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 30th September 2019, 11:17 AM   #321
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Both sides had ample opportunity to lay out their cases. If the jury is swayed by the order in which they sum up, they should really not be on a jury.
Also the prosecution is the one with an actual burden to prove something.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2019, 11:35 AM   #322
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
You are proposing that she made a conscious decision not to know where she was?
Not literally, but it's same point I made about her just deciding to shot Jean and making up the entire story after the fact... what would be functionally different to any external observer if that is what she had done?

Again my entire mindset throughout this entire process is cluelessness becomes functionally equivalent to just deciding to be wrong at a certain point, and this woman crossed that line, then went back and shot the line because she thought it was a snake.

You can be; logically, morally, and in my opinion legally just be so wrong that you've waived your right to invoke your lack of knowledge as functionally any different then just choosing the wrong answer.

She put so little mental effort into judging the "Is this valid scenario to shoot in or not?" question it has become functionally the same in my book as intentionally being wrong.

Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
The point you've made a few other times:

I find it funny that she couldn't see who was in the apartment, but that she could see his hands, where they were going, and that she thought they were going for a gun.
Well the entire thread has proven the fact that Amber Guyger was capable of seeing details in situations where she couldn't see the situation.

She missed the forest but still managed to shoot the tree.
__________________
"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; 30th September 2019 at 11:39 AM.
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 30th September 2019, 11:38 AM   #323
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 13,903
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Well the entire thread has proven the fact that Amber Guyger was capable of seeing details in situations where she couldn't see the situation.

She missed the forest but still managed to shoot the tree.
To be fair, as she was walking forward, it was coming right for her.
__________________
“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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2019, 11:39 AM   #324
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
To be fair, as she was walking forward, it was coming right for her.
"He's coming right at me! And he's getting bigger!"
"That's how perspective works!"
__________________
"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.
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 30th September 2019, 11:48 AM   #325
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
She put so little mental effort into judging the "Is this valid scenario to shoot in or not?" question it has become functionally the same in my book as intentionally being wrong.
That's what it comes down to for me, not mistake of fact or sleepy-byes or anything else. Challenging Quick Draw McRaw theory should be the only issue in this murder. And I think Texas likes the whole shoot-first-acquit-later angle.
__________________
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" -Mark Twain
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2019, 12:13 PM   #326
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33,710
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
We see what we expect to see. Look at the classic experiment with watching basket ball and a gorilla walks across the screen and most of us do not notice the gorilla until we are told it is there.

I do accept that she went to the wrong apartment without realising but her subsequent actions only make sense if we consider she went into "hero cop" mode, once she had decided to be a hero that is all she focused on. And that isn't a mistake, that was a deliberate choice.
I've walked into the wrong bathroom at least 4 times in my life and twice even into the stall. They were all clearly marked. Should I have noticed? Yes. Did I? No.

At least I didn't shoot anyone.
__________________
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 30th September 2019, 12:28 PM   #327
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 13,903
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I've walked into the wrong bathroom at least 4 times in my life and twice even into the stall. They were all clearly marked. Should I have noticed? Yes. Did I? No.

At least I didn't shoot anyone.
Did you have about 20 indicators that you were going into the wrong bathroom?

This isn't just an extremely simplistic comparison, it's also not even close to the same thing. Why must ridiculous comparisons always be used in these scenarios? Just use the one we have. She almost went out of her way in every step taken to do the wrong thing. She's guilty, send her to prison.
__________________
“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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2019, 12:37 PM   #328
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
Again she didn't glance at her phone and accidentally hit a pedestrian.

She drove down the road the wrong way for 10 miles and hit a pedestrian.

She didn't make an "honest mistake." See made a series of unreasonable ones.
__________________
"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; 30th September 2019 at 12:38 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 30th September 2019, 01:01 PM   #329
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
All excusable till she thought that the first sign of an unexpected human necessitated execution
__________________
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" -Mark Twain
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2019, 01:41 PM   #330
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33,710
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
Did you have about 20 indicators that you were going into the wrong bathroom?

This isn't just an extremely simplistic comparison, it's also not even close to the same thing. Why must ridiculous comparisons always be used in these scenarios? Just use the one we have. She almost went out of her way in every step taken to do the wrong thing. She's guilty, send her to prison.
The point is there were indicators including a sign on the door and missing a urinal and for whatever reason I was oblivious. It was embarrassing as hell. Especially when your doing your business and hearing women outside of the stall talking.
__________________
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 30th September 2019, 01:44 PM   #331
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33,710
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
All excusable till she thought that the first sign of an unexpected human necessitated execution
You understand then Gogo.
__________________
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 30th September 2019, 01:46 PM   #332
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 13,903
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
The point is there were indicators including a sign on the door and missing a urinal and for whatever reason I was oblivious. It was embarrassing as hell. Especially when your doing your business and hearing women outside of the stall talking.
I get it, you made a harmless mistake. One that I bet most people have made.

