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

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


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

Reply
Old 28th September 2019, 05:01 PM   #201
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,817
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
I seem to recall citations upthread explaining that there are charges less than Murder which do include prison time.
Manslaughter.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 05:01 PM   #202
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,347
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
Imperfect self-defenseWP. Texas actually originated this doctrine. Which would reduce it to manslaughter, for a sentence of 2-20.
Is that in Texas law somewhere? I don't see any reference to that. Note that in Texas murder does not require malice.

I think an imperfect self-defense would be consider in sentencing (I'm not sure what the Texas sentencing guidelines are), but I see nothing in Texas law that would prohibit a murder charge or even knock it down to a second degree felony.
__________________
"You really don't command the enterprise." - Leonard Cohen
DevilsAdvocate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 05:12 PM   #203
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,832
Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
Is that in Texas law somewhere? I don't see any reference to that. Note that in Texas murder does not require malice.

I think an imperfect self-defense would be consider in sentencing (I'm not sure what the Texas sentencing guidelines are), but I see nothing in Texas law that would prohibit a murder charge or even knock it down to a second degree felony.

It's in case law, rather than the penal code. I'll try to find some references tomorrow and post them.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 05:22 PM   #204
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,817
Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
So the punishment is a third degree felony:
OK. So CNH could wind up with prison time.

I'll let other people decide if imperfect self defense is what they had in mind. I'm also not clear that that reduces the charge to man slaughter or is a sentencing consideration.

ETA: So bottom line is that manslaughter may be an appropriate charge for this crime in Texas. Still not seeing CNH as it's defined in Texas. And I'm not really clear on whether imperfect self defense is currently recognized in Texas law or whether this rises to imperfect self defense.

Last edited by RecoveringYuppy; 28th September 2019 at 05:29 PM.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 05:27 PM   #205
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 79,058
How could you not notice the red rug in front of the door?

Quote:
"The fourth floor of the garage where Guyger backed in is open air. You can see outside. The third floor is closed in.

One of her neighbors, for example, had a large decorative planter outside her third-floor apartment, Hermus said, but no such thing was on the fourth floor.

Lighted signs displayed the apartment numbers outside each unit.

“She walks past 16 different apartments and fails to register the number 4 on any one of them,” Hermus said.

He held up a bright red doormat that Jean had outside his door. Guyger, on the other hand, had no mat — only gray concrete outside her door, Hermus said.

... And her apartment was neat, Hermus said. Jean’s was cluttered and, unlike her own unit, had no large table near the entryway."
Inside those apartments look considerably different.

Was there loud music on or singing at the time or not? That wasn't clear.

Had Amber ever complained about loud music in that apartment before?

Is there any evidence she went to her apartment first and then upstairs? Her car parked on the wrong floor supports her story.

The neighbors did not hear what she claims she yelled. Is there any reason to think the neighbor's testimony was unreliable?

If he was bent over when shot he might have been getting up. I suppose that could be interpreted as moving toward her.

Why did the cops search his apartment and not hers, for example to see if it looked like she'd gone to her apartment first? And if they searched his for drugs they should have searched her apartment for drugs, but more importantly they needed to draw her blood and look for intoxicants.

She testified that she tried CPR. That wasn't credible given she was outside pacing the hall when the police arrived. Lying about one thing suggests her testimony is not reliable.


I find her story hard to believe but I also can't see what motive she had unless she was pissed at noise as she was about to go to sleep after her night shift.

Establishing a motive other than an accident seems key to the prosecutor's case.

However, if it wasn't murder then it most certainly was negligent homicide.
__________________
TRUMP CHEATS What color hat should I order with that logo? Red on black maybe? Or black on pink?

Space Force.
Because feeding poor people is socialism.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 28th September 2019 at 05:29 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 05:27 PM   #206
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,109
Look at it this way.

Would the events being discussed functionally different from if Guyger had been sitting in her apartment (her actual apartment, not the alternative fan fiction universe where her apartment magically appears wherever she images it to be, willed into existence by her very thoughts that the defense and her apologist want this trial and argument to take place in), had been cleaning her service pistol after hours, had it accidentally go off, the bullet travel through the ceiling above her, into Jean's apartment, and kill him?

Yes, we can all agree that would be different.

