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

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


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

Closed Thread
Old 27th August 2019, 03:28 PM   #481
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 5,630
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
American cops retain cop powers even when off duty
Which means they can kill almost anyone and get away with it... almost...
__________________
We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2019, 03:44 PM   #482
isissxn
Rough Around the Edges
 
isissxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 6,281
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
Your last sentence answers your wonder about why this is a "million pager" of a thread.

It is an insane one-off of an occurrence that required multiple uncommon circumstances to happen at once, and lands at an intersection of "stand your ground", "castle doctrine", reasonableness, gun control, racism, sexism and a million other hot-button issues.

How could it not generate tons of discussion?
I guess I'm just having trouble picturing there being much controversy if she'd been (say) a bartender, let alone a national controversy. I'm just having difficulty conveying my point because everyone is looking between the lines for sociopolitical commentary that isn't there.

Earlier in the thread, someone (I think it was JoeMorgue, but not sure) said that some people are willing to accept the "tired" defense because they could see themselves making a similar mistake when tired or distracted enough. If I'm being perfectly honest, that was the first thought I had when I read this story - 'Wow, I do dumb things all the time when I'm tired, and I'm also really paranoid and jumpy." I sort of imagined the whole thing happening to me. I imagined the horror Guyger must have felt when it dawned on her what she had actually done. I imagined it very vividly. The thing is, though, if that DID happen to me, I would expect to go to jail. Some mistakes are just too dumb to be excused, and people that jumpy shouldn't be walking around with guns.

It doesn't matter, though. My point was never important. I just wondered what people thought. Would this case seem as controversial if the shooter had just been a regular old bartender like me? I was just speculating a bit. Because to me, when I imagine a tired bartender like me doing this act, it seems like an open-and-shut crime. It seems to me like the only subsequent discussions would be "what an idiot," "was she drunk/high/shady in some other way," and of course, "people shouldn't be running around with guns." I wondered if other posters thought any of that that too, or if it was just me. Speculation.

I'm really not sure the race thing is much of a factor here. Wasn't it dark? I was under the impression that Guyger just sort of shot at a person-figure she believed to be an intruder in a darkened apartment. I assumed she couldn't really identify his race or anything like that until afterward. I obviously don't know, though.
isissxn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2019, 03:46 PM   #483
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,221
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Did she identify herself as police?



Hey, a reasonable person can not know the speed limit.
Absolutely.
And if for some reason(say the new limit had not been posted) someone violated it with a reasonable belief that it was other than what it was. Do you think they deserve the punishment that goes with that violation?
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2019, 03:58 PM   #484
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,221
Originally Posted by isissxn View Post
I guess I'm just having trouble picturing there being much controversy if she'd been (say) a bartender, let alone a national controversy. I'm just having difficulty conveying my point because everyone is looking between the lines for sociopolitical commentary that isn't there.

Earlier in the thread, someone (I think it was JoeMorgue, but not sure) said that some people are willing to accept the "tired" defense because they could see themselves making a similar mistake when tired or distracted enough. If I'm being perfectly honest, that was the first thought I had when I read this story - 'Wow, I do dumb things all the time when I'm tired, and I'm also really paranoid and jumpy." I sort of imagined the whole thing happening to me. I imagined the horror Guyger must have felt when it dawned on her what she had actually done. I imagined it very vividly. The thing is, though, if that DID happen to me, I would expect to go to jail. Some mistakes are just too dumb to be excused, and people that jumpy shouldn't be walking around with guns.

It doesn't matter, though. My point was never important. I just wondered what people thought. Would this case seem as controversial if the shooter had just been a regular old bartender like me? I was just speculating a bit. Because to me, when I imagine a tired bartender like me doing this act, it seems like an open-and-shut crime. It seems to me like the only subsequent discussions would be "what an idiot," "was she drunk/high/shady in some other way," and of course, "people shouldn't be running around with guns." I wondered if other posters thought any of that that too, or if it was just me. Speculation.

I'm really not sure the race thing is much of a factor here. Wasn't it dark? I was under the impression that Guyger just sort of shot at a person-figure she believed to be an intruder in a darkened apartment. I assumed she couldn't really identify his race or anything like that until afterward. I obviously don't know, though.
There may very well be differences in how an LEO walks through a process like this one and how a " civilian" would. Can't dispute that- I expect a doctor moves through the healthcare system with more ease than someone not in the field, part of the nature of being an "insider" in any profession I guess.

That angle did not attract me to the thread, and it does not keep me here. For my part I would be just as intrigued if Guyger were a bartender, and her being a bartender would have no bearing on how I view the incident.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2019, 04:45 PM   #485
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,366
I may go back and pick up on your last response to me but first...

Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
Absolutely.
And if for some reason(say the new limit had not been posted) someone violated it with a reasonable belief that it was other than what it was. Do you think they deserve the punishment that goes with that violation?
Except that didn't happen here. There was a posted sign and the driver simply blew past it. It's possible but highly unlikely that the cop would not ticket the driver for speeding. I doubt very much if the driver claimed, "yeah I was too tired to see the sign back there, sorry. I don't deserve the ticket," would carry any weight or influence. Can anyone guess why? Because the natural response is then, "if you're too tired to see roadsigns, you shouldn't be driving!"

