Officer Invades Apartment, Shoots Resident

[Archery1]

I bet that defense intends to try and make the Chief Ranger and expert witness when it comes to him testifying for them.

Maybe if on something else, based on investigative facts, but Judge already ruled he couldn't testify about the woman's reasonableness. He investigated the scene, not her mental.

[baseballguy2001]

The Rangers did a survey, something like 23% of the residents on that floor had put their key in the wrong door. The Ranger also stated in his opinion, He thought she didn't break the law. Guyger believed she was in her own apartment, was afraid she was about to be attacked, and feared for her life. He said on the stand, outside of the jury's presence, she didn't break any laws. If the jury gets to hear an LEO say that, the 1992 L.A. riots will look like a picnic.

[carlson1]

I bet that defense intends to try and make the Chief Ranger and expert witness when it comes to him testifying for them.

Maybe if on something else, based on investigative facts, but Judge already ruled he couldn't testify about the woman's reasonableness. He investigated the scene, not her mental.

No the Judged ruled he could not testify to his opinion “at that time and she would reconsider later.” I have been fortunate to watch it streaming live. I have seen about 85% of the trial live so far. The Chief Ranger is on the defense list. Why else with they want him again?

[carlson1]

This is also interesting from a prosecutor that is not involved in this case said.

"It's a really legally interesting case, how 'mistake of fact' can be such a powerful defense,"

...If the jury believes she was mistaken in entering the wrong apartment and perceived Jean as a deadly threat, Guyger could be acquitted of murder.

"So the real question is whether the mistake of fact defense negates that intent, and if it does she should be found not guilty," ...

[C-dub]

A mistake of fact has lead to the death of many people without any charges or convictions.

This is a very unfortunate situation no matter the outcome of this trial. An innocent man lost his life and this woman's life is ruined.

[Grayling813]

The accused profession should not be considered by anyone who forms an opinion as to whether or not the law was broken.
If Guyger was a mere LTC holder who did the killing of an innocent man in his own home, would the Ranger make the same conclusion?

[03Lightningrocks]

The accused profession should not be considered by anyone who forms an opinion as to whether or not the law was broken.
If Guyger was a mere LTC holder who did the killing of an innocent man in his own home, would the Ranger make the same conclusion?

I think no. But I do find myself questioning them trying to charge with murder. I have read a few of the statutes on what constitutes a murder charge and just don't see the elements as being there. Manslaughter on the other hand does fit her actions. Her being a cop may work against her because she is suppose to be professionally trained to keep her cool in these situations. There is also an atmosphere of anti cop sentiment in the air these days that could also work against her. The anti cop hysteria may be why they are going for murder charges. The DA is surely politically motivated.

[Paladin]

Amber Guyger Patrol Partner Testifies About Racy Texts The Night Of Deadly Shooting

She didn't sound tired at all in her texts. Is it not a crime to illegally enter someone's home, even by mistake?

Amber's attorney is getting paid to say this:

“Amber Guyger firmly and reasonably believed she was in her own apartment,” said Rodgers. “Amber Guyger firmly and reasonably believed that she had confronted an intruder in her apartment. Amber Guyger firmly and reasonably believe that she had no choice she had options but to use her gun.”

But it's hard to imagine an unarmed guy, stoned, at a distance of 15-30 feet would be any kind of real threat to a police officer with a gun in her hand.

If Amber is found innocent of all charges, this would allow police to "mistakenly" enter anyone's home, shoot them dead, and get away with it. Does anyone of us want to live in that world?

Based on this fact alone:

Five of the jurors are black, four are Hispanic, two are white and one is Asian.

...I don't think Amber is gonna walk. Amber made a number of serious errors and should face the consequences of her actions.

[Paladin]

Dallas Officer Accused of Killing Neighbor Had No Drugs or Alcohol in System, Detectives Testifies

Why in the world did they wait a YEAR to release this information?

[Paladin]

I have caught bits and pieces of the trial. Mainly reporting on the AM radio. Why did the jury not get to hear the Texas Ranger say she acted reasonably? I haven't seen an explanation why that statement was not in front of the jury.