This was completely and entirely different. Like I said, she almost had to go out of her way to make the wrong choice whenever one was presented. It should result in a significant amount of prison time.
__________________
“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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2019, 01:58 PM   #333
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 25,863
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
The point is there were indicators including a sign on the door and missing a urinal and for whatever reason I was oblivious. It was embarrassing as hell. Especially when your doing your business and hearing women outside of the stall talking.
If, instead of being embarrassed, you stood up and yelled at them to get the **** out of the men's room, then it may come close to being comparable.

Well, assuming you shot them when they failed to comply. Which I think is legal in Texas.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2019, 02:02 PM   #334
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 16,613
Procedural question: If the jury determines the sentence, will there be an additional proceeding for that purpose? Or do they come back with a guilty verdict and a sentence at the same time?
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 30th September 2019, 05:05 PM   #335
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,508
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Procedural question: If the jury determines the sentence, will there be an additional proceeding for that purpose? Or do they come back with a guilty verdict and a sentence at the same time?
Separate proceeding. Assuming the defendant elected sentencing by jury, the same jury would determine the sentence. The defense can provide evidence and arguments for mitigating factor, and the prosecution and rebut those arguments. This would happen right after the verdict. Maybe the next day.
__________________
I don't need to fight to prove I'm right. - Baba O'Riley
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 30th September 2019, 05:47 PM   #336
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,508
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Maybe she just got an adrenaline rush when she thought she was in a position to use the castle doctrine to kill someone legality, thought she had the drop on them, and went in to be the badass hero she dreamed of being.
I did not mean to imply that she has some blood lust and that she has always wanted to kill someone and this was finally her chance. But based on her testimony that she was going in to find the threat and didn't call for backup because she was at home, my conclusion would be that she felt like she could go in a and apprehend the bad guy on her own and if anything went slightly wrong the castle law would allow her to just shoot.

That is, if we believe her testimony is truthful and accurate. I do not.

I don't think she was going in to find the threat. That's ridiculous. I don't think she thought she didn't need to call for backup because she was at home. that makes no sense.

I think she said those things because she was thinking about what her lawyers told her and the key points they wanted to get across to the jury. She was saying what she thought she was supposed to say.

I think this happened very fast. From the time she took out her key to the time she shot was probably about 3 seconds.

I think when she put the key in the door, the door started to open and she just continued that motion. While the door was opening, she saw it was cracked and her some noise, but by then the door was already open. There was a man standing in her apartment who didn't belong there. So she kept the door open with the left hand and drew her gun. Yelled, "Let me see your hands!" Jean came at her yelling "Hey, hey, hey!" which a very reasonable response. He kept coming, so she shot him.

I don't think she had time for deliberation before opening the door. It all happened too fast.

If that is what happened, she should have stuck with telling it like that instead of trying to interject all kinds of buzzwords and justifications into the narrative. That hurt her far more than it helped.
__________________
I don't need to fight to prove I'm right. - Baba O'Riley
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 30th September 2019, 06:43 PM   #337
whoanellie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,306
Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
I did not mean to imply that she has some blood lust and that she has always wanted to kill someone and this was finally her chance. But based on her testimony that she was going in to find the threat and didn't call for backup because she was at home, my conclusion would be that she felt like she could go in a and apprehend the bad guy on her own and if anything went slightly wrong the castle law would allow her to just shoot.



That is, if we believe her testimony is truthful and accurate. I do not.



I don't think she was going in to find the threat. That's ridiculous. I don't think she thought she didn't need to call for backup because she was at home. that makes no sense.



I think she said those things because she was thinking about what her lawyers told her and the key points they wanted to get across to the jury. She was saying what she thought she was supposed to say.



I think this happened very fast. From the time she took out her key to the time she shot was probably about 3 seconds.



I think when she put the key in the door, the door started to open and she just continued that motion. While the door was opening, she saw it was cracked and her some noise, but by then the door was already open. There was a man standing in her apartment who didn't belong there. So she kept the door open with the left hand and drew her gun. Yelled, "Let me see your hands!" Jean came at her yelling "Hey, hey, hey!" which a very reasonable response. He kept coming, so she shot him.



I don't think she had time for deliberation before opening the door. It all happened too fast.



If that is what happened, she should have stuck with telling it like that instead of trying to interject all kinds of buzzwords and justifications into the narrative. That hurt her far more than it helped.
I largely agree, particularly about the very short amount of time between her placing the key in the lock and firing her gun. Given that short time I found her testimony about hearing and seeing Jean moving around to be not credible. That testimony seemed to me to be intended to bolster her claim of self defense.
I could be wrong but I thought Guyger testified that after the door opened slightly she heard sounds, drew her gun, then pushed the door fully open to see Jean. Even more damning in my mind.
whoanellie 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 30th September 2019, 09:59 PM   #338
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,508
Here's a quickly cleaned up transcript of the jury instructions from the automated closed captions. This just goes to the point where it gets to the generic boiler-plate stuff. No real surprises here. Pretty standard stuff.

