ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Amber Guyger , Dallas incidents , murder cases , police incidents , police misconduct charges , shooting incidents , Texas cases

Closed Thread
Old 16th September 2019, 03:21 PM   #881
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Currently Dismembered
Posts: 8,489
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
The site will not allow me to read the article unless I turn off my ad block.

In TX does the perp have a duty to retreat? I'm thinking that the defense will paint a picture of Guyger being allowed to be at the wrong door, therefore she had no duty to retreat. I would also guess that the prosecution would try to do the opposite?
No duty to retreat ( I assume you mean the shooter, not the perp) . You can even chase them down to shoot them
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th September 2019, 03:29 PM   #882
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,881
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
You sure? Here's what the court web site says:

https://www.uscourts.gov/services-fo...vice/juror-pay

And it's hard to think of circumstances where a grand jury (as opposed to a trial jury) would have to stay in a hotel.
OK, $246 max. Oh, you city-slickers. Looks like I forgot to mention the 80 mile (or more) commute from the court house location.


https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/jurors...rmation-hotels

Check out the Hotels-Hilton, the BillMore! Swanky!
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th September 2019, 03:31 PM   #883
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Currently Dismembered
Posts: 8,489
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
OK, $246 max. Oh, you city-slickers. Looks like I forgot to mention the 80 mile (or more) commute from the court house location.


https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/jurors...rmation-hotels

Check out the Hotels-Hilton, the BillMore! Swanky!
I'm still going to get a job so I can quit it for that cash cow
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th September 2019, 03:38 PM   #884
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,128
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I'm still going to get a job so I can quit it for that cash cow
Be sure it's at least 80 miles from the federal courthouse.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th September 2019, 03:54 PM   #885
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,909
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
No duty to retreat ( I assume you mean the shooter, not the perp) . You can even chase them down to shoot them
I mean, in this case the shooter trespassed in the wrong apartment. Didn't she have a duty to retreat instead of opening fire?
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th September 2019, 04:02 PM   #886
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Currently Dismembered
Posts: 8,489
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
I mean, in this case the shooter trespassed in the wrong apartment. Didn't she have a duty to retreat instead of opening fire?
I'm no lawyer, but I don't think a duty to retreat is ever imposed on the criminal. Its strictly for the lawful defender/victim, so it would not be imposed on a trespasser

In a sane world, if there is ever a safe option available besides killing, it should be taken.
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th September 2019, 06:10 PM   #887
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,287
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
I mean, in this case the shooter trespassed in the wrong apartment. Didn't she have a duty to retreat instead of opening fire?
It's a little complicated. Guyger will presumably claim self-defense. Note that for self-defense, the law says that the person must "reasonably believe" that force is necessary.

Texas has two laws about there being no duty to retreat. (There are actually more because they are duplicated for self defense, defense of property and defense of others, but we'll just look at self-defense.).

Texas law says that a person can use force against another in self-defense. It also says a person is not required to retreat when using such force as long as the person had a right to be where they were, did not provoke the person, and was not committing a crime. Note that that law doesn't say anything about a reasonable belief. Those are the conditions. Guyger fails on two of those conditions: she didn't have a right to be there and was committing a crime (at least of trespassing).

But there is another law that says when determining whether force was necessary and what degree of force was necessary, the jury may not consider whether the person failed to retreat.

But Guyger will likely claim the castle law. Under that law, there is a presumption that lethal force is immediately necessary if she reasonably believed that someone had unlawfully broke into her home. In that case, it doesn't matter whether the jury can consider retreat in determining whether force was necessary, because it is automatically presumed. But the law also says the jury can't consider failure to retreat anyway.
__________________
"Glass slippers don't come in half sizes." - Rachael Smith
DevilsAdvocate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th September 2019, 06:21 PM   #888
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,287
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I would have thought that saying 'if you starve my family out, I honestly won't be impartial' was an honest and candid truth that the court would agree with. Nope. Basically 'FU, we all get paid to drag our feet at your expense around here'.
Claiming that you shouldn't have to serve jury duty due to hardship is one thing. Saying that you will willfully disrespect the court by intentionally being not impartial is quite another.