This wasn't an "accident." She pointed the gun at another human being and pulled the trigger because she wanted that person to die. She didn't think the gun shot magical healing bullet. The gun didn't go off in her hand. She wasn't firing a warning shot and it ricocheted off the fridge door and hit Jean. Jean dying was the intended outcome of her actions. It's what she wanted to happen when she took the actions.

The law might not make the distinction and we can (and will) argue the pure semantics of it forever, but there is a difference between "accidental killing" and "I'm so wrong about so many factors I put myself into a situation where someone's death occurred."

This isn't the equivalent of taking your eyes off the road for a second and hitting a pedestrian in a crosswalk. This is the equivalent and getting into your car blindfolded, driving the wrong way down the highway, at no point taking the blindfold off when you hear the car horns honking and people screaming "What's the matter with you!" and then hitting someone.

If we as a society and legal system are going to maintain distinctions between accidental unlawful killings of various types and intentional unlawful killings of various types we have to, have to, retain the ability to go "No... your 'accident' is not reasonable" or as I've said many times we've essentially watered the concept down to asking people "Hey do you want to be a murderer or not?" and being forced to accept their answer.

There is a logical, moral, and there should be a legal limit to how "wrong" you can be about the situation and still use it as 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

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 28th September 2019 at 05:30 PM.
JoeMorgue 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 05:33 PM   #207
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 79,058
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Look at it this way.

Would the events being discussed functionally different from if Guyger had been sitting in her apartment (her actual apartment, not the alternative fan fiction universe where her apartment magically appears wherever she images it to be, willed into existence by her very thoughts that the defense and her apologist want this trial and argument to take place in), had been cleaning her service pistol after hours, had it accidentally go off, the bullet travel through the ceiling above her, into Jean's apartment, and kill him?

Yes, we can all agree that would be different.
It's also an interesting hypothesis. (I know you didn't mean it that way.) But I suppose that bullet hole was in the wall, not the ceiling.
__________________
TRUMP CHEATS What color hat should I order with that logo? Red on black maybe? Or black on pink?

Space Force.
Because feeding poor people is socialism.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 07:53 PM   #208
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,736
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Really? You can definitely be sent to prison in the State of Washington for CNH.
In Texas the max is two years in jail, as distinct from prison.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 08:05 PM   #209
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,736
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Well then, it's obviously not 1st degree murder. Unless your seeing some premeditation that I am not. Is there a 2nd or 3rd degree statutes?
....

Premeditation does not require any specific period of time. It's not like she had to get up that morning and say, "Today after work I'm going to kill my neighbor." It can be a matter of seconds between forming a thought and acting on it. She chose to enter the apartment, she chose to draw her gun, and she chose to fire her weapon at an unidentified "silhouette." Each of those -- and other things she did -- is a separate, distinct act, and at each point she could have made a different decision.

Quote:
"The process of premeditation and deliberation does not require any extended period of time. The true test is not the duration of time as much as it is the extent of the reflection. Thoughts may follow each other with great rapidity and cold, calculated judgment may be arrived at quickly."

"This purpose to kill may be formed a moment before the act but must exist for a sufficient length of time to permit reflection as to the nature of the act to be committed and the probable result of that act."
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictiona...editation.aspx

Texas apparently doesn't have second degree murder or an equivalent, which might be a more appropriate charge. But this was no accident.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 08:11 PM   #210
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 24,310
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Premeditation does not require any specific period of time. It's not like she had to get up that morning and say, "Today after work I'm going to kill my neighbor." It can be a matter of seconds between forming a thought and acting on it. She chose to enter the apartment, she chose to draw her gun, and she chose to fire her weapon at an unidentified "silhouette." Each of those -- and other things she did -- is a separate, distinct act, and at each point she could have made a different decision.


http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictiona...editation.aspx
Thanks, I know what premeditation is and I still don't see evidence of it.

Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post

Texas apparently doesn't have second degree murder or an equivalent, which might be a more appropriate charge. But this was no accident.
Accident? No. Understandable mistake? Possibly.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 08:13 PM   #211
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 24,310
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
In Texas the max is two years in jail, as distinct from prison.
A rose by any other name.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 08:22 PM   #212
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,736
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
A rose by any other name.

Actually not.
Quote:
Many people use the terms jail and prison interchangeably, as though all convicted offenders are shipped to a singular location to serve their sentences. However, there are actually stark differences between jail and prisons.