Jury Instructions

Members of the jury, the defendant, Amber Guyger, stands charged by indictment with the offense of murder, alleged to have been committed on or about September 6, 2018, in Dallas County, Texas. To this charge the defendant has entered her plea of not guilty.

A person commits the offense of murder if the person 1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual, or 2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.

A person acts intentionally or with intent with respect to a result of her conduct when it is her conscious objective or desire to cause the result. A person acts knowingly or with knowledge with respect to a result of her conduct when she is aware that her conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.

“Individual” means human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.

“Person” means an individual, corporation, or association.

“Act” means a bodily movement, whether voluntary or involuntary, and includes speech.

“Bodily injury” means physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical condition.

“Serious bodily injury” means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.

“Deadly weapon” means, A) a firearm or anything manifestly designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting death or serious bodily injury, or B) anything that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.

Now considering all the law contained in the court’s charge, if you unanimously find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about September 6, 2018, in Dallas County, Texas, the defendant, Amber Guyger, did intentionally or knowingly caused the death of Botham Jean, an individual, hereinafter called deceased, by shooting the deceased with the firearm, a deadly weapon, or if you unanimously find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about September 6, 2018, in Dallas County, Texas, the defendant, Amber Guyger, did intend to cause serious bodily injury to Botham Jean, an individual, hereinafter called deceased, and did commit an act clearly dangerous to human life by shooting the deceased with a firearm, a deadly weapon, thereby causing the death of Botham Jean, then you will find the defendant guilty of murder, as alleged in the indictment.

If you do not so believe, or if you have a reasonable doubt thereof, or if you are unable to agree, you will next consider whether the defendant is guilty of the included offense of manslaughter. Our law provides that a person commits the offense of manslaughter if she recklessly causes the death of an individual. A person acts recklessly or is reckless with respect to the result of her conduct when she is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint. Now, therefore, considering all the law contained in the courts charge, if you unanimously find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about September 6, 2018, in Dallas County, Texas, the defendant, Amber Guyger, did recklessly cause the death of Botham Jean, an individual, hereinafter called deceased, by shooting the deceased with a firearm, a deadly weapon, then you will find the defendant guilty of manslaughter, as included in the indictment.

If you should find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is either guilty of murder or manslaughter, but you have a reasonable doubt as to which office she is guilty of, then you should resolve that doubt in the defendant’s favor and find the defendant guilty of the included offense of manslaughter. If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant is guilty of any offense defined in this charge, you will acquit the defendant and say by your verdict “not guilty”.

It is the defense to prosecution that the conduct in question is justified under our law. You are to consider the statutory defense of self-defense in determining if the defendant is guilty of the offenses alleged or included in the indictment. Under our law, a person is justified in using force against another in self-defense when and to the degree she reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect herself against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The use of force against another is not justified in response to verbal provocation alone. A person is justified in using deadly force against another if she would be justified in using force against the other as set out above and when she reasonably believes that such deadly force is immediately necessary to protect herself against the other person's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force or to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

The term “reasonable belief” as used herein means a belief that would be held by an ordinary and prudent person in the same circumstances as the defendant.

The term “deadly force” as used herein means force that is intended or known by the person using it to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.

“Habitation” means a structure that is adapted for the overnight accommodation of persons and includes A) each separately secured or occupied portion of the structure, and B) each structure appurtenant to or connected with the structure.

The defendant’s belief that deadly force was immediately necessary is presumed to be reasonable if the defendant:

1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom deadly force was used unlawfully and with forced entered the actor’s occupied habitation, or
2) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom deadly force was used was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force the actor from the actor’s habitation, or
3) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom deadly force was used was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated murder, AND
4) the defendant did not provoke the person against whom the deadly force was used, AND
5) the defendant was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of the law or ordinance regulating traffic, at the time the deadly force was used.

This presumption applies unless the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts giving rise to the presumption do not exist. If the state fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts giving rise to the presumption do not exist, you must find that the presumption exists. Even though you may find that the presumption does not exist, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the offense charged.

A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly forces used, and who was not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly forces used, is not required to retreat before using deadly force to defend herself.

If you find from the evidence that the defendant was such a person, or if you have a reasonable doubt thereof, you may not consider whether the defendant failed to retreat in determining whether the defendant reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary.