Severe financial hardship, including the need to care for others, is a perfectly valid excuse to get out of jury duty. You have to fill out a form and provide some documents. You can find the form here:

https://www.njcourts.gov/jurors/assets/juryfaq.pdf
__________________
"Glass slippers don't come in half sizes." - Rachael Smith
DevilsAdvocate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th September 2019, 06:24 PM   #889
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,287
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
I'd fake a heart attack to get out of that.
You can't use your phone or the internet when you are in jail for contempt of court either. At least probably not much. And the room service isn't nearly as good.
__________________
"Glass slippers don't come in half sizes." - Rachael Smith
DevilsAdvocate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th September 2019, 06:59 PM   #890
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,287
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
I didn't realize that 1) Time of day matters
Texas law allows the use of force to protect property. But lethal force is only allowed to prevent certain crimes. Burglary is one of those, which I think would be most applicable to this case. Another is theft in the nighttime. Laws in many jurisdictions distinguish between theft in the daytime and theft in the nighttime. It's kind of weird, but that's the way it is, and the way is has been for along time.

Deadly force can only be used to protect property if there is no other safe alternative. So, there is no castle law or law saying there is no duty to retreat. A person can only use the minimum force necessary.

It would be much more difficult for Guyger to establish a defense of property than it would self-defense.

Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
or 2) that it was confirmed he was across the room.
Based on the evidence we have, it is quite clear he was across the apartment, in the living room. She was near the door next to the kitchen, on the other side of the counter. To get from the door to the living room where Jean was, a person would have to walk down the hall, go though the entrance to the living room, and then circle back toward the kitchen counter.

The best evidence we have available very strongly suggests that the door was ajar as Guyger claims. As I have said, even Merritt (the Jean family attorney, who originally brought up the claim) has dropped the issue after further evidence came to light.
__________________
"Glass slippers don't come in half sizes." - Rachael Smith
DevilsAdvocate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th September 2019, 07:15 PM   #891
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,287
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
Kind of weird things to point out in this article:
That attorney, Russell Wilson, is saying basically what I have been saying this whole time.

I wish the author would have used quotes instead of paraphrasing this:

Quote:
Still, Wilson said the focus of the trial will likely be whether Guyger had alternatives to shooting and killing Jean. To answer that question, he said, the jury will need to know how Guyger ended up in Jean's apartment.
I don't think alternatives will be an issue. But the first sentence doesn't jibe with the second. I think the big issue will be whether the mistake is considered reasonable.
__________________
"Glass slippers don't come in half sizes." - Rachael Smith
DevilsAdvocate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th September 2019, 04:57 AM   #892
SuburbanTurkey
Master Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 2,092
Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post

I don't think alternatives will be an issue. But the first sentence doesn't jibe with the second. I think the big issue will be whether the mistake is considered reasonable.
I would argue that her mistake is not reasonable. Maybe she was too tired and too distracted to properly find her own apartment, but that smacks of negligence to me. If you are too sleepy to function, you shouldn't be carrying a gun. Her extreme sleepiness, if that is the excuse, is her problem to mitigate.

Her wandering into the wrong apartment and killing the resident is not reasonable, even though I can easily see how such a mistake could happen for an extremely sleep deprived person.

I wonder if the case is really going to come down to threading this needle, like it has on this forum. Anyone with legal experience want to chime in? How often is it for juries to be given such legally technical arguments to consider?
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 17th September 2019 at 04:59 AM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th September 2019, 05:04 AM   #893
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,174
The jury instructions, if the judge allows Mistake of Fact defense, will be something like: If you think the Defense presented enough evidence to support their claim that the defendant made a mistake of fact, then you must then ... If you do not think the Defense proved that the defendant made a mistake of fact, then...



Mistake of Fact is an Active defense, in other words, the defense has to prove to the jury that it was indeed a mistake, it is not a passive defense, where the prosecutor has to prove guilt. The defense is going to admit she shot him, admit she was in the wrong apartment, but try to prove that it all was because of an error or mistake.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

Last edited by Drewbot; 17th September 2019 at 05:06 AM.
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th September 2019, 05:32 AM   #894
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Currently Dismembered
Posts: 8,489
Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
Claiming that you shouldn't have to serve jury duty due to hardship is one thing. Saying that you will willfully disrespect the court by intentionally being not impartial is quite another.