As to your line, "do [we] think they deserve the punishment..." I wonder at you asking this question. As Thermal rather amusingly pointed out, right and wrong has nothing to do with the law; so as William Muny pointed out in the movie Unforgiven, "what's 'deserve' got to do with anything?"

Our current criminal justice system is a horrid mess which is unfixable (because it's doing exactly as intended); but according to it, sure, the person who sped through the sign should be ticketed.

Just as Guyver should be jailed for manslaughter.

And for all you people who wish to ignore the racial aspect as inconsequential, it very much is consequential and has a great bearing on how this individual case will play out no matter if it is deliberately brought up in court or not.
__________________
A government is a body of people usually - notably - ungoverned.
-Shepard Book

Last edited by The Norseman; 27th August 2019 at 04:47 PM.
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2019, 05:50 PM   #486
isissxn
Rough Around the Edges
 
isissxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 6,281
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
There may very well be differences in how an LEO walks through a process like this one and how a " civilian" would. Can't dispute that- I expect a doctor moves through the healthcare system with more ease than someone not in the field, part of the nature of being an "insider" in any profession I guess.

That angle did not attract me to the thread, and it does not keep me here. For my part I would be just as intrigued if Guyger were a bartender, and her being a bartender would have no bearing on how I view the incident.
I wasn't taking a dig at the motives of people in the thread. Why would I? I'm in the thread too. I'm not just talking about us here at the forum. I just don't think people at large would care as much if it were a bartender. Or rather, I think it would be a clearer "guilty" in the eyes of the majority of people. I wondered if other people thought that too, or knew what I meant.

Forget it, I'm doing a terrible job at explaining myself, and it wasn't important anyway. I really wasn't trying to say anything, whether you believe it or not. I just wondered if other people had had that thought.
isissxn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2019, 05:58 PM   #487
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,221
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
I may go back and pick up on your last response to me but first...


Except that didn't happen here. There was a posted sign and the driver simply blew past it. It's possible but highly unlikely that the cop would not ticket the driver for speeding. I doubt very much if the driver claimed, "yeah I was too tired to see the sign back there, sorry. I don't deserve the ticket," would carry any weight or influence. Can anyone guess why? Because the natural response is then, "if you're too tired to see roadsigns, you shouldn't be driving!"

As to your line, "do [we] think they deserve the punishment..." I wonder at you asking this question. As Thermal rather amusingly pointed out, right and wrong has nothing to do with the law; so as William Muny pointed out in the movie Unforgiven, "what's 'deserve' got to do with anything?"

Our current criminal justice system is a horrid mess which is unfixable (because it's doing exactly as intended); but according to it, sure, the person who sped through the sign should be ticketed.

Just as Guyver should be jailed for manslaughter.

And for all you people who wish to ignore the racial aspect as inconsequential, it very much is consequential and has a great bearing on how this individual case will play out no matter if it is deliberately brought up in court or not.
What bearing do you expect it has?
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2019, 06:08 PM   #488
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,221
Originally Posted by isissxn View Post
I wasn't taking a dig at the motives of people in the thread. Why would I? I'm in the thread too. I'm not just talking about us here at the forum. I just don't think people at large would care as much if it were a bartender. Or rather, I think it would be a clearer "guilty" in the eyes of the majority of people. I wondered if other people thought that too, or knew what I meant.

Forget it, I'm doing a terrible job at explaining myself, and it wasn't important anyway. I really wasn't trying to say anything, whether you believe it or not. I just wondered if other people had had that thought.
Wasn't suggesting you were taking "a dig" at anyone.

I have heard very little about the way the world at large views this. The couple of times I have broached the topic IRL the most interested respondent expressed a vague familiarity with the topic at best.

My impression, from respondents in this forum on this topic is undoubtedly skewed by the small sample size, but seems to carry overtones of "fry her because she is cop". Quite the opposite of what the assertion the g-pop supposedly has.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2019, 07:27 PM   #489
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Currently Dismembered
Posts: 8,732
Originally Posted by isissxn View Post
I guess I'm just having trouble picturing there being much controversy if she'd been (say) a bartender, let alone a national controversy. I'm just having difficulty conveying my point because everyone is looking between the lines for sociopolitical commentary that isn't there.
I think we try to give police more benefit of the doubt, though, for having good intentions, what with them swearing to uphold the law and dedicating their lives to it and all. At least in theory. We want badly to trust them, in light of the faith we have in them running around with guns and powers of arrest. So it's an extra nipple tickle when one is involved in something like this.

