IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


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 incident , Texas cases

Reply
Old 28th September 2019, 10:31 AM   #161
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate
Have either of the Babbs sisters testified?

I suggested earlier in the thread that Bunny didn't really help because she essentially made her video and testimony something that the prosecution wouldn't want to touch.
I don't think that either of the two sisters were called as witnesses. Though I have not watched all of the trial their names are nowhere in the daily news about the trial. Their testimony would have been bombshell (loud knocking and then "Let me in!") and certainly the news would have reported on a witness who said that on the stand.

It looks like we were right that Bunny and her sister were deemed not credible. They didn't hear what they say they heard.

It will be interesting to see if they are called as witnesses in a civil lawsuit trial.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 10:56 AM   #162
AnimalFriendly
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 298
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Her immediate action is to demand to see his hands. That didn't happen and her next immediate action was to shoot him.
Did she turn on the lights the switch for which was mere inches from her hand? - if not, it's no wonder "that" didn't happen.
AnimalFriendly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 11:03 AM   #163
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
She was a police officer (albeit probably an incompetent or otherwise unfit one); she probably knew that the "castle doctrine" isn't an automatic Get Out of Jail Free card (people have attempted to use that defense and still been convicted, even in Texas). Is it possible that she thought, "Oh, boy, here's my big chance to kill someone else with no consequences!"? Yes, it's possible. But it certainly can't be known beyond a reasonable doubt. And I think it's more likely that she panicked and opened fire on the chance that the "intruder" might have had a weapon.

Her attorney will undoubtedly claim this lets her off the hook, but there are two problems, in my non-expert opinion. First, her fear was not objectively reasonable, at least not to the extent that justified using deadly force against a perceived potential threat when there was no sign of a weapon. Second, the fact that she failed to follow proper procedure meant that she missed opportunities to a) realize her mistake before it was too late, or b) call for enough back-up to make the "intruder" surrender peacefully.

That's a very fair point and you may be right. It's just that I'm struggling to understand how she didn't realise she was in the wrong apartment in that situation.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 11:17 AM   #164
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33,710
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
She was a police officer (albeit probably an incompetent or otherwise unfit one); she probably knew that the "castle doctrine" isn't an automatic Get Out of Jail Free card (people have attempted to use that defense and still been convicted, even in Texas). Is it possible that she thought, "Oh, boy, here's my big chance to kill someone else with no consequences!"? Yes, it's possible. But it certainly can't be known beyond a reasonable doubt. And I think it's more likely that she panicked and opened fire on the chance that the "intruder" might have had a weapon.

Her attorney will undoubtedly claim this lets her off the hook, but there are two problems, in my non-expert opinion. First, her fear was not objectively reasonable, at least not to the extent that justified using deadly force against a perceived potential threat when there was no sign of a weapon. Second, the fact that she failed to follow proper procedure meant that she missed opportunities to a) realize her mistake before it was too late, or b) call for enough back-up to make the "intruder" surrender peacefully.
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
That's a very fair point and you may be right. It's just that I'm struggling to understand how she didn't realise she was in the wrong apartment in that situation.
I can not see how she can be fairly convicted of murder. And yet I can not see how she can be fairly found not guilty of at least negligent homicide.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 11:28 AM   #165
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I can not see how she can be fairly convicted of murder. And yet I can not see how she can be fairly found not guilty of at least negligent homicide.

Why in the world would it be "fair" to not convict her of the crime she committed and then turn around and convict her of a crime she didn't commit?
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 11:31 AM   #166
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 11:43 AM   #167
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Why in the world would it be "fair" to not convict her of the crime she committed and then turn around and convict her of a crime she didn't commit?
Would you approve of any charges for less than murder to be completely eliminated and not be available as an option for the jury?


IOW, would you want Murder to be the only charge available to the jury?
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 12:00 PM   #168
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 113,982
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
...snip...

Her attorney will undoubtedly claim this lets her off the hook, but there are two problems, in my non-expert opinion. First, her fear was not objectively reasonable, at least not to the extent that justified using deadly force against a perceived potential threat when there was no sign of a weapon. Second, the fact that she failed to follow proper procedure meant that she missed opportunities to a) realize her mistake before it was too late, or b) call for enough back-up to make the "intruder" surrender peacefully.
According to her testimony she was "scared to death" before she opened the door. That simply doesn't make sense; if she was scared to death why would she open the door rather than call for help? That is not a panic reaction if she felt that before opening the door.
__________________
If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 12:06 PM   #169
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Would you approve of any charges for less than murder to be completely eliminated and not be available as an option for the jury?

