention. No, I don't see any evidence to show that he was not eating ice cream on his couch. You have not provided any. Me asking you to provide proof does not mean I have made any inaccurate statements. You seem to be making facts up.

Yes, your evidence statements (e.g., couch and ice cream) are not accurate. I've repeatedly explained it which you apparently are missing (?). I have posted many links and gave detailed explanations. The entire Guyger trial is found on youtube where you will see all the evidence. If you want to continue to repeat your couch and ice cream theory, please find the video evidence as it's all on youtube and post it.

I also don't understand your beef with the jury. You are saying that because most of the jury was black, there should be a retrial? Wow, that's fucked up. It certainly seems that you do have a stake in this, you just might not be consciously aware of it.

Again, no I didn't say that and don't have a stake. Instead of repeatedly misrepresent what I said, why not quote me and add your own explanation and argument.

[grzegorz]

Ex-Dallas police officer Amber Guyger guilty in wrong-apartment murder

That was a surprise.

I had figured it would be more of the same.

I guess some things do change.

[marvin8]

So, your statements were not accurate changing the context and right to self defense.

You have completely missed my intention. No, I don't see any evidence to show that he was not eating ice cream on his couch. You have not provided any. Me asking you to provide proof does not mean I have made any inaccurate statements. You seem to be making facts up.

Ian, I agree with you that I may have "missed your intention." It may be that I was making quick replies to comments and it snowballed a little. I'll drop the "not accurate" and not be a stickler on that. Your initial statement, "She pulled out her gun and shot him while he was eating a bowl of ice cream on his own damn couch." is how I was understanding it to mean. But, I won't argue it's degree of accuracy.

Ex-Dallas police officer Amber Guyger guilty in wrong-apartment murder

That was a surprise.

I had figured it would be more of the same.

I guess some things do change.

I was surprised too. However, it may be a change for the better. Since the jury came back quickly (just over five hours) with a unanimous decision, I wouldn't be surprised in a 10 year sentence or more.

Excerpt from "Ex-Dallas officer who killed neighbor found guilty of murder:"

Attorney Ben Crump, also representing the family, credited the makeup of the jury for Tuesday's conviction, and said he expects them to deliver a weighty sentence.

[Steve James]

Hmm, they can give her 5 to 99? Só, a weighty sentence would be...over 45. Let's see.

[marvin8]

Excerpt from "Dallas cop claims self-defense in apt. mix-up murder trial:"

A Dallas County jury sentenced Amber Guyger to 10 years in prison after convicting her of murdering her upstairs neighbor Botham Jean in his apartment last year.

Guyger, 31, had been facing between five and 99 years or life in prison.

[Steve James]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJH4adVazl4