Quote:
Earlier in the thread, someone (I think it was JoeMorgue, but not sure) said that some people are willing to accept the "tired" defense because they could see themselves making a similar mistake when tired or distracted enough. If I'm being perfectly honest, that was the first thought I had when I read this story - 'Wow, I do dumb things all the time when I'm tired, and I'm also really paranoid and jumpy." I sort of imagined the whole thing happening to me. I imagined the horror Guyger must have felt when it dawned on her what she had actually done. I imagined it very vividly. The thing is, though, if that DID happen to me, I would expect to go to jail. Some mistakes are just too dumb to be excused, and people that jumpy shouldn't be walking around with guns.
Exactly. We all do stupid things. Most of us don't try to kill someone at the climax of it. You can say 'tee-hee, silly me' for walking to the wrong door. You lose those petty excuses when you unholster a killing tool.

Quote:
It doesn't matter, though. My point was never important. I just wondered what people thought. Would this case seem as controversial if the shooter had just been a regular old bartender like me? I was just speculating a bit. Because to me, when I imagine a tired bartender like me doing this act, it seems like an open-and-shut crime. It seems to me like the only subsequent discussions would be "what an idiot," "was she drunk/high/shady in some other way," and of course, "people shouldn't be running around with guns." I wondered if other posters thought any of that that too, or if it was just me. Speculation.
I want very badly to trust police, and hope they walk it like they talk it. Following the law and all. So when one seems to step way, way outside of it, it feels like a shot in the gut of betrayal. I don't expect a bartender to lay their life out for me as part of their job. So yeah, higher standard of expected behavior and more profoundly scandalous when we perceive that trust as violated.

Quote:
I'm really not sure the race thing is much of a factor here. Wasn't it dark?...
Helloooo? The correct term is African American.
I'm going to hell, I just know it.
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2019, 08:58 PM   #490
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Currently Dismembered
Posts: 8,732
A lot of posters seem pretty adamant that this Mistake of Fact thing is inapplicable to the shooting. 'IT WASN'T HER HOUSE' in big letters and stuff. You are all wrong. The Dallas Observer interviewed Dallas defense attorney Peter Schulte, former DeSoto cop and Dallas County Prosecutor who states (with what I hope we can agree is authority on the subject) that Mistake of Fact absolutely carries to the shooting and that the verdict will likely be murder or acquittal:

Quote:
"She clearly, based on what we do know, has the defense of what we call mistake-of-fact," Schulte said. "If she can show to a jury that her mistake-of-fact led to this and the jury finds that it was reasonable, then she's entitled to an acquittal, because our criminal laws don't want to criminalize accidents. That's for the civil courts." If a jury believes that Guyger reasonably thought she was in her own apartment when she shot Jean, she's covered by Texas' castle law, which allows Texas residents to shoot intruders in their homes on sight, without criminal repercussions.
Done and done, unless someone has a more credible surrogate source. Mistake of Fact is extended to the shooting, and doesn't stop at the door. It does matter that she thought it was her house when she chose to shoot him.

Now let's just hope the jury doesn't buy it, and believes that popping off in the dark in an apartment building is a separate reckless crime unto itself, not covered by a self defense claim.

https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/...o-far-11125724
__________________
"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; 27th August 2019 at 09:24 PM.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2019, 05:04 AM   #491
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,210
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Mistake of fact:
Police officer: I pulled you over for going 55 in a 35 mph speed zone
Me: Sorry officer, I though the speed limit was 55.
PO: Well, ok, it's just a mistake of fact. I won't give you a ticket.
No, this would be mistake of law. Which is handled differently.

https://lawshelf.com/courseware/entry/mistake-of-law
Quote:
Generally, if a defendant had the requisite intent to commit an act but, because of a mistake of law, he did not know that his act was illegal, he will not have a valid defense. This is the basis for the popular maxim "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." For example:

Brian is walking down the street one day when he passes Jacob’s house and happens to see his lost cat, Fudgy, sitting in the living room window. Brian goes over to the window, forces it open, reaches inside, and takes Fudgy out. The common law definition of burglary is the breaking and entering into the dwelling of another with the intent to commit a felony. Further, in the state where Brian lives, it is considered a crime to remove any item from another person’s house without the person’s consent, whether that item belongs to them or not. In this case, Brian has broken and entered Jacob’s house and he did so with the intent of removing an item without Jacob’s consent. Therefore, Brian has committed a burglary. If Brian tries to argue that he did not know that he was not allowed to take his own property from someone else’s house without the house owner's consent, Brian will still be convicted. In this case, Brian’s defense does not demonstrate that he lacked the intent to commit the crime. Brian had every intention of removing Fudgy from Jacob’s house. Rather, all this defense demonstrates is that Brian was ignorant of the law and ignorance of the law will not serve as a valid defense.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2019, 07:21 AM   #492
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 6,910
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
We don't know. Being in full uniform may have been a tip, though.
LoL what the ****? So now the person getting shot has to be able to identify that the someone breaking into their ******* apartment is wearing a cop uniform, and start listening to them? But the ******* cop doesn't have to know which God damned apartment she's in? That's some next level victim blaming there, and yes. This certainly comes across as apologetics for the cop. I mean, that's ******* insane.