IOW, would you want Murder to be the only charge available to the jury?
No, but my reason isn't fairness. My reason is that I expect the members of the jury to have the same misunderstandings and biases I see in this thread.

Now, care to answer my question? Why is it fair to convict her of a crime she didn't commit rather convict her for the one she did commit?
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 12:12 PM   #170
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,825
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I'm suggesting she was so excited to (as she believed) find herself in the position where she could (as she believed) kill someone legally, she didn't notice all the signs she should have noticed that would have told her she was at the wrong house.

You're not seriously suggesting she consciously knew she was in the wrong house before she pulled the trigger, are you?
I am suggesting that she knew she was attempting to kill a person who did not pose any threat to her, that she realised she was in the wrong apartment before shooting Botham and that she lied about the sequence of events.



1. The claim that she was at the front door area and fired the two shots at Botham when he was about 12 feet in front of her is false.

The bullet that missed Botham pierced the extreme right side of the apartment which means Botham was not in front of her if she was at the front door.

Secondly she could not have been at the front door area when she fired the shots at Botham since it virtually impossible to hit the extreme right side of apartment from that location.

In addition the bullet that struck Botham had a downward trajectory. Amber Guyger is about 5 feet 3 inches so in order to shoot the tall Botham in the chest the bullet must travel upwards if he was standing in front of her.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 12:46 PM   #171
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
The bullet that missed Botham pierced the extreme right side of the apartment which means Botham was not in front of her if she was at the front door.

Secondly she could not have been at the front door area when she fired the shots at Botham since it virtually impossible to hit the extreme right side of apartment from that location.
Here is the floor plan. His couch is in the same place as is shown in this plan. It looks like she can shoot almost anywhere once she is inside the door. The entire living room is available for shooting.


__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 12:50 PM   #172
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
I am suggesting that she knew she was attempting to kill a person who did not pose any threat to her, that she realised she was in the wrong apartment before shooting Botham...

OK. Why did she shoot him if she knew she was in the wrong apartment and she knew he wasn't a threat?
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 12:54 PM   #173
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
The bullet that missed Botham pierced the extreme right side of the apartment which means Botham was not in front of her if she was at the front door.

Secondly she could not have been at the front door area when she fired the shots at Botham since it virtually impossible to hit the extreme right side of apartment from that location.
This video shows that bullet hole. It's at 0:28. The hole is located high on the right side of the end wall (exterior wall).

It looks like she can hit that location even if she is only just inside the door. But you say, "virtually impossible".
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 01:23 PM   #174
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I can not see how she can be fairly convicted of murder. And yet I can not see how she can be fairly found not guilty of at least negligent homicide.
This is answer is going to be moral then legal, as in my answer is more to what moral wrong has occurred and needs to be addressed then to what "X law in Y jurisdiction says defines exactly as this and that" if that makes any sense.

We as a society maintain separate concepts for murder (as in Bill is going kill Ted to collect his life insurance) and lesser (or distinct since I'm not sure if lesser is really the best way to put it) concepts like manslaughter / negligence homicide / reckless endangerment / etc (Bill runs a red light because he's checking his cell phone and t-bones Ted in the intersection, killing him) because we recognize a moral difference between intentionally deciding/planning to kill someone and making a mistake that leads to the death of someone else. And that's a fine, necessary, and noble distinction.

The problem is the "In mens rea" and "Mistake of fact" fetishists over-extended the concept to absurd situations like this where someone makes mistakes piled on mistakes.

My main point throughout this whole discussions is many people in this debate have pretty much argued that "mistake of fact" or "in mens rea" means we are legally (or morally) obligated to let Amber Guyger go back through the sequences of events of that night with a "Yes/No" checklist on every variable and tell us if she is reasonable for knowing them or not.

We're being told that "In mens rea" and "Mistake of fact" mean we have to just ask if Amber Guyger if she wants to be guilty or not, turning the criminal justice system in an honor system. They just think if they go through the entire sequence of events and ask her "Do you want to be guilty?" at every single step instead of just overall it makes a difference.