Severe financial hardship, including the need to care for others, is a perfectly valid excuse to get out of jury duty. You have to fill out a form and provide some documents. You can find the form here:

https://www.njcourts.gov/jurors/assets/juryfaq.pdf
Yes, severe financial hardship is an excuse, of course. Severe. You think the Court and a prospective Juror agree on what is 'severe'?

The lost time and disruption to my work schedule for up to two weeks would easily cost me a few grand. Easily. I have filled out the form you linked. It has never been accepted as an excuse, only a deferment, even when I was the self-employed sole provider for a family of five. They don't care, bro.
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th September 2019, 05:42 AM   #895
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Currently Dismembered
Posts: 8,489
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
I would argue that her mistake is not reasonable. Maybe she was too tired and too distracted to properly find her own apartment, but that smacks of negligence to me. If you are too sleepy to function, you shouldn't be carrying a gun. Her extreme sleepiness, if that is the excuse, is her problem to mitigate.

Her wandering into the wrong apartment and killing the resident is not reasonable, even though I can easily see how such a mistake could happen for an extremely sleep deprived person.

I wonder if the case is really going to come down to threading this needle, like it has on this forum. Anyone with legal experience want to chime in? How often is it for juries to be given such legally technical arguments to consider?
I think the sleepy-bye thing is a peripheral contributor, not the prime argument. The prime argument is (presumably) that she inadvertently drove up an extra floor on a (presumably) corkscrew parking garage. Not noticing the background noise of painted and lit up numbers is far more understandable, tired or not.

Do you think you would notice if I changed your house number or street sign? I don't think I would. People walk on auto pilot even when fully awake, if they think they know where they are. I get asked for directions sometimes, and cannot remember how many streets or traffic lights there are to a destination. You just...go there on autopilot. I can fully sympathize with walking up to the wrong door.

Which is why no mother ****** should by wandering around with a gun on the streets. People do dumb careless things. Taking human lives should not fall into that soup.
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th September 2019, 09:11 AM   #896
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 6,720
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I think the sleepy-bye thing is a peripheral contributor, not the prime argument. The prime argument is (presumably) that she inadvertently drove up an extra floor on a (presumably) corkscrew parking garage. Not noticing the background noise of painted and lit up numbers is far more understandable, tired or not.

Do you think you would notice if I changed your house number or street sign? I don't think I would. People walk on auto pilot even when fully awake, if they think they know where they are. I get asked for directions sometimes, and cannot remember how many streets or traffic lights there are to a destination. You just...go there on autopilot. I can fully sympathize with walking up to the wrong door.

Which is why no mother ****** should by wandering around with a gun on the streets. People do dumb careless things. Taking human lives should not fall into that soup.
This leaves out the fact that Jean's door is distinctly NOT like the other doors on his floor or in the building. He took steps to ensure that his door stood out. Mistake of Fact is fine and dandy, and all that good stuff. I just don't see it as the complete catch all that is being implied from time to time. Getting to the wrong door is fine, every action after that was a deliberate step that caused her to shoot someone.

Whether the door was open or not makes no difference. In fact, if the door were ajar it should work against more than if the door was closed. An open door should have made her wonder why and how it got opened.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th September 2019, 09:32 AM   #897
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 87,660
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
This leaves out the fact that Jean's door is distinctly NOT like the other doors on his floor or in the building. He took steps to ensure that his door stood out. Mistake of Fact is fine and dandy, and all that good stuff. I just don't see it as the complete catch all that is being implied from time to time. Getting to the wrong door is fine, every action after that was a deliberate step that caused her to shoot someone.



Whether the door was open or not makes no difference. In fact, if the door were ajar it should work against more than if the door was closed. An open door should have made her wonder why and how it got opened.
The open door had to have jolted her out of any "auto daywalking" she had been doing (and I do believe she could have walked up to the wrong door by mistake). It was something out of the ordinary, and that's what usually breaks one of these auto walking moments, something no longer fits the habit and you jump off the rails. After that every action she took can no longer be a result of her "mistake of fact". That's the disconnection point. The mistake of fact only gets her to the door. (Of course all that is based on the few "facts" we think we know.)
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th September 2019, 09:35 AM   #898
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Currently Dismembered
Posts: 8,489
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
This leaves out the fact that Jean's door is distinctly NOT like the other doors on his floor or in the building. He took steps to ensure that his door stood out. Mistake of Fact is fine and dandy, and all that good stuff. I just don't see it as the complete catch all that is being implied from time to time. Getting to the wrong door is fine, every action after that was a deliberate step that caused her to shoot someone.