In fact, there are actually three types of correctional facilities in Texas: county jails, state jails, and prisons. Generally, a misdemeanor conviction result in incarceration in a county jail, a state jail felony conviction will lead to incarceration in a state jail, and a conviction for a third-degree felony or higher results in a prison sentence.
https://www.matthoraklaw.com/crimina...rison-vs-jail/
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 09:50 PM   #213
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 24,310
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
I cannot speak with any knowledge about the Texas prison system, but i have known people who have been incarcerated in more than a couple of correctional facilities in Washington and Oregon. They have said being incarcerated at any of them is not any fun. But there are differences which may make some better than others. And to a man, surprisingly, they have all said that jail can be much worse than prison. That's because of the temporary nature of jails. There are almost no rehabilitation programs in jails. Whereas in some prisons there are classes which not only can help them get jobs when they get out, it helps with the boredom. And in Washington State, particularly King, Snohomish and Pierce County are more crowded than the prisons.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 11:29 PM   #214
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,347
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
It's in case law, rather than the penal code. I'll try to find some references tomorrow and post them.
Thanks. I'd like to see that. I'll look around a bit myself. That could explain why the Rangers originally charged her with manslaughter.
__________________
"You really don't command the enterprise." - Leonard Cohen
DevilsAdvocate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 11:34 PM   #215
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 24,655
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
<snip>

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

Minimum two, maximum ten. Because she used a gun.

Early in the first iteration of these threads I cited a case of a Texas man who got eight years for CNH because he used a firearm.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 11:37 PM   #216
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 24,655
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Thanks, I know what premeditation is and I still don't see evidence of it.

<snip>

She stated under oath in court that she intended to kill him.

How long it took her to make that decision is irrelevant. When she made it is. She made that decision before she shot him. Hence intended.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2019, 02:52 AM   #217
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,516
Here, the words "prison" and "jail" are used essentially synonymously. I had no idea there was a distinction in America.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2019, 03:03 AM   #218
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,516
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
OK. Why did she shoot him if she knew she was in the wrong apartment and she knew he wasn't a threat?
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
She might be lying about some stuff, but nobody's claimed she's crazy. Why would she shoot the guy if she recognized she was in the wrong place and he posed no threat? To avoid the embarrassment of saying "Whoopsy! I'm sorry?" That's a little far-fetched.

This is what I want to know. If she did realise she was at the wrong house, then why on earth would she have proceeded to kill the occupant? It makes no sense, unless it was all a complicated plot to murder an annoying neighbour.

Conversely, if she didn't realise she was at the wrong house, as seems most likely, how on earth did she miss all the signs? Especially the red rug and so on? That doesn't make sense either.

That's why I'm suspicious she was high on the prospect of killing an intruder and that anticipation blinded her to what she should have seen.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2019, 04:11 AM   #219
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,109
I don't for a second entertain the idea that Amber Guyger intentionally went to Botham Jean's apartment for the express purpose of killing him.

However if we're being honest if Amber Guyger had went Botham Jean's apartment for the express purpose of killing him... what about the sequence of events would be any different to an outside observer? The only difference is what Guyger tells us.

That's been one of my major arguments this whole debate. If Guyger had shot Jean intentionally in a pre-planned fashion... how would we, the outside observers, know the difference? The actual events of what happened are not in question and the only thing in question is Guyger's mental state. If "In mens rea" and "Mistake of fact" mean what so many people seem to think it means, that whatever mental state this woman claims to be in is sacrosanct and unquestionable, how on Earth is premeditated murder even a crime we can convict anyone of ever?

Literally every murder could be committed and then after the fact the murderer could just go "LOL no I thought it was situation X and therefore I'm innocent" and we'd have to accept that.

I only reject the premeditated murder setup conspiracy theories because the "excuse narrative" is too convoluted. "Wrong apartment" is too messy of a fable. "I went to politely ask Jean to keep his music down so I could sleep after a long day of PROTECTING OUR FREEDOM AND SAFETY and the big scawwy drugged out black man charged at defenseless little ole' me so MY POLICE OFFICER SWAT TEAM NAVY SEAL TRAINING kicked in" would have been a better "story" to sell the exact same sequence of events.
__________________
- "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 online now   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 29th September 2019, 04:58 AM   #220
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,847
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I only reject the premeditated murder setup conspiracy theories because the "excuse narrative" is too convoluted. "Wrong apartment" is too messy of a fable. "I went to politely ask Jean to keep his music down so I could sleep after a long day of PROTECTING OUR FREEDOM AND SAFETY and the big scawwy drugged out black man charged at defenseless little ole' me so MY POLICE OFFICER SWAT TEAM NAVY SEAL TRAINING kicked in" would have been a better "story" to sell the exact same sequence of events.
I don't think "Too weird to be fake" is compelling.