When a person is attacked with unlawful deadly force, or if she reasonably believes she is under attack or attempted attack with unlawful deadly force, by one or more persons, and there is created in the mind of such person a reasonable expectation or fear of death or serious bodily injury to herself at the hands of such attacker or attackers, then the law excuses or justifies such person in resorting to deadly force by any means at her command to the to the degree that she reasonably believes immediately necessary, viewed from her standpoint at the time, to protect herself from such attack or attempted attack.

In making your determination, you should consider all the facts and circumstances in evidence before you, all the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding the use of force or deadly force, the previous relationship existing between the defendant and the injured party, together with all relevant facts and circumstances going to show the condition of the mind of the defendant at the time of the alleged offense. In considering such circumstances, you should place yourselves in the defendant’s position at the time and viewed them from her standpoint alone.

Now if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about the sixth day of September, 2018, in Dallas County, Texas, the defendant, Amber Guyger, did intentionally or knowingly cause the death of Botham Jean, hereinafter called deceased, by shooting the deceased with a firearm, or did intend to cause serious bodily injury to Botham Jean, and did commit an act clearly dangerous to human life by shooting the deceased with a firearm, a deadly weapon, thereby causing the death of Botham Jean, or did recklessly cause the death of Botham Jean by shooting Botham Jean with a firearm but you further find from the evidence, or you have a reasonable doubt thereof, that at the time of the alleged offense the defendant recently believed that she was under attack or attempted attack with unlawful deadly force from Botham Jean, and that the defendant reasonably believed, as viewed from her standpoint, that such deadly force as she used was immediately necessary to protect herself against such attack or attempted attack, or to prevent the imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery by Botham Jean, and so believing she shot Botham Jean with a firearm, a deadly weapon, then you shall acquit the defendant and say by your verdict “not guilty”.

A person's conduct that would otherwise constitute the crime of murder or manslaughter is not a criminal offense if the person through mistake formed a reasonable belief about a matter of fact and the mistaken belief negated the kind of culpability required for the condition of the offense. The defendant is not required to prove that she made a mistake of fact. Rather, the state must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did not make a mistake of fact constituting a defense. “Reasonable belief” means a belief than an ordinary and prudent person would have held in the same circumstances as the defendant.

If you have found that the state has proved the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, you must next decide whether the state has proved the defendant did not make a mistake of fact constituting a defense.

To decide the issue a mistake of fact, you must determine whether the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, one of the following:

1) the defendant did not believe that she was entering her own apartment or did not believe that the deceased was an intruder in her apartment, or
2) the defendant’s belief that she was entering her own apartment or her belief that the deceased was an intruder in her apartment was not reasonable.

You must all agree that the same has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, either 1 or 2 listed above. You need not agree on which of these elements the state has proved.

If you find that the state has failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, either element 1 or 2 listed above, you must find the defendant “not guilty.”

If you all agree that the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the elements of murder or manslaughter, and you unanimously agree that the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, either element 1 that the defendant did not believe that she was entering her own apartment or did not believe that the deceased was an intruder in her apartment, or element 2 that the defendant’s belief that she was entering her own apartment or that her belief that the deceased was an intruder in her apartment was not reasonable, then you shall find the defendant “guilty” as alleged or included in the indictment.
__________________
I don't need to fight to prove I'm right. - Baba O'Riley

Last edited by DevilsAdvocate; 30th September 2019 at 10:01 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 30th September 2019, 11:07 PM   #339
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 16,613
Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
......
To decide the issue a mistake of fact, you must determine whether the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, one of the following:

1) the defendant did not believe that she was entering her own apartment or did not believe that the deceased was an intruder in her apartment, or
2) the defendant’s belief that she was entering her own apartment or her belief that the deceased was an intruder in her apartment was not reasonable.
.....
[Emphasis added.] So this is the official definition of "mistake of fact." She doesn't even have to believe the intruder was a deadly threat, just that there was an intruder in her place. Good chance she's gonna walk.
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 30th September 2019, 11:34 PM   #340
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,508
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
[Emphasis added.] So this is the official definition of "mistake of fact." She doesn't even have to believe the intruder was a deadly threat, just that there was an intruder in her place. Good chance she's gonna walk.
That is correct. The whole concept of the castle law is that an intruder in someone's home is automatically presumed to be a deadly threat.

(Just to be clear, that means the person must a have reasonable belief that the other person unlawfully and with force entered their home.)

The idea is that if a person in the security of their own home and someone unlawfully breaks in, they don't have to wait and hesitate until they can be sure that the person has gun or deadly weapon and has an intent to kill them before using deadly force to protect themselves. The bad guy sure isn't going to hesitate. So someone in their home should not be forced to choose between going to prison for years on a murder charge because they did wait to see the gun, or hesitating and getting shot by the bad guy.

It is obviously controversial. On one hand it makes sense, but on the other it is problematic.

ETA: What you quoted isn't actually the definition. The definition is a couple paragraphs above. What you quoted is the court's instruction to the jury on how mistake of fact is to be considered in this case.