As to your previous post, you're still linking to people's opinions. No one has said that she can't use it as a defense, or that she won't. We're all saying that we don't think it will be successful. Notice what it says in your link as well, your source blatantly says, "If she can show to a jury that her mistake-of-fact led to this" which is no way absolute. You and drewbot are insisting it's already "done and done", like you know some **** no one else does.

I don't think you guys are right at all, and I don't think your source quite agrees with you as much as you're implying they do.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss

Last edited by plague311; 28th August 2019 at 07:23 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 Back to Top
Old 28th August 2019, 07:26 AM   #493
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,210
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
Notice what it says in your link as well, your source blatantly says, "If she can show to a jury that her mistake-of-fact led to this" which is no way absolute. You and drewbot are insisting it's already "done and done", like you know some **** no one else does.

I don't think you guys are right at all, and I don't think your source quite agrees with you as much as you're implying they do.
That's fine, you can think we are not right, and not call us racists.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2019, 07:34 AM   #494
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 6,910
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
A lot of posters seem pretty adamant that this Mistake of Fact thing is inapplicable to the shooting. 'IT WASN'T HER HOUSE' in big letters and stuff. You are all wrong. The Dallas Observer interviewed Dallas defense attorney Peter Schulte, former DeSoto cop and Dallas County Prosecutor who states (with what I hope we can agree is authority on the subject) that Mistake of Fact absolutely carries to the shooting and that the verdict will likely be murder or acquittal
From your same exact source:

Quote:
According to that affidavit, Jean confronted the officer at his apartment's door as she tried to get in. A neighbor then "heard an exchange of words, immediately followed by at least two gunshots."
Which fits along with some of the evidence so far. Again, Mistake of Fact only gets you to the door. If she knocked at all, that defense is gone. That means she recognized she was at the wrong apartment, why else would you knock on your own damn door if you're not in your apartment? It also means the door wasn't ajar, or propped open, and her key had been denied.

Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
That's fine, you can think we are not right, and not call us racists.
I have no idea who you think you're talking to, but I haven't called anyone racist.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss

Last edited by plague311; 28th August 2019 at 07:35 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 Back to Top
Old 28th August 2019, 07:39 AM   #495
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 20,925
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
Which fits along with some of the evidence so far. Again, Mistake of Fact only gets you to the door. If she knocked at all, that defense is gone. That means she recognized she was at the wrong apartment, why else would you knock on your own damn door if you're not in your apartment? It also means the door wasn't ajar, or propped open, and her key had been denied.
Ah but you see that's where the dual-apologist come in. You see she was also.. a little tired.

That why even when she acts in a way that doesn't fit with the "mistake of fact" world she was living in, it's not her fault.

She isn't even required to be live in her fantasy world consistently for it to be an excuse.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
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 Back to Top
Old 28th August 2019, 07:55 AM   #496
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 6,910
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Ah but you see that's where the dual-apologist come in. You see she was also.. a little tired.

That why even when she acts in a way that doesn't fit with the "mistake of fact" world she was living in, it's not her fault.

She isn't even required to be live in her fantasy world consistently for it to be an excuse.
I have apparently been living my life all wrong.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2019, 09:14 AM   #497
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Currently Dismembered
Posts: 8,732
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
From your same exact source:



Which fits along with some of the evidence so far. Again, Mistake of Fact only gets you to the door. If she knocked at all, that defense is gone. That means she recognized she was at the wrong apartment, why else would you knock on your own damn door if you're not in your apartment? It also means the door wasn't ajar, or propped open, and her key had been denied.

Answering your last couple posts:

You are still baldly asserting that your interpretation of mistake-of-fact trumps that of *Thermal composes himself* a Dallas County prosecutor and practicing Texas criminal defense attorney. Gonna have to go ahead and ask: on what expertise do you dismiss his intrrpretation of Texas law in this matter? Not your feels, or your wishes, if you please.

For you and at least one other comprehension challenged poster: I want to see this bitch swinging from the nearest gallows. I find it an obscene travesty that Texas law may provide an out for her, and I am pretty obviously outraged by this. I have been arguing that her actions were reprehensibly callous and indifferent to human life, for multiple reasons that I have fleshed out in painful detail. You see this as...apologetics.

Really can't help you here, bud.

Eta, forgot: a poster asked if Guyger identified herself as police. I responded that we don't know, but pointed out that you can identify a uniformed police officer standing in front of you in like a tenth of a second. That's not apologetics either. That's answering a question as completely as I could think to, for someone who appears not to have been following the thread. The insanity, as you call it, is in twisting that answer to be 'apologetics' from the poster who cuts this c- word the absolute least amount of slack of anyone on the thread
__________________
"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; 28th August 2019 at 09:25 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 Back to Top
Old 28th August 2019, 09:41 AM   #498
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 21,508
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
American cops retain cop powers even when off duty



Mistake of fact requires the reasonable person standard. That a reasonable person could reasonably make that error. It doesn't mean just any old claim of mistake. Its not that complicated.
The first part - that doesn't include warrantless entry into someone else's property except in very specific circumstances.