Look at Smollett's story. A hot sauce bottle filled with bleach? And that was supposedly pre-planned over a long period of time

I don't find the premeditated theory compelling either. But if it were premeditatated, one of two things would have been the case.

1) Either she didn't have a cover story planned and came up with it in the spur of a very charged moment, in which case you wouldn't expect perfect logic in how rational the explanation sounded.

2) Or, the cover story would be prepared ahead of time, in which case she as an experience law enforcement officer might have a sense that a story that sounded too obvious might by itslef be suspicious because real situations are more idiosyncratic.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster 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 29th September 2019, 05:26 AM   #221
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,347
I'm just getting through the Day 6 testimony.

No pockets in his pants? Ohhhh, snap!

The defense keeps trying to overshoot and just digs themselves in deeper.
__________________
"You really don't command the enterprise." - Leonard Cohen
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 29th September 2019, 06:07 AM   #222
whoanellie
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 592
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Thanks, I know what premeditation is and I still don't see evidence of it.

Accident? No. Understandable mistake? Possibly.
Amber Guyger testified under oath that she intended to kill Jean. That's all the evidence of premeditation that one should need.
In my opinion her testimony hurt her defense. Her testimony that she was in fear for her life and she acted in self-defense was not credible. If she didn't act in self-defense and she intended to kill Jean then it's murder. The jury may compromise and find her guilty of a lesser offense but they will not be following the law.
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 29th September 2019, 06:13 AM   #223
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,347
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I don't for a second entertain the idea that Amber Guyger intentionally went to Botham Jean's apartment for the express purpose of killing him.

However if we're being honest if Amber Guyger had went Botham Jean's apartment for the express purpose of killing him... what about the sequence of events would be any different to an outside observer? The only difference is what Guyger tells us.

That's been one of my major arguments this whole debate. If Guyger had shot Jean intentionally in a pre-planned fashion... how would we, the outside observers, know the difference? The actual events of what happened are not in question and the only thing in question is Guyger's mental state. If "In mens rea" and "Mistake of fact" mean what so many people seem to think it means, that whatever mental state this woman claims to be in is sacrosanct and unquestionable, how on Earth is premeditated murder even a crime we can convict anyone of ever?

Literally every murder could be committed and then after the fact the murderer could just go "LOL no I thought it was situation X and therefore I'm innocent" and we'd have to accept that.
That's why we have the standard of reasonableness.
__________________
"You really don't command the enterprise." - Leonard Cohen
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 29th September 2019, 06:38 AM   #224
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,109
Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
That's why we have the standard of reasonableness.
Apparently we don't given how many cheerleaders this woman has.
__________________
- "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 online now   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 29th September 2019, 06:54 AM   #225
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 89,864
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
She might be lying about some stuff, but nobody's claimed she's crazy. Why would she shoot the guy if she recognized she was in the wrong place and he posed no threat? To avoid the embarrassment of saying "Whoopsy! I'm sorry?" That's a little far-fetched.
I said it earlier in a tongue-in cheek-way but my point was actually serious - I said she has watched too many cop shows on TV. She thought she was going be a "hero" cop bravely defending herself, she created that scenario in her mind and went on with it, ignoring all her police training and the common sense any "reasonable" person would have shown.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2019, 06:55 AM   #226
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 89,864
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
OK. Why did she shoot him if she knew she was in the wrong apartment and she knew he wasn't a threat?
See above, she created a scenario in her head and acted as if it was real. It is really the only explanation that makes sense.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2019, 07:21 AM   #227
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,097
Originally Posted by whoanellie View Post
Amber Guyger testified under oath that she intended to kill Jean. That's all the evidence of premeditation that one should need.
That's way less evidence of premeditation than I need. I'm pretty sure it's way less than the law requires, as well.

Can you explain your reasoning here?
theprestige 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2019, 07:34 AM   #228
whoanellie
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 592
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
That's way less evidence of premeditation than I need. I'm pretty sure it's way less than the law requires, as well.