ETA: Note that in Texas mistake of fact and self-defense are ordinary defenses, not affirmative defenses. That means the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that there was not a mistake of fact or that there was not a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary or that there was not a reasonable belief that someone entered their home unlawfully and with force.
__________________
I don't need to fight to prove I'm right. - Baba O'Riley

Last edited by DevilsAdvocate; 30th September 2019 at 11:46 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 1st October 2019, 12:00 AM   #341
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 16,613
Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
That is correct. The whole concept of the castle law is that an intruder in someone's home is automatically presumed to be a deadly threat.

(Just to be clear, that means the person must a have reasonable belief that the other person unlawfully and with force entered their home.)

The idea is that if a person in the security of their own home and someone unlawfully breaks in, they don't have to wait and hesitate until they can be sure that the person has gun or deadly weapon and has an intent to kill them before using deadly force to protect themselves. The bad guy sure isn't going to hesitate. So someone in their home should not be forced to choose between going to prison for years on a murder charge because they did wait to see the gun, or hesitating and getting shot by the bad guy.

It is obviously controversial. On one hand it makes sense, but on the other it is problematic.

ETA: What you quoted isn't actually the definition. The definition is a couple paragraphs above. What you quoted is the court's instruction to the jury on how mistake of fact is to be considered in this case.

ETA: Note that in Texas mistake of fact and self-defense are ordinary defenses, not affirmative defenses. That means the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that there was not a mistake of fact or that there was not a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary or that there was not a reasonable belief that someone entered their home unlawfully and with force.

So not "definition," but a description of how it applies to the case at hand. But Guyger was not in the security of "her" home. She was safely outside, and she placed herself in danger by entering when she had multiple alternatives. That has to have some relevance to the validity of the castle doctrine.

Last edited by Bob001; 1st October 2019 at 12:02 AM.
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 1st October 2019, 12:12 AM   #342
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,508
Anybody have any explanations on the bullet trajectory? I don't know much about firearms.

The prosecution explains it by saying he was getting up off the couch. But then he would have had to get up and take several steps forward and then fall back. And not fall forward, the direction he would have been heading. Seems a bit unlikely, but plausible.

That would also have the issue of explaining the bullet in the wall. If her first shot was into his chest as he was sitting on the couch, why would she have a second shot way up and to the left? That seems odd to me.

What about the defense's claim that the shot into the wall was the second shot from a "double-tap"? Does that seem reasonable? They say the first shot hit him in the chest when he was standing and leaning over and the second shot was after the gun recoiled up and to the left.

But does that happen? I would think someone who has been a police officer for five years would have quite a bit of experience on the gun range. And they say officers are trained to so the "double-tap". I would think that would mean a lot of practice to make sure the shots are fired at the same place and the second shot doesn't go off target because of the recoil. That would be the whole point of training and learning and practicing that type of shot. I would think that would be drilled into muscle memory.

How about this idea: When she opened the door, Jean stood up or was already standing and came toward her. That makes sense to me. She was surprised and nervous, so her first shot went high and to the left. Jean immediately ducked, bending at his knees and waist. She immediately corrected her aim for the second quick shot and hit him in the chest. He fell backward and lay where he was found.

It seems like that could fit with all the evidence.
__________________
I don't need to fight to prove I'm right. - Baba O'Riley
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 1st October 2019, 12:54 AM   #343
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,508
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
So not "definition," but a description of how it applies to the case at hand.
Correct. As I said in the ETA the "definition" is a couple paragraphs up from what you quoted. But, again, that is customized for this case.

From Texas Penal Code 8.02, just the definition would simply be a "mistake" that is "a reasonable belief about a matter of fact."

Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
But Guyger was not in the security of "her" home. She was safely outside, and she placed herself in danger by entering when she had multiple alternatives. That has to have some relevance to the validity of the castle doctrine.
We've had thousands of posts going over all the intricacies of this issue, so I'll keep it short.

She didn't have to be in her home. She only had to have a reasonable belief that she was confronting someone who had unlawfully and with force entered her home.

I don't think she deliberated at the door. I don't think she had time. She put the key in the door, the door stared swinging up. There was a guy that shouldn't be there.

But even with that aside, if she had alternatives, she could have chosen those. That would have been good. But was she was not legally required to use those alternatives. She would not be reckless unless her actions were a gross deviation of a standard of care that she knew could result in someone's death. Walking into your own home, even if you think a burglar might be in there, is not illegal. It is not criminally reckless. Not a good idea. But not a crime.