I agree with your second part, but in this case, there are several mistakes of fact that all needed to line up.

I was saying that she was obviously guilty of Negligent Homicide at least, but looking at https://sharpcriminalattorney.com/bl...-consequences/ that looks to be far less serious, and deals with crimes of omission.


Quote:
Criminally Negligent Homicide vs. Manslaughter
Criminally negligent homicide is similar to another criminal offense known as manslaughter. In terms of punishment, criminally negligent homicide is not as severe as manslaughter. However, these two charges share some characteristics.

For example, they both involve the killing of another person without the element of premeditation. Manslaughter, however, refers to the death of another person caused by recklessness. A person who commits a “heat of passion” killing may be charged with manslaughter because they acted with disregard for another person’s life, even though they did not plan to. Also, a person who fires a gun randomly and kills another person may be charged with manslaughter because they recklessly disregarded gun safety.

Criminally negligent homicide is a distinct charge because it refers to a death that is caused by a person who omitted certain actions even though they should know better. For example, a person who fails to help a person that they have injured may be charged with this offense if that person dies as a result of their injury.
At the kindest, she had been lethally reckless, and her recklessness was at the end of a chain of inattention.
  • She failed to spot that she'd gone to the wrong floor
  • When getting to the wrong door, she failed to spot that it wasn't hers.
  • She then spotted someone in the apartment who wasn't behaving* as an intruder.
  • She claims that she gave him instructions that he disobeyed. Given her performance up to this, that is possibly questionable.
  • She then shot him twice. I guess it was surprising that Ms Magoo managed to hit him, but unfortunately she did.




*Not ransacking his own room, nor skulking around but behaving as though he was at home
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2019, 09:55 AM   #499
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 6,910
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Answering your last couple posts:

You are still baldly asserting that your interpretation of mistake-of-fact trumps that of *Thermal composes himself* a Dallas County prosecutor and practicing Texas criminal defense attorney. Gonna have to go ahead and ask: on what expertise do you dismiss his intrrpretation of Texas law in this matter? Not your feels, or your wishes, if you please.
LoL No, I'm not baldly asserting that at all. So before you haul off and claim I can't read for comprehension, perhaps you should read for comprehension, eh?

The individual you are using as a source is stating the part you quoted while going on the premise that she mistakenly walked to the wrong apartment, entered it (because the door was ajar), and OMGZ, Evil Doer!!!! pew pew!!!

In other words, what SHE is claiming happened. I specifically quoted the ******* affidavit that directly refutes that claim. Meaning, your dood might be entirely right, but he's operating off of a different set of information FROM THE ******* POINT WHERE AMBER GETS TO THE GOD DAMN DOOR. From that point, Amber could be full of **** entirely. Get it? Am I clear? So her Mistake of Fact ONLY GETS HER TO THE ******* DOOR. After that her claim is completely unfounded and unsupported.

Also, I quoted the same guy, the same quote you used, to show that he put a massive qualifier in there. He said she would have to tie her mistake of fact to her shooting. So again, Darat isn't wrong about it getting her to the door. It gets her there, and then she has to tie that into her shooting Jean.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
For you and at least one other comprehension challenged poster:
Yeah, that line has aged well.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I want to see this bitch swinging from the nearest gallows. I find it an obscene travesty that Texas law may provide an out for her, and I am pretty obviously outraged by this. I have been arguing that her actions were reprehensibly callous and indifferent to human life, for multiple reasons that I have fleshed out in painful detail. You see this as...apologetics.
Again, Master of Reading for Comprehension, if you're going to include me in something. Make sure I said it. I referred to the specific instance of you claiming Jean should have known she's a cop because she was wearing a uniform. Not all this other ******** you're attributing to me.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Really can't help you here, bud.
You haven't helped me with anything so far, no reason to think this would be any different.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Eta, forgot: a poster asked if Guyger identified herself as police. I responded that we don't know, but pointed out that you can identify a uniformed police officer standing in front of you in like a tenth of a second.
You can identify where you live in like...a tenth of a second too. She was standing with light behind her, not in front of her, by every count of the story.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
That's not apologetics either.
Yeah, it is as it's implying that Jean should have noticed she's a cop. The chain of conversation was that he should have listened to her because she was a cop.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
That's answering a question as completely as I could think to, for someone who appears not to have been following the thread. The insanity, as you call it, is in twisting that answer to be 'apologetics' from the poster who cuts this c- word the absolute least amount of slack of anyone on the thread
Huh? Who is cutting her the least amount of slack? You?
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss

Last edited by plague311; 28th August 2019 at 09:57 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 Back to Top
Old 28th August 2019, 09:56 AM   #500
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Currently Dismembered
Posts: 8,732
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
The first part - that doesn't include warrantless entry into someone else's property except in very specific circumstances.

I agree with your second part, but in this case, there are several mistakes of fact that all needed to line up.