At a certain point if you keep making mistakes upon mistakes the distinction between maliciousness and incompetence starts to get real thin for me, so the distinction between murder and various kinds of "unlawful killing" get equally thin.
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 28th September 2019 at 01:30 PM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 01:26 PM   #175
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33,710
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Why in the world would it be "fair" to not convict her of the crime she committed and then turn around and convict her of a crime she didn't commit?
I don't understand your point. If she genuinely thought she was protecting herself killing an intruder in her home, I don't believe you can say it was murder. OTOH, her actions were so reckless and indifferent that you can't say it isn't an act of extreme negligence.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 01:33 PM   #176
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 11,311
bears and tents

I am a very casual observer of this case and am not overly sympathetic to the defendant. However, I recalled something that I read a while back and found a mention of it elsewhere. It seems pertinent in that it deals with how one's expectations affect one's perceptions. "Elizabeth Loftus tells the true story of two bear hunters at dusk, walking along a train in the woods. Tired and frustrated, they had seen no bear. As they rounded a bend in the train, they spotted a large object about 25 yards away, shaking and grunting. Simultaneously, they raised their rifles and fired. But the "bear" turned out to be a yellow tent with a man and woman making love inside. The woman was killed.[48]"
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 01:34 PM   #177
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I don't understand your point.
My point is she should be tried on the crime she comitted.

Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
If she genuinely thought she was protecting herself killing an intruder in her home, I don't believe you can say it was murder.
You also can't say it's negligent homicide because she wasn't negligent (and at this point, we actually have her own testimony under oath to this fact). If you believe her defense then you let her go.

Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
OTOH, her actions were so reckless and indifferent that you can't say it isn't an act of extreme negligence.
You can say that, she just said it under oath herself. This appears to be a fact that is simply not in dispute by either side at this point.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 01:46 PM   #178
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I don't understand your point. If she genuinely thought she was protecting herself killing an intruder in her home, I don't believe you can say it was murder. OTOH, her actions were so reckless and indifferent that you can't say it isn't an act of extreme negligence.
Can't edit my prior post.

If you are accepting her claim of self defense then why would you want her convicted of anything at all?
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 02:12 PM   #179
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 16,613
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I don't understand your point. If she genuinely thought she was protecting herself killing an intruder in her home, I don't believe you can say it was murder. OTOH, her actions were so reckless and indifferent that you can't say it isn't an act of extreme negligence.
The elements of the various possible charges under Texas law have been discussed here. This is not like her gun went off while she was cleaning it. She deliberately entered the apartment, she deliberately drew her gun, she deliberately pointed it at what she herself claimed she only saw as a "silhouette" in a dark room without actually identifying her target, and she opened fire. Jean's death was the result of multiple deliberate acts, any one of which could have gone a different way. Way more than negligence.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 02:15 PM   #180
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 16,613
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
I am suggesting that she knew she was attempting to kill a person who did not pose any threat to her, that she realised she was in the wrong apartment before shooting Botham and that she lied about the sequence of events.
....
She might be lying about some stuff, but nobody's claimed she's crazy. Why would she shoot the guy if she recognized she was in the wrong place and he posed no threat? To avoid the embarrassment of saying "Whoopsy! I'm sorry?" That's a little far-fetched.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 02:19 PM   #181
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 16,613
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
.....
Sometimes when people say "dark" they do not mean no light whatsoever.
Here's a question: We know that she was wearing her full police gear, including pepper spray and a Taser. She was almost certainly carrying a powerful flashlight. If she was entering a dark space where she believed a threat was lurking, why wouldn't she use her flashlight? A bright light would have temporarily blinded an assailant and allowed her to better assess the situation. One more act of reflexive stupidity.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 02:43 PM   #182
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33,710
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
The elements of the various possible charges under Texas law have been discussed here. This is not like her gun went off while she was cleaning it. She deliberately entered the apartment, she deliberately drew her gun, she deliberately pointed it at what she herself claimed she only saw as a "silhouette" in a dark room without actually identifying her target, and she opened fire. Jean's death was the result of multiple deliberate acts, any one of which could have gone a different way. Way more than negligence.
Admittedly, I haven't read entirely through the thread and for that I am sorry. I also am not familiar with Texas law. I am familiar with the idea of negligent homicide and that there are different levels of homicide depending on various factors. Am I wrong to believe that her state of mind isn't a factor?