Once she had the door open and perceived a threat (which I think was a simultaneous action without deliberation), under Texas law she had no duty to retreat. Retreating might be a good idea. In this case it would have been a very good idea. But legally, the law says a person does not have to if they don't want to. They can stand their ground and defend themselves with necessary force.
__________________
I don't need to fight to prove I'm right. - Baba O'Riley
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 1st October 2019, 02:51 AM   #344
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
We've had thousands of posts going over all the intricacies of this issue, so I'll keep it short.
No we've had thousands of posts splitting every hair to make excuses for his woman.

Quote:
She didn't have to be in her home. She only had to have a reasonable belief that she was confronting someone who had unlawfully and with force entered her home.
That's insane. I mean functionally insane. We've had "thousands of posts" explaining why.

Quote:
I don't think she deliberated at the door. I don't think she had time. She put the key in the door, the door stared swinging up.
"I intentionally didn't take the time to access the situation so you can't blame me for getting the situation wrong" is not the epic legal defense you think it is.

Quote:
There was a guy that shouldn't be there.
Absolutely. The guy shouldn't be there in his own home sitting at his own couch doing nothing. I mean Jesus it's like he wanted to die.
__________________
"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.
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 1st October 2019, 03:26 AM   #345
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
I can see one line in the summing-up that would be grounds for a guilty verdict straight away:

Quote:
The term “reasonable belief” as used herein means a belief that would be held by an ordinary and prudent person in the same circumstances as the defendant.
The addition of the words "and prudent" seems significant. While it's possible that a reasonable person could have believed that Jean must be an intruder, a prudent person should at least have considered the possibility, either that he was a maintenance worker, or that this was the wrong apartment; and a moment's doubt should have been enough to uncover the mistake of fact.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers 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 1st October 2019, 03:44 AM   #346
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,508
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I intentionally didn't take the time
Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
I don't think she had time.
I will not engage in mischaracterizations of statements beyond that.
__________________
I don't need to fight to prove I'm right. - Baba O'Riley
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 1st October 2019, 04:25 AM   #347
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
 
TurkeysGhost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 35,043
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
I can see one line in the summing-up that would be grounds for a guilty verdict straight away:



The addition of the words "and prudent" seems significant. While it's possible that a reasonable person could have believed that Jean must be an intruder, a prudent person should at least have considered the possibility, either that he was a maintenance worker, or that this was the wrong apartment; and a moment's doubt should have been enough to uncover the mistake of fact.

Dave
I imagine that is what all the jury deliberation will be about. Nothing else is really in question here.

I would agree that her behavior leading up to the shooting falls outside of what most would consider prudent behavior and that murder is the appropriate conclusion, but I'm not optimistic. Manslaughter seems like the likely conclusion, and while that isn't what I'd hope for, I am glad that option exists as a stopgap to discourage outright acquittal.

To be honest, I could honestly see her "series of mistakes" defense being more useful during sentencing. She is guilty. Whether or not her series of screw-ups should reduce her culpability should be considered after the conviction.
__________________
Previously known as SuburbanTurkey
TurkeysGhost 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 1st October 2019, 04:50 AM   #348
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
I would agree that her behavior leading up to the shooting falls outside of what most would consider prudent behavior and that murder is the appropriate conclusion, but I'm not optimistic. Manslaughter seems like the likely conclusion, and while that isn't what I'd hope for, I am glad that option exists as a stopgap to discourage outright acquittal.
Yeah, I tend to agree, but I think it shouldn't. Manslaughter is a very specific crime that denies specific intent to cause harm or death, and ISTR from a little way upthread that Guyger specifically testified that her intent when shooting was to kill. Finding her guilty of manslaughter is pretty close to jury nullification. Given the statement of intent, it seems she should be either guilty of murder or not guilty; any nuance on level of guilt should be a matter for sentencing.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers 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 1st October 2019, 06:19 AM   #349
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 13,903
Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
The prosecution explains it by saying he was getting up off the couch. But then he would have had to get up and take several steps forward and then fall back. And not fall forward, the direction he would have been heading. Seems a bit unlikely, but plausible.
This is actually the most fitting explanation. I don't think he took several steps forward, his shoes were found only a few feet from the couch and the couch can be seen close in the background in the cop cam footage. He stumbled a few feet forward, might have collapsed on his butt and laid down. There was no way possible he was standing when he got shot. The ME said that in definitive terms. Ducking doesn't explain the shots any better than him getting off of the couch. If it was a double-tap it makes it even more complicated since he would have had to duck in a fraction of a second before the second shot got off.

Remember, he was wearing earbuds. I don't think he heard her open the door, I don't think he realized she was coming in until the light from the door opening caught his attention. Like you said, it happened in a couple of seconds, and there's really no firm evidence Jean said anything at all. Also, she could have thought he was going to continue rising since he was getting off of the couch. Instead, when he got shot he stayed slumped over a bit.