Can you explain your reasoning here?
acbytesla posted "I still don't see evidence of it [premeditation]." My argument is that Guyger's testimony was evidence of premeditation and was sufficient to convict her of murder if you don't believe that she reasonably acted in self-defense.
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 29th September 2019, 07:41 AM   #229
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 89,864
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
That's way less evidence of premeditation than I need. I'm pretty sure it's way less than the law requires, as well.

Can you explain your reasoning here?
Nope - that would fall under most uses of premeditation. She intended to kill him prior to the act of killing him. For example:

Quote:
https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/premeditated/
The term Ďpremeditatedí means done with willful deliberation and planning. It refers to the intention of an act. For example, a premeditated murder.

A premeditated act can be an act that is carefully and consciously considered beforehand.

The following is an example of a case law defining the term:

The word "premeditated" means considered beforehand. [Musladin v. Lamarque, 555 F.3d 830, 843 (9th Cir. 2009)].
Quote:
Premeditation is planning, plotting or deliberating before doing something. For example, murder by poisoning automatically includes an element of premeditation. Premeditation is an element in first degree murder and shows the element of intent necessary to convict of the crime.

The amount of time necessary between the planning and the act to prove premeditation is judged on a case by case basis. Murder in the first degree consists of an intentional, deliberate and premeditated killing, which means that the killing is done after a period of time for prior consideration. The duration of that period cannot be arbitrarily fixed. The time in which to form a deliberate and premeditated design varies as the minds and temperaments of people differ, and according to the circumstances in which they may be placed.
By her own testimony she intentionally acted to kill him.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2019, 07:46 AM   #230
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,109
We're talking around each other as in:

- Did Amber Guyger, prior to the events in question (say prior to opening the door to Jean's apartment give or take a step in sequence of events or so) have any intention of killing Botham Jean. No, probably not. I don't think anyone here is seriously advancing the notion that this murder was premeditated or planned out on a long time frame.

- Did Amber Guyger have enough time during the sequence of events to go, on some level or in some context, "I now have to decide to or not to kill this human being in front of me." Many here would argue yes.

- Does this moment of decision making count as "premeditation." This is debatable, with points to be made either way.
__________________
- "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 online now   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 29th September 2019, 07:54 AM   #231
whoanellie
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 592
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
That's way less evidence of premeditation than I need. I'm pretty sure it's way less than the law requires, as well.

Can you explain your reasoning here?
If I understand you correctly, I agree that Guyger's testimony of her intention to kill Jean was (more than sufficient) but not necessary to prove premeditation.
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 29th September 2019, 09:44 AM   #232
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,617
Elizabeth Loftus and Katherine Ketcham

Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
This is what I want to know. If she did realise she was at the wrong house, then why on earth would she have proceeded to kill the occupant? It makes no sense, unless it was all a complicated plot to murder an annoying neighbour.
Hi Rolfe,

The only thing I can think of is that she ignored the cues that it was the wrong house because of her expectation. See my comment #176, which is essentially the same as what is below. By the way, your in-box is full.

"Two men in their mid-twenties were hunting for bears in a rural area of Montana. They had been out all day and were exhausted, hungry, and ready to go home. Walking along a dirt trail in the middle of the woods, with the night falling fast, they were talking about bears and thinking about bears. They rounded a bend in the trail and approximately twenty-five yards ahead of them, just off the trail in the woods, was a large object that was moving and making noise. Both men thought it was a bear, and they lifted their rifles and fired. But the "bear" turned out to be a yellow tent, with a man and a woman making love inside. One of the bullets hit the woman and killed her. When the case was tried before a jury, the jurors had difficulty understanding the perceptual problems inherent in the event; they simply couldn't imagine how someone would look at a yellow tent and see a growling bear. The young man whose bullet killed the woman was convicted of negligent homicide. Two years later he committed suicide."
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)
Chris_Halkides is online now   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 29th September 2019, 09:54 AM   #233
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,832
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I said it earlier in a tongue-in cheek-way but my point was actually serious - I said she has watched too many cop shows on TV. She thought she was going be a "hero" cop bravely defending herself, she created that scenario in her mind and went on with it, ignoring all her police training and the common sense any "reasonable" person would have shown.