I was saying that she was obviously guilty of Negligent Homicide at least, but looking at https://sharpcriminalattorney.com/bl...-consequences/ that looks to be far less serious, and deals with crimes of omission.



At the kindest, she had been lethally reckless, and her recklessness was at the end of a chain of inattention.
  • She failed to spot that she'd gone to the wrong floor
  • When getting to the wrong door, she failed to spot that it wasn't hers.
  • She then spotted someone in the apartment who wasn't behaving* as an intruder.
  • She claims that she gave him instructions that he disobeyed. Given her performance up to this, that is possibly questionable.
  • She then shot him twice. I guess it was surprising that Ms Magoo managed to hit him, but unfortunately she did.




*Not ransacking his own room, nor skulking around but behaving as though he was at home
Yes, but I can completely see walking up to the wrong door in an apartment building with similar layouts. It's a goofy, careless mistake, but it can happen. I can't wrap my head around that excusing the subsequent shooting, though, because I don't see it as a situation where anyone should have opened fire under any circumstances. Thars what makes this mistake-of-fact angle such an abomination. If the jury buys it as a reasonable mistake, she walks.
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2019, 10:24 AM   #501
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Currently Dismembered
Posts: 8,732
Plauge311:

I asked based on what credible expertise in Texas law you pull rank on the Dallas County prosecutor and practicing Texas criminal defense lawyer. You respond by saying it is some dood's opinion, and you continue with the bald assertions about how he is wrong because you declare that mistake-of-fact stops at the door, because you say so. It seems you are hanging all this on an early, vague lone report of knocking that has been silent since? Good enough, thanks.

If at some point you catch up on the thread, I have been howling from the start that she had no excuse whatsoever to draw and fire, based on what we know, and she should go down on murder 2.So yes, I don't cut her any slack for criminal negligence, or not properly identifying her target, or anything else. Murder ******* 2.
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2019, 10:31 AM   #502
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Currently Dismembered
Posts: 8,732
Dupe post. I hate cel phones
__________________
"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; 28th August 2019 at 10:33 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 Back to Top
Old 28th August 2019, 10:33 AM   #503
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 6,910
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Plauge311:

I asked based on what credible expertise in Texas law you pull rank on the Dallas County prosecutor and practicing Texas criminal defense lawyer. You respond by saying it is some dood's opinion, and you continue with the bald assertions about how he is wrong because you declare that mistake-of-fact stops at the door, because you say so. It seems you are hanging all this on an early, vague lone report of knocking that has been silent since? Good enough, thanks.
My assertions are no more bald than yours and I haven't pulled rank on anyone. I used his same exact words, the same exact words in fact that you provided. He said she had to tie it in, if you can think of a different definition of those words then I'm all ears. I also quoted to parts from your source, which included the affidavit from the arrest warrant, that you are now saying has been silent. You seem to want everything both ways.

What report hasn't been silent since? Can you link me to one? Take your time, I'll wait. There hasn't been new in at least 2ish weeks.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
If at some point you catch up on the thread
I am easily as caught up as you are, but I get it. If you imply I'm behind and lack information you can more easily dismiss my statements. There's a name for that.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I have been howling from the start that she had no excuse whatsoever to draw and fire, based on what we know, and she should go down on murder 2.So yes, I don't cut her any slack for criminal negligence, or not properly identifying her target, or anything else. Murder ******* 2.
Neat, you said least amount of slack out of anybody.

The things you say seem to consistently be at odds with other things you say.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss

Last edited by plague311; 28th August 2019 at 10:34 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 Back to Top
Old 28th August 2019, 02:54 PM   #504
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
 
Blue Mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 5,678
(Not as mod, because I'm not one.) Plague311 and Thermal, do you think you dial it back a bit? The discussion currently seems to be generating more heat than light. I'm asking in lieu of reporting a couple of posts and giving some poor mod an hour or two of work deciding if the thread needs to be cleaned up.
__________________
The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French)
Canadian or living in Canada? PM me if you want an entry on the list of Canadians on the forum.
Blue Mountain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2019, 06:27 AM   #505
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 6,910
It's a good way to kill a thread, but there's no reason conversations can't be heated. Also, swearing doesn't mean heated. I certainly wasn't heated just because swear words were used and it's a common misconception. I have and always will encourage people to report any one of my posts. My posts stand on their own, and I'll also stand by the fact that if a conversation isn't to your liking, just don't read it. No one is ever forced to read anything here and there are entire subsections of the forum I don't go to.