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
That would also have the issue of explaining the bullet in the wall. If her first shot was into his chest as he was sitting on the couch, why would she have a second shot way up and to the left? That seems odd to me.
It is a case about someone entering the wrong apartment and shooting someone, it's an odd case. She might be a poor shot, she might have double tapped so fast that the gun didn't level on her second shot. The gun goes up, she was amped up and didn't shoot well.

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
What about the defense's claim that the shot into the wall was the second shot from a "double-tap"? Does that seem reasonable? They say the first shot hit him in the chest when he was standing and leaning over and the second shot was after the gun recoiled up and to the left.
I would guess so. Why would he be standing though? I don't get that part. This happened too fast for him to be already standing by the time she fires. Why you think that seems odd to me.

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
But does that happen? I would think someone who has been a police officer for five years would have quite a bit of experience on the gun range. And they say officers are trained to so the "double-tap". I would think that would mean a lot of practice to make sure the shots are fired at the same place and the second shot doesn't go off target because of the recoil. That would be the whole point of training and learning and practicing that type of shot. I would think that would be drilled into muscle memory.
She followed literally zero percent of her training. If this was her using any of her police training she is the absolute ********* cop we have ever heard of with absolutely no situational awareness at all. We're expected to believe she missed a dozen indicators that she was on the wrong floor, walked into an apartment, missed absolutely everything there showing she was in the wrong apartment, and then ******* shot a guy. She was high on adrenaline, and she couldn't contain it. Nothing else needs to be explained. She had only shot at someone once before, and she even sucked that time because she was the only one that shot. Just because she practices a lot doesn't mean she's good. There are plenty of people that practice things and still suck at them. (Take plague311 and Call of Duty for example)

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
How about this idea: When she opened the door, Jean stood up or was already standing and came toward her.
Again, why? Why would he be standing in his living room with the TV on and eating a bowl of ice cream? He wasn't coming towards her either, he was leaning over when he got shot, and if he was moving towards her he would have fell forward. He's over 6 foot and 245+ lbs. If he had forward inertia that's the direction he would have fallen in, but he didn't.

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
That makes sense to me.
It doesn't fit the evidence.

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
She was surprised and nervous, so her first shot went high and to the left.
Why would she be surprised? Nervous maybe. She has claimed the whole time that she went into the apartment expecting an intruder. I don't think she was shocked, I think she was itching to pull the trigger.

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
Jean immediately ducked, bending at his knees and waist. She immediately corrected her aim for the second quick shot and hit him in the chest. He fell backward and lay where he was found.

It seems like that could fit with all the evidence.
I vehemently disagree. Jean would have had to duck in an instant to practically a 90 degree angle, and she would have had to corrected her aim excessively fast after missing a layup shot to hit a smaller facing target. If he was moving forward, and immediately ducked and got shot, he would have fallen forward, not backward. Even the ME said this isn't a movie. People that get shot don't get blasted backwards in a dramatic scene.
__________________
“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

Last edited by plague311; 1st October 2019 at 06:28 AM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2019, 06:57 AM   #350
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
You understand then Gogo.
I looked at my What Would Gogo Do bracelet, and it occurs to me that she would have murdered Jean, too. Kind of says it all, really.
__________________
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" -Mark Twain
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet

Last edited by Thermal; 1st October 2019 at 07:24 AM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2019, 07:46 AM   #351
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
A Texas man fatally shoots intruder and then goes back to bed

Originally Posted by CNN
A Dallas resident who fatally shot a backyard intruder and then went back to bed has been charged with murder, according to police.

The homeowner, James Michael Meyer, said he didn't know whether he struck the person, so he went back to bed and didn't call police, according to an arrest warrant released by the Dallas Police Department.

Meyer, 72, says that he was awakened around 5 a.m. Thursday by a noise outside, according to an arrest warrant affidavit filed by Dallas police. Meyer told police he looked outside and saw someone attempting to break into his storage shed, and that's when he got his handgun and went outside to confront the person. Meyer told the intruder not to come any closer or he would shoot him, the warrant reads. Meyer said the man took a few steps toward him with a pickax in his hand, the warrant says, and that's when he fired his gun. He said the unidentified man dropped the pickax and ran into the park behind his property. Meyer told police he fired another shot "into the night" in the direction of the park and then went to bed.

As the sun began to rise, Meyer looked outside and saw what he thought was a black bag in the park. He went to get a closer look, according to the warrant, and discovered a man lying facedown on the ground...

...Meyer refused to answer the 911 dispatcher's questions and repeatedly said "he was a victim of a crime and that medical assistance was needed," according to the warrant. Police officers arrived to find the deceased male lying facedown in the park behind Meyer's home with a gunshot wound to the back of his neck, Dallas police said in a post on the department website. The warrant said Dallas Fire Rescue determined the person had been dead for several hours.