As I said, she should have washed out of the police academy. Whether she just "fell through the cracks," or there was a systemic problem with her department's training is a question that should be examined, but probably won't.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2019, 09:54 AM   #234
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 89,864
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
We're talking around each other as in:

- Did Amber Guyger, prior to the events in question (say prior to opening the door to Jean's apartment give or take a step in sequence of events or so) have any intention of killing Botham Jean. No, probably not. I don't think anyone here is seriously advancing the notion that this murder was premeditated or planned out on a long time frame.

- Did Amber Guyger have enough time during the sequence of events to go, on some level or in some context, "I now have to decide to or not to kill this human being in front of me." Many here would argue yes.

- Does this moment of decision making count as "premeditation." This is debatable, with points to be made either way.
I think she decided she was going to play being a TV cop, wanting to be the hero and once she started playing that role nothing else entered her head. That's when the terrible sequence of events started that she could have avoided. This is why I've always said her mistake only gets her to the wrong door.
everything else was a deliberate decision.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2019, 09:56 AM   #235
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 18,621
Let's talk about application of the castle doctrine. To Botham.

He was sitting in his apartment keeping to himself. An intruder pushes open his door and starts screaming at him.

1) Her claim is that she yelled to "Show me your hands" and when he didn't, she shot him. Then again, he had no obligation to show her anything. He was peacefully sitting in his apartment, and an intruder burst in and started shouting commands. If the "castle doctrine" has any meaning, it has to mean that someone in their home does not have to follow the commands of an intruder.

2) I don't know about whether she claims he was coming at him or not (can't keep up with it), but even if he did, so what? He had the right to defend his home, yes? If we can't put her in jail for defending what she thought was her home, why is it ok for him to be killed for defending his actual home?
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2019, 10:09 AM   #236
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 24,310
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
She stated under oath in court that she intended to kill him.

How long it took her to make that decision is irrelevant. When she made it is. She made that decision before she shot him. Hence intended.
That's not premeditation, that's training. If she walked into the room intending to kill that's premeditation.
__________________
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 29th September 2019, 10:11 AM   #237
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 24,310
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
We're talking around each other as in:

- Did Amber Guyger, prior to the events in question (say prior to opening the door to Jean's apartment give or take a step in sequence of events or so) have any intention of killing Botham Jean. No, probably not. I don't think anyone here is seriously advancing the notion that this murder was premeditated or planned out on a long time frame.

- Did Amber Guyger have enough time during the sequence of events to go, on some level or in some context, "I now have to decide to or not to kill this human being in front of me." Many here would argue yes.

- Does this moment of decision making count as "premeditation." This is debatable, with points to be made either way.
My argument is you can't know beyond a reasonable doubt so you can not convict her of premeditation.
__________________
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 29th September 2019, 10:24 AM   #238
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,736
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
My argument is you can't know beyond a reasonable doubt so you can not convict her of premeditation.

She's not charged with "premeditation." Let's try this once again.
Quote:
The Penal Code defines criminal homicide as intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence, causing the death of an individual. This definition includes the four offenses of capital murder, murder, manslaughter, and criminally negligent homicide.

Criminal homicide in Texas is a definition and a category of offenses. Criminal homicide is not on its own a defined offense. It is also worth noting that terms used to describe offenses in other jurisdictions may carry no legal meaning in Texas. Terms not used in Texas include murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, premeditated murder, voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter. While these are common phrases in movies and TV shows, remember that most movies and TV shows are not made in Texas.

Another big difference between what we see on television and the actual law is the concept of premeditation. In laymanís terms, premeditation is the act of planning out and committing a crime, as opposed to committing it spur of the moment. How long you thought about killing someone isnít central to criminal homicide offenses in Texas. Whatís more important is the outcome of the conduct and the culpable mental state. For instance, whether you plan for weeks to murder another person, or whether or not you did it after you got into an unexpected argument and did it on spur of the moment, you will likely still be charged with the same offense in Texas. In other states, the charges might be different based on your premeditation.
https://www.versustexas.com/criminal/homicide/

She intended to kill him. She said so herself. Then she did. That's enough.
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 29th September 2019, 10:43 AM   #239
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 24,310
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
She's not charged with "premeditation." Let's try this once again.

https://www.versustexas.com/criminal/homicide/

She intended to kill him. She said so herself. Then she did. That's enough.
It's enough for what?
__________________
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 29th September 2019, 10:54 AM   #240
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,736
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
It's enough for what?
A murder conviction in Texas.
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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

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 02:33 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.