This has been happening a lot lately, must be something in the water.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2019, 06:30 AM   #506
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,324
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
No. The mistake of fact gets her to the wrong apartment, it does not cover her intentional shooting of Jean. Two separate and very distinct events.
Well it does in a way: once you think you're in your home you can be reasonably expected to defend yourself as if it were your home. That's on principle. However, not only is her intial mistake of fact not reasonable, imo, but since she was at the door she wasn't defending anything, even had it been her appartment.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2019, 06:33 AM   #507
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,324
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Answering your last couple posts:

You are still baldly asserting that your interpretation of mistake-of-fact trumps that of *Thermal composes himself* a Dallas County prosecutor and practicing Texas criminal defense attorney. Gonna have to go ahead and ask: on what expertise do you dismiss his intrrpretation of Texas law in this matter? Not your feels, or your wishes, if you please.
People can have opinions that disagree with the law. I find certain laws ridiculous.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2019, 06:36 AM   #508
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 20,925
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Well it does in a way: once you think you're in your home you can be reasonably expected to defend yourself as if it were your home. That's on principle. However, not only is her intial mistake of fact not reasonable, imo, but since she was at the door she wasn't defending anything, even had it been her appartment.
The difference is in order to meet the standards for self defense even within your own home you still have to present at least some level of situation awareness, target identification, and similar "I'm at least pretending to try to be aware of where I am"ness. You can't wake up in the middle of the night because you heard a noise in the other room and just shoot blindly into the dark without even opening your eyes or getting out of bed to check what the nosie is.

Again it all goes back to if this chick had the state of mind / situation awareness to identify a target as a threat, she had the state of mind / situation awareness to realize it wasn't her house.

If she didn't have the situational awareness to identify her apartment, she didn't have the situational awareness to identify the target and her self defense excuse falls even flatter.

This insane perfect balance between the two that can't possibly exist that we're being told we have to judge this situation under by the apologist is the issue, or rather one of many.

Long story short if she was so unaware of the actual situation she was in to be in the wrong apartment, there's no way she properly identified the target and vice versa. There is no way to "But she was sleepy mistake of fact in media reas" square that circle.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 29th August 2019 at 06:39 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 Back to Top
Old 29th August 2019, 06:43 AM   #509
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,324
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
The difference is in order to meet the standards for self defense even within your own home you still have to present at least some level of situation awareness, target identification, and similar "I'm at least pretending to try to be aware of where I am"ness. You can't wake up in the middle of the night because you heard a noise in the other room and just shoot blindly into the dark without even opening your eyes or getting out of bed to check what the nosie is.

Again it all goes back to if this chick had the state of mind / situation awareness to identify a target as a threat, she had the state of mind / situation awareness to realize it wasn't her house.

If she didn't have the situational awareness to identify her apartment, she didn't have the situational awareness to identify the target and her self defense excuse falls even flatter.
That doesn't even matter. She was in the door, not on her bed responding to someone coming in. In that situation at least she could say she was not able to retreat, or that she was protecting herself or her family from a potential lethal encounter. But here, even IF there was an armed intruder all she has to do is back away and leave, and she's safe.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2019, 06:47 AM   #510
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 20,925
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
That doesn't even matter. She was in the door, not on her bed responding to someone coming in. In that situation at least she could say she was not able to retreat, or that she was protecting herself or her family from a potential lethal encounter. But here, even IF there was an armed intruder all she has to do is back away and leave, and she's safe.
Indeed. If Guyger had fully entered the dwelling (ignoring how she would manage that and still not realize it was her apartment) and then been surprised by Jean there might, might be situations were her defending herself with lethal force might be... debatable at least.

But we're about a dozen nested excuses, most of which contradict other excuses, deep from any actual point that matters.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
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 Back to Top
Old 29th August 2019, 07:02 AM   #511
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,145
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Well it does in a way: once you think you're in your home you can be reasonably expected to defend yourself as if it were your home. That's on principle. However, not only is her intial mistake of fact not reasonable, imo, but since she was at the door she wasn't defending anything, even had it been her appartment.
I'm actually quite happy to give her the benefit of the doubt that she found herself at the wrong door, so I don't think she should be prosecuted for trespass (if that is a criminal matter in her jurisdiction) or breaking and entry*.

(*We do have a little bit of confusion as it is not clear if the door was open and how she actually gained entry but if we go from what she said she didn't break in.)
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2019, 07:09 AM   #512
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,145
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
A lot of posters seem pretty adamant that this Mistake of Fact thing is inapplicable to the shooting. 'IT WASN'T HER HOUSE' in big letters and stuff. You are all wrong. The Dallas Observer interviewed Dallas defense attorney Peter Schulte, former DeSoto cop and Dallas County Prosecutor who states (with what I hope we can agree is authority on the subject) that Mistake of Fact absolutely carries to the shooting and that the verdict will likely be murder or acquittal:



Done and done, unless someone has a more credible surrogate source. Mistake of Fact is extended to the shooting, and doesn't stop at the door. It does matter that she thought it was her house when she chose to shoot him.