I saw the case being discussed on the news last night and how one of the police investigators discussed that the layouts of the apartments are very similar and how it wasn't uncommon for people to make the mistake of entering the wrong apartment.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 02:46 PM   #183
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I saw the case being discussed on the news last night and how one of the police investigators discussed that the layouts of the apartments are very similar and how it wasn't uncommon for people to make the mistake of entering the wrong apartment.

And how many of them winding up killing people? If it's really such an easy mistake to make she shouldn't go shooting people until she is sure she hasn't made that mistake.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 02:55 PM   #184
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
And how many of them winding up killing people? If it's really such an easy mistake to make she shouldn't go shooting people until she is sure she hasn't made that mistake.
It's common for residents to go to the wrong apartment. But their key won't work and they won't get inside. Guyger was able to push this door open.

Your comparative scenario isn't applicable because other residents don't even get inside the wrong apartment. They will not get past the locked (wrong) door.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 03:11 PM   #185
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33,710
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
And how many of them winding up killing people? If it's really such an easy mistake to make she shouldn't go shooting people until she is sure she hasn't made that mistake.
I agree, she shouldn't have. Her mistake was disgusting and I cannot forgive her recklessness.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 03:18 PM   #186
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Now, care to answer my question? Why is it fair to convict her of a crime she didn't commit rather convict her for the one she did commit?
I've said it before. IMO, she is guilty of Criminal Negligent (or Reckless) Homicide, but not Murder. I feel that she should be found guilty of CNH and that she should spend time in prison for that conviction.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 03:24 PM   #187
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33,710
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
I've said it before. IMO, she is guilty of Criminal Negligent (or Reckless) Homicide, but not Murder. I feel that she should be found guilty of CNH and that she should spend time in prison for that conviction.
That's what I was thinking.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 03:55 PM   #188
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 16,613
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
I've said it before. IMO, she is guilty of Criminal Negligent (or Reckless) Homicide, but not Murder. I feel that she should be found guilty of CNH and that she should spend time in prison for that conviction.
To repeat, in Texas criminally negligent homicide and manslaughter are about doing something that you knew or should have known causes a risk to others who are killed as a result, but without intending that result. Driving drunk is one example; throwing a TV out of a high hotel window that lands on someone is another example one lawyer uses.

But:
Quote:
Under section 19.04, manslaughter is the death of a person caused by another person’s reckless actions. Manslaughter is not an intentional killing, rather is a person dying because of another person’s reckless actions.

Manslaughter is a Second-Degree Felony. The range of punishment is 2-20 years in Prison, and up to a $10,000 fine.

Under section 19.05, Criminally Negligent Homicide is the death of a person caused by another person’s extremely careless behavior. Criminally Negligent Homicide is not an intentional killing, but rather a person dying because of another person’s irresponsible behavior.

Criminally Negligent Homicide is a State Jail Felony. The range of punishment is 180 days – 2 years in a State Jail Facility, and up to a $10,000 fine.
https://www.bhwlawfirm.com/texas-pen...inal-homicide/

She intended to kill the man. She said so herself. She considered no other option. She said so herself. She had no justification for her behavior except her claims of confusion. Murder is the right charge, for which she deserves to be convicted. (And criminally negligent homicide would get her at most two years in jail, not even prison. That would be a travesty.)

Last edited by Bob001; 28th September 2019 at 03:57 PM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 04:11 PM   #189
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
Quote:
Criminally Negligent Homicide is not an intentional killing, but rather a person dying because of another person’s irresponsible behavior.
To me that sounds like a good description of what happened. Jean died because Guyger was irresponsible in finding her way to her own apartment. The degree of her irresponsibility is something I would describe as reckless and that is because she was carrying a gun and actually used it. Reckless irresponsibility. For that she should serve time behind bars.

She didn't intend to kill a man in his own apartment with any knowledge that he was a man in his own apartment.

Her behavior could serve as a definition of irresponsibility and recklessness, but without any intent whatsoever to kill a man in his own apartment.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

Last edited by William Parcher; 28th September 2019 at 04:12 PM.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 04:17 PM   #190
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
I've said it before. IMO, she is guilty of Criminal Negligent (or Reckless) Homicide, but not Murder. I feel that she should be found guilty of CNH and that she should spend time in prison for that conviction.

Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
That's what I was thinking.

Prison isn't an option for that crime.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 04:19 PM   #191
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33,710
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
To repeat, in Texas criminally negligent homicide and manslaughter are about doing something that you knew or should have known causes a risk to others who are killed as a result, but without intending that result. Driving drunk is one example; throwing a TV out of a high hotel window that lands on someone is another example one lawyer uses.

But:

https://www.bhwlawfirm.com/texas-pen...inal-homicide/

She intended to kill the man. She said so herself. She considered no other option. She said so herself. She had no justification for her behavior except her claims of confusion. Murder is the right charge, for which she deserves to be convicted. (And criminally negligent homicide would get her at most two years in jail, not even prison. That would be a travesty.)
Well then, it's obviously not 1st degree murder. Unless your seeing some premeditation that I am not. Is there a 2nd or 3rd degree statutes?

Here's the thing. Police officers are trained to shoot to kill or at center mass. So what are the defense attorneys hoping for? Jury nullification?
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 04:19 PM   #192
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
There still isn't an answer for why some people would accept she has a valid claim to self defense but still want her to go to prison. That makes no sense.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 04:20 PM   #193
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33,710
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Prison isn't an option for that crime.
Really? You can definitely be sent to prison in the State of Washington for CNH.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 04:22 PM   #194
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33,710
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
There still isn't an answer for why some people would accept she has a valid claim to self defense but still want her to go to prison. That makes no sense.
Because she believed that she was defending herself. But her assessment was clearly false and negligent.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 04:24 PM   #195
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Really? You can definitely be sent to prison in the State of Washington for CNH.
This case is in Texas.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 04:29 PM   #196
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33,710
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
This case is in Texas.
No, I get that. This is just surprising to me.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 04:32 PM   #197
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
I seem to recall citations upthread explaining that there are charges less than Murder which do include prison time.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 04:56 PM   #198
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 6,119
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
To repeat, in Texas criminally negligent homicide and manslaughter are about doing something that you knew or should have known causes a risk to others who are killed as a result, but without intending that result. Driving drunk is one example; throwing a TV out of a high hotel window that lands on someone is another example one lawyer uses.

But:

https://www.bhwlawfirm.com/texas-pen...inal-homicide/

She intended to kill the man. She said so herself. She considered no other option. She said so herself. She had no justification for her behavior except her claims of confusion. Murder is the right charge, for which she deserves to be convicted. (And criminally negligent homicide would get her at most two years in jail, not even prison. That would be a travesty.)

Imperfect self-defenseWP. Texas actually originated this doctrine. Which would reduce it to manslaughter, for a sentence of 2-20.
__________________
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."
--Carl Schurz
SpitfireIX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 04:56 PM   #199
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,508
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Prison isn't an option for that crime.
From the Texas State Penal Code:

Quote:
Sec. 19.05. CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE. (a) A person commits an offense if he causes the death of an individual by criminal negligence.
(b) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.
So it is a state jail felony:

Quote:
Sec. 12.35. STATE JAIL FELONY PUNISHMENT. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (c), an individual adjudged guilty of a state jail felony shall be punished by confinement in a state jail for any term of not more than two years or less than 180 days.
(b) In addition to confinement, an individual adjudged guilty of a state jail felony may be punished by a fine not to exceed $10,000.
But she used a gun, so:

Quote:
(c) An individual adjudged guilty of a state jail felony shall be punished for a third degree felony if it is shown on the trial of the offense that:
(1) a deadly weapon...was used...during the commission of the offense...and that the individual used...the deadly weapon
So the punishment is a third degree felony:

Quote:
Sec. 12.34. THIRD DEGREE FELONY PUNISHMENT. (a) An individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the third degree shall be punished by imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for any term of not more than 10 years or less than 2 years.
(b) In addition to imprisonment, an individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the third degree may be punished by a fine not to exceed $10,000.
__________________
I don't need to fight to prove I'm right. - Baba O'Riley

Last edited by DevilsAdvocate; 28th September 2019 at 04:58 PM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 04:57 PM   #200
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 6,119
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
There still isn't an answer for why some people would accept she has a valid claim to self defense but still want her to go to prison. That makes no sense.

See my previous post.
__________________
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."
--Carl Schurz
SpitfireIX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

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 12:53 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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.