Whether the door was open or not makes no difference. In fact, if the door were ajar it should work against more than if the door was closed. An open door should have made her wonder why and how it got opened.
Agreed. I don't agree with Texas law. Find it barbaric, truth be told.

But the prosecution will not be asking us what we think. They will be asking a Texas jury what they think.
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th September 2019, 09:40 AM   #899
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,869
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
I mean, in this case the shooter trespassed in the wrong apartment. Didn't she have a duty to retreat instead of opening fire?
That is the gist of it. As long as she can reasonably to believe it was her apartment it is all legal. That gets to the real issue, how much would a reasonable person realize it wasn't their apartment?

I mean this isn't as simple as opening fire and shooting your kid/spouse or what ever when they are home when you don't expect or up getting a drink of water at night.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th September 2019, 09:43 AM   #900
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 6,720
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
The open door had to have jolted her out of any "auto daywalking" she had been doing (and I do believe she could have walked up to the wrong door by mistake). It was something out of the ordinary, and that's what usually breaks one of these auto walking moments, something no longer fits the habit and you jump off the rails. After that every action she took can no longer be a result of her "mistake of fact". That's the disconnection point. The mistake of fact only gets her to the door. (Of course all that is based on the few "facts" we think we know.)
Hilite 1) I absolutely agree, it's something that could be done. It seems like a stretch given the description of how long they had to walk, but not implausible.

Hilite 2) Again, I agree. The moment she got to the door, and noticed it was ajar she should have started looking around to take in her surroundings. ESPECIALLY as a police officer.

Hilite 3) As an aside, she also said she put her key in the door, and that's when she noticed that the door was ajar. Which means the key would have been denied (from what I understand it would have attempted to unlock the door when it went in the lock, then the key is used to turn it. The key lock is unlocked before the turn, unlike with a regular deadbolt). So I see multiple things here that a reasonable person would have looked into when had they been in this circumstance.

Her sister also claimed that Jean wasn't a fan of the dark, so the lights being off are something that is conflicting as well.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Agreed. I don't agree with Texas law. Find it barbaric, truth be told.

But the prosecution will not be asking us what we think. They will be asking a Texas jury what they think.
Of all the people that showed up, hopefully they got reasonable people.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th September 2019, 09:48 AM   #901
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Currently Dismembered
Posts: 8,489
I think the thread is roundly in agreement that it was reasonable to end up at the wrong door, but unreasonable to go all Yosemite Sam? So will a Texas jury agree, or stand by statute and precedent that say you can in fact start cracking off rounds without any concern for the lives of others if you feel that...where are we at now, your property may need defending...because it's dark outside?
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th September 2019, 10:08 AM   #902
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,128
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
That is the gist of it. As long as she can reasonably to believe it was her apartment it is all legal. That gets to the real issue, how much would a reasonable person realize it wasn't their apartment?

I mean this isn't as simple as opening fire and shooting your kid/spouse or what ever when they are home when you don't expect or up getting a drink of water at night.
Back to the beginning: Assume she thought, however unreasonably, that she was in her own apartment. Was she justified in killing an unarmed man who posed no threat to her? That is the question the jury has to answer, and it's hard to understand how anyone could say yes.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th September 2019, 10:10 AM   #903
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,643
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I think the thread is roundly in agreement that it was reasonable to end up at the wrong door, but unreasonable to go all Yosemite Sam? So will a Texas jury agree, or stand by statute and precedent that say you can in fact start cracking off rounds without any concern for the lives of others if you feel that...where are we at now, your property may need defending...because it's dark outside?
And now becomes a viable defense for anyone else, which is definitely not a good precedent.
__________________
Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same?

Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman
Disbelief is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th September 2019, 10:31 AM   #904
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,869
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Back to the beginning: Assume she thought, however unreasonably, that she was in her own apartment. Was she justified in killing an unarmed man who posed no threat to her? That is the question the jury has to answer, and it's hard to understand how anyone could say yes.
Sure she reasonably thought he was a burglar then and that is the best way to stop him. Threat to her is only needed if that is what she is claiming, threat to her stereo though, that works great in texas.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th September 2019, 10:33 AM   #905
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Currently Dismembered
Posts: 8,489
Originally Posted by Disbelief View Post
And now becomes a viable defense for anyone else, which is definitely not a good precedent.
Absolutely. The Texas case where it was found you could chase down a hooker and spray her car with rifle fire to 'reclaim stolen property' was gut-wrenching enough. But if this gets extended to shooting people just sitting at home...man, I don't even want to think about how bad that could get.
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th September 2019, 10:38 AM   #906
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,869
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Absolutely. The Texas case where it was found you could chase down a hooker and spray her car with rifle fire to 'reclaim stolen property' was gut-wrenching enough. But if this gets extended to shooting people just sitting at home...man, I don't even want to think about how bad that could get.
To be fair that does seem to fit in perfectly with their pursuit doctrine with regards to lethal force to recover stolen goods. The only question would be does his criminal act negate the right to kill people stealing your stuff that all texans have.

If it was a simple burglary it would never have even made it to court.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th September 2019, 10:58 AM   #907
SuburbanTurkey
Master Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 2,092
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I think the thread is roundly in agreement that it was reasonable to end up at the wrong door, but unreasonable to go all Yosemite Sam? So will a Texas jury agree, or stand by statute and precedent that say you can in fact start cracking off rounds without any concern for the lives of others if you feel that...where are we at now, your property may need defending...because it's dark outside?
I think the Texas jury will read into the law the assumption that one must actually be in the right to use lawful self defense. I don't think this "mistake of fact" castle doctrine/burglary in progress defense is going to cut the mustard for a jury. To be honest, if that were the factual reading of the law, a bench trial overseen by a judge would probably be the safer option.

I expect that they will go for a manslaughter defense, and depending on how sympathetic they can make Guyger seem, the jury might bite and she'll avoid a murder conviction.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th September 2019, 11:15 AM   #908
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 6,720
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Back to the beginning: Assume she thought, however unreasonably, that she was in her own apartment. Was she justified in killing an unarmed man who posed no threat to her? That is the question the jury has to answer, and it's hard to understand how anyone could say yes.
One of the lawyers that had been interviewed, I'm not sure what his role is, said that the fact she didn't say anything about him coming towards her, or trying to hurt her is going to make it tougher in court. He posted no threat.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th September 2019, 11:50 AM   #909
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 6,720
Read today that the police want to postpone her trial to avoid the fair. They don't want to have to man both of them...
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th September 2019, 11:53 AM   #910
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 85,110
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
This leaves out the fact that Jean's door is distinctly NOT like the other doors on his floor or in the building. He took steps to ensure that his door stood out. Mistake of Fact is fine and dandy, and all that good stuff. I just don't see it as the complete catch all that is being implied from time to time. Getting to the wrong door is fine, every action after that was a deliberate step that caused her to shoot someone.

Whether the door was open or not makes no difference. In fact, if the door were ajar it should work against more than if the door was closed. An open door should have made her wonder why and how it got opened.
Especially with the big mat in front of the door.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th September 2019, 12:12 PM   #911
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,174
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
I think the Texas jury will read into the law the assumption that one must actually be in the right to use lawful self defense. I don't think this "mistake of fact" castle doctrine/burglary in progress defense is going to cut the mustard for a jury. To be honest, if that were the factual reading of the law, a bench trial overseen by a judge would probably be the safer option.

I expect that they will go for a manslaughter defense, and depending on how sympathetic they can make Guyger seem, the jury might bite and she'll avoid a murder conviction.
I agree, this is probably how it will go, however, remember, they don't have to convince the whole jury, just 1 or 2 people who will say "Yeah, I remember when I was tired and went the wrong way on the freeway for 45 minutes." or something like that. A judge is going to stick closely to the facts.

I think she had to get a jury, with the hopes that 1 or 2 will agree that a mistake was made, and that jail is not the proper punishment.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th September 2019, 12:14 PM   #912
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 19,126
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
Read today that the police want to postpone her trial to avoid the fair. They don't want to have to man both of them...
That and they seem to be worried that the fair may be targeted by anyone disgruntled by the trial.

The fair is huge and does attract a very large and diverse crowd.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th September 2019, 12:20 PM   #913
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 6,720
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
I agree, this is probably how it will go, however, remember, they don't have to convince the whole jury, just 1 or 2 people who will say "Yeah, I remember when I was tired and went the wrong way on the freeway for 45 minutes." or something like that. A judge is going to stick closely to the facts.