Now let's just hope the jury doesn't buy it, and believes that popping off in the dark in an apartment building is a separate reckless crime unto itself, not covered by a self defense claim.

https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/...o-far-11125724
Thermal - that article is badly formated the part that says:
"If a jury believes that Guyger reasonably thought she was in her own apartment when she shot Jean, she's covered by Texas' castle law, which allows Texas residents to shoot intruders in their homes on sight, without criminal repercussions."
Those are the journalist's words and interpretation not those of Schulte. And I think if you remove that paragraph it is not as clear cut that he is saying the mistake of fact gets her past the door.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2019, 07:15 AM   #513
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,221
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
That doesn't even matter. She was in the door, not on her bed responding to someone coming in. In that situation at least she could say she was not able to retreat, or that she was protecting herself or her family from a potential lethal encounter. But here, even IF there was an armed intruder all she has to do is back away and leave, and she's safe.
The information is far from complete, however, it has been presented that the doors to these apartments shut themselves.
She could still have retreated- but it would have been more difficult to do so without turning around had the door shut behind her.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2019, 07:20 AM   #514
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,324
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I'm actually quite happy to give her the benefit of the doubt that she found herself at the wrong door, so I don't think she should be prosecuted for trespass (if that is a criminal matter in her jurisdiction) or breaking and entry*.

(*We do have a little bit of confusion as it is not clear if the door was open and how she actually gained entry but if we go from what she said she didn't break in.)
Uh-huh, but do you agree with the consequent: if you allow that she could reasonably think she was home, would it not mean that should be expected to defend that home?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2019, 07:26 AM   #515
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 20,925
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Uh-huh, but do you agree with the consequent: if you allow that she could reasonably think she was home, would it not mean that should be expected to defend that home?
Yes, in theory. But her actions following that would not meet the standards of self defense. She didn't identify the target.

Again this was an apartment. Let's say it was her apartment. She just put two into the center mass of an electrician the landlord let in to check a blown fuse. Or a plumber who was checking a leak in the apartment above her and killed the power for safety reason while he checked an overhead fitting. God help us if anyone ever throws this woman a surprise party she'll wipe out an entire family line.

You don't; not in your home, not on patrol, not a battle field, not when defending the last refuge of mankind from the horde of mutant foot soldiers of the Zorlackian Star Empire do you fire into the dark at something that might be a threat.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 29th August 2019 at 07:30 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 Back to Top
Old 29th August 2019, 07:27 AM   #516
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,145
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Uh-huh, but do you agree with the consequent: if you allow that she could reasonably think she was home, would it not mean that should be expected to defend that home?
Going to the wrong door is something I can accept one can do "unconsciously" if you like.

But entering an apartment, and deciding to kill someone and taking several steps to do that - nope I don't think you can do that "unconsciously" (and if someone could they are a clear and literally a deadly danger to society!)
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2019, 07:50 AM   #517
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Currently Dismembered
Posts: 8,732
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Thermal - that article is badly formated the part that says:
"If a jury believes that Guyger reasonably thought she was in her own apartment when she shot Jean, she's covered by Texas' castle law, which allows Texas residents to shoot intruders in their homes on sight, without criminal repercussions."
Those are the journalist's words and interpretation not those of Schulte. And I think if you remove that paragraph it is not as clear cut that he is saying the mistake of fact gets her past the door.
Schulte himself is directly quoted as saying if the jury accepts mistake-of - fact in getting to the door, she is entitled to acquittal (by extrapolating castle doctrine). I don't think there is anything equivocal or ambiguous in his statement. Unless you challenge his expertise in the matter, I think he would be the most credible authority on the matter yet presented, no?

And as I keep repeating, I sincerely hope the jury doesn't buy it. I don't think her shooting constitutes a legitimate use of self defense either, even in a no-duty-to-retreat state, but if Schulte knows what he is talking about (and I presume he does), then Guyger has a statutory out. That would be an abomination, but it looks like a real threat.
__________________
"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; 29th August 2019 at 08:16 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 Back to Top
Old 29th August 2019, 07:54 AM   #518
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Currently Dismembered
Posts: 8,732
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
People can have opinions that disagree with the law. I find certain laws ridiculous.
Agreed, of course, and I have been arguing vehemently that if this is a legit defense then I hope Texas reconsiders their laws.

However, the arguments lobbed against me have been pretty much in bad faith (racism and cop apologetics, for Christ's sake), so I'm bailing. Tis still a silly place

Eta: forgot the important part. I am getting arguments that mistake-of-fact simply doesn't apply, not that it's ridiculous.
__________________
"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; 29th August 2019 at 08:42 AM. Reason: either need glasses or a new phone
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2019, 08:32 AM   #519
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Currently Dismembered
Posts: 8,732
One other thing regarding this 'her house's thing. She was not the property owner. She was a leasing tenant. Even if she was in the hall, I think her leasing terms would extend to the hall and other common areas, and castle doctrine would still apply. Surely there would be Texas precedent on that?

Still holding out that the jury will not find self defense, but I don't know on what statutory grounds.
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2019, 08:48 AM   #520
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Currently Dismembered
Posts: 8,732
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
The information is far from complete, however, it has been presented that the doors to these apartments shut themselves.
She could still have retreated- but it would have been more difficult to do so without turning around had the door shut behind her.
*should shut themselves. I can walk you down to Penn's Landing and show you self closing doors in condos that notoriously stick. Might have this problem in the South Flats, too
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

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

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:41 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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

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