Crime scene analysts called to process the scene couldn't find any spent shell casings. According to the warrant, Meyer told them that he picked them up and threw them away. Detectives also noted in the warrant that several neighbors stated hearing three gunshots, not two...
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/30/us/te...rnd/index.html
__________________
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 1st October 2019, 07:55 AM   #352
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
But does that happen? I would think someone who has been a police officer for five years would have quite a bit of experience on the gun range. And they say officers are trained to so the "double-tap". I would think that would mean a lot of practice to make sure the shots are fired at the same place and the second shot doesn't go off target because of the recoil. That would be the whole point of training and learning and practicing that type of shot. I would think that would be drilled into muscle memory.
Her way-off aim with that wall shot may have possibly been because she was shooting with one hand. I think that cops are mostly trained to shoot with both hands on the gun to improve accuracy and reduce recoil effect. I'm not certain.

Does anyone know how they determined the order of shots? I missed that part of the trial. There seemed to be no dispute that the first shot hit Jean and the second shot missed.
__________________
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 1st October 2019, 08:03 AM   #353
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
Looking at this part of the jury's instruction:

Quote:
To decide the issue a mistake of fact, you must determine whether the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, one of the following:

1) the defendant did not believe that she was entering her own apartment or did not believe that the deceased was an intruder in her apartment, or
2) the defendant’s belief that she was entering her own apartment or her belief that the deceased was an intruder in her apartment was not reasonable.

You must all agree that the same has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, either 1 or 2 listed above. You need not agree on which of these elements the state has proved.

If you find that the state has failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, either element 1 or 2 listed above, you must find the defendant “not guilty.”
I think jurors will be fully convinced of the Mistake, regardless of what position Jean was in when he was murdered. For all the wrangling of what we think is right or reasonable or fair, the instructions seem to say she has a mistake-of-fact out, and must be found not guilty.

This murderer is gonna walk.
__________________
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" -Mark Twain
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet

Last edited by Thermal; 1st October 2019 at 08:09 AM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2019, 08:16 AM   #354
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I think jurors will be fully convinced of the Mistake, regardless of what position Jean was in when he was murdered. For all the wrangling of what we think is right or reasonable or fair, the instructions seem to say she has a mistake-of-fact out, and must be found not guilty.

This murderer is gonna walk.

That only follows if you believe her mistakes were reasonable. All of them.
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 1st October 2019, 08:17 AM   #355
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
Remember, he was wearing earbuds.
I read that his earbuds were found on the floor near his body. I didn't see that part of the trial so I don't know details. Were the buds wired or wireless? I presume that they were wired but possibly not because a fall to the ground could dislodge wireless buds.

Was testimony given that the (wired) buds were pulled from his ears as he got up from the couch, or what?
__________________
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 1st October 2019, 08:25 AM   #356
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
it happened in a couple of seconds, and there's really no firm evidence Jean said anything at all.
There are two witnesses who testified about Jean saying things.

1) His immediate neighbor testified that he heard two different voices. He could not tell the gender of the speakers or what was said but he testified that it was two different people. Then came two gunshots. He also said that the tone of the voices indicated that both parties were surprised with each other.

2) Amber Guyger testified that Jean aggressively shouted, "Hey! Hey! Hey!"
__________________
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 1st October 2019, 08:28 AM   #357
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
That only follows if you believe her mistakes were reasonable. All of them.
Like many posters here, I think that is a shoe-in argument, that she could walk up to the wrong door and think, in a split second, that she was confronting an intruder.

My issue comes with immediately resorting to lethal force. But Texas law seems to say it does not matter, she must be found not guilty.

I think many of us are trying to see her driving up one too many floors and having her face buried in her cell phone as being so out in left field that it is unreasonable....well, as a self-defense mechanism so that we don't have to accept what that implies under Texas law. It means she walks.
__________________
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" -Mark Twain
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2019, 08:31 AM   #358
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I think jurors will be fully convinced of the Mistake, regardless of what position Jean was in when he was murdered. For all the wrangling of what we think is right or reasonable or fair, the instructions seem to say she has a mistake-of-fact out, and must be found not guilty.
If I were on the jury, I would consider the prosecution to have proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that the belief that the deceased was an intruder was not reasonable, by pointing out that he could have been carrying out maintenance work on behalf of the building manager.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers 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 1st October 2019, 08:34 AM   #359
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
Over/Under on months until the first porn offer to Amber Guyger?
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2019, 08:36 AM   #360
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Looking at this part of the jury's instruction:



I think jurors will be fully convinced of the Mistake, regardless of what position Jean was in when he was murdered. For all the wrangling of what we think is right or reasonable or fair, the instructions seem to say she has a mistake-of-fact out, and must be found not guilty.

This murderer is gonna walk.
I'd say 2) gets her convicted.
__________________
"There ain't half been some clever bastards" - Ian Dury
GlennB 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 04:27 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.