I think she had to get a jury, with the hopes that 1 or 2 will agree that a mistake was made, and that jail is not the proper punishment.
It can be both a mistake of fact getting to the door and murder once you're there.

I truly believe that the door locks are going to tell the story. If the door was closed and locked that makes her entire story complete and total ********. There's no way she gets in if that's the case.

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
That and they seem to be worried that the fair may be targeted by anyone disgruntled by the trial.

The fair is huge and does attract a very large and diverse crowd.
Yup, I have no doubts it's big and can be tough to handle. I also think this makes the memo stating that no one can take time off a lot more reasonable.

However, I can also see why people would think this could influence the outcome though too. If the jury hadn't been chosen that is...
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th September 2019, 01:09 PM   #914
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 87,660
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I think the thread is roundly in agreement that it was reasonable to end up at the wrong door, but unreasonable to go all Yosemite Sam? So will a Texas jury agree, or stand by statute and precedent that say you can in fact start cracking off rounds without any concern for the lives of others if you feel that...where are we at now, your property may need defending...because it's dark outside?
Nope, read my post above, from what we know the mistake of fact only gets her to wrong door, what she then did is not connected to that mistake.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 10:00 AM   #915
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 6,720
All the pre-trial motions are done and the trial starts in about 28 minutes. There was talk of removing some of Jean's family from the courtroom as they could be called to testify. His sister said something about being able to explain why he used pot, to which the Judge pretty much asked, why is it relevant?

I'm using this live blog. I'm not sure how good it will be but I think they're going to have a live feed. There were no questions about an electrical lock expert, or anything like that. The defense tried for a mistrial but it didn't work.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 10:24 AM   #916
SuburbanTurkey
Master Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 2,092
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
All the pre-trial motions are done and the trial starts in about 28 minutes. There was talk of removing some of Jean's family from the courtroom as they could be called to testify. His sister said something about being able to explain why he used pot, to which the Judge pretty much asked, why is it relevant?

I'm using this live blog. I'm not sure how good it will be but I think they're going to have a live feed. There were no questions about an electrical lock expert, or anything like that. The defense tried for a mistrial but it didn't work.
Wondering how long this trial might last. Most of the facts are not really in dispute. I guess the defense will be putting forward some legal theory why this isn't murder, but the broad strokes of the killing are largely agreed upon. Maybe it will be fast?
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 10:27 AM   #917
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 6,720
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Wondering how long this trial might last. Most of the facts are not really in dispute. I guess the defense will be putting forward some legal theory why this isn't murder, but the broad strokes of the killing are largely agreed upon. Maybe it will be fast?
From what I can tell the defense is going to pound away at the mistake of fact, sleep deprivation and maybe a "he smoked pot, he's the problem" type of angle.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 10:27 AM   #918
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,191
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Maybe it will be fast?
Most sources are saying two weeks. Probably doesn't include deliberation.


ETA: Judge told jurors to pack bags for two weeks. So apparently the 2 week estimate does include deliberation.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.

Last edited by RecoveringYuppy; 23rd September 2019 at 11:11 AM.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 10:38 AM   #919
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,128
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
From what I can tell the defense is going to pound away at the mistake of fact, sleep deprivation and maybe a "he smoked pot, he's the problem" type of angle.

Aren't there some limits on what the defense can do? Suppose he did smoke pot (about which there is dispute)? So what? What does that have to do with the matter at hand? Can the defense really say "This was a bad guy, no loss to the world, she did the community a favor..."? Yeah, we know all about blame the victim, but he did NOTHING to contribute to his death. Even pro-police jurors wouldn't swallow that, right?
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 10:50 AM   #920
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 24,167
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Aren't there some limits on what the defense can do? Suppose he did smoke pot (about which there is dispute)? So what? What does that have to do with the matter at hand? Can the defense really say "This was a bad guy, no loss to the world, she did the community a favor..."? Yeah, we know all about blame the victim, but he did NOTHING to contribute to his death. Even pro-police jurors wouldn't swallow that, right?

Using the results of past trials as a basis for consideration I have to think that "pro-police" jurors will swallow just about anything that can be shoved down their throats, so long as it leads to a verdict of innocent for the cop in question.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:16 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.