I, too, have only heard bits and pieces. But I did hear that quote from the Texas Ranger. IIRC, he not only said that she acted reasonably, but also that no crime was committed (in his opinion).

Don't know why the judge did not allow it, but also not sure why the Ranger thinks that would not be a crime of some kind, to kill someone minding their own business in their own home by someone else who had no reason or right to be there at all. So how does the Ranger think it's supposed to work then? You just say "oops, sorry. My bad." Then everybody goes home at the end of the day (well, except for the innocent dead guy, of course)?

If the Ranger said that, he is helping destroy the reputation of the Texas Rangers as a fair and impartial investigative force.

Important words here

[WildBill]

Dallas Officer Accused of Killing Neighbor Had No Drugs or Alcohol in System, Detectives Testifies

Why in the world did they wait a YEAR to release this information?

This case has a lot of interesting legal maneuvers. Neither the prosecution or defense is required
to release the information. Based on their respective strategies they chose not to.

[WildBill]

This is also interesting from a prosecutor that is not involved in this case said.

"It's a really legally interesting case, how 'mistake of fact' can be such a powerful defense,"

...If the jury believes she was mistaken in entering the wrong apartment and perceived Jean as a deadly threat, Guyger could be acquitted of murder.

"So the real question is whether the mistake of fact defense negates that intent, and if it does she should be found not guilty," ...

Of course, I don't know the real reason. Maybe this prosecutor is going to run for the DA job in the next election and he wants to show the current prosecutor is too "aggressive".

[hondo44]

I have caught bits and pieces of the trial. Mainly reporting on the AM radio. Why did the jury not get to hear the Texas Ranger say she acted reasonably? I haven't seen an explanation why that statement was not in front of the jury.

I, too, have only heard bits and pieces. But I did hear that quote from the Texas Ranger. IIRC, he not only said that she acted reasonably, but also that no crime was committed (in his opinion).

Don't know why the judge did not allow it, but also not sure why the Ranger thinks that would not be a crime of some kind, to kill someone minding their own business in their own home by someone else who had no reason or right to be there at all. So how does the Ranger think it's supposed to work then? You just say "oops, sorry. My bad." Then everybody goes home at the end of the day (well, except for the innocent dead guy, of course)?

If the Ranger said that, he is helping destroy the reputation of the Texas Rangers as a fair and impartial investigative force.

I think it would have destroyed the prosecution's case. I don't think 1st degree murder is an appropriate charge and from what I heard of the opening statement, the prosecutor sounds like a slime ball. Sad thing is if she walks or even convicted of a lesser crime, I bet there will be riots stoked by outside agitators.

The bottom line is that as a LEO she did have the right to be there, technically. And statistically the most crimes are committed by Afro American males between the ages of 16 and 26. And this particular Afro American male was involved in illegal activities such as drug possession, drug use, and possibly lying in wait - due to leaving his apartment unlocked. It's possible he intended to do her bodily harm and she protected herself before he had the chance to act. It will be interesting to hear what the witnesses have to say but I am beginning to doubt the prosecution's story.

[C-dub]

The bottom line is that as a LEO she did have the right to be there, technically.

Whoa there cowboy. Why?

The police were not called to that apartment. She was not investigating a crime. She was not in pursuit of anyone. I'm curious about your assertion that she technically had a right to be in someone elses home.

[hondo44]

The bottom line is that as a LEO she did have the right to be there, technically.

Whoa there cowboy. Why?

The police were not called to that apartment. She was not investigating a crime. She was not in pursuit of anyone. I'm curious about your assertion that she technically had a right to be in someone elses home.

It wasn't a home, it was an apartment. There is a significant difference between the occupant and the owner. The owner of the property probably didn't have a problem with a LEO resident keeping an eye on things to make sure they are safe. In Texas, tenants do not have an absolute 4th amendment privacy right because it's not their home. The apartment owner can enter the apartment or have a PROXY enter the apartment such as a repairman or a security guard.