Officer Invades Apartment, Shoots Resident

[srothstein]

Flintknapper, I'm not LEO, I'm an aircraft mechanic, so forgive the question if it's a dumb one. Where did that Police Officer's Creed come from? Is that something common to a lot of departments, or specific to a certain organization? Also, where did the other creed come from, and who uses that one?

I have seen it off and on since I was in the academy in 87. Your question made me curious and I found quite a few references to it in a google search. Laredo ISD PD has it posted along with a few other agencies. I did find one agency (I think it was Sacramento County California Sheriff's Office) that had a note with it saying it had been adopted by the Peace Officer Association of California in 1956.

Be careful searching for police officer creed. You get lots of different results, some along these lines and some less agreeable.

[Paladin]

I think she made a fatal error during her testimony. The prosecutor asked her if, when she fired at the victim, did she intend to kill him....and she answered unequivocally, "yes". He immediately repeated the question, as if he couldn’t believe her affirmative answer, and the second time, she answered, "yes, to stop the threat" .... implying that she did intend to kill him to stop the threat. BAD answer. She must have been very flustered on the witness stand.

The answer that would have done less damage, would have been to answer the FIRST time, "no, I did not intend to kill him. I intended to stop the threat"; and repeat that answer if asked it again. I was really surprised when she answered the way she did.

But, it seemed likely that she would be convicted, and probably rightly so....

Agree completely. I think its a point that is vital for all of us to have a very firm understanding of.

[03Lightningrocks]

I think she made a fatal error during her testimony. The prosecutor asked her if, when she fired at the victim, did she intend to kill him....and she answered unequivocally, "yes". He immediately repeated the question, as if he couldn’t believe her affirmative answer, and the second time, she answered, "yes, to stop the threat" .... implying that she did intend to kill him to stop the threat. BAD answer. She must have been very flustered on the witness stand.

The answer that would have done less damage, would have been to answer the FIRST time, "no, I did not intend to kill him. I intended to stop the threat"; and repeat that answer if asked it again. I was really surprised when she answered the way she did.

But, it seemed likely that she would be convicted, and probably rightly so....

Agree completely. I think its a point that is vital for all of us to have a very firm understanding of.

I am a little surprised her attorney allowed her to answer like that. Surely he would have told her to say she was trying to stop him. Even if he did not, would a police officer be versed in the difference? I would think so. Maybe not.

I have to add that I am really beginning to think she is/was just trigger happy and maybe she wanted to kill a person. She may have just been praying for justification.

[Paladin]

They are in the sentencing phases and the DA has used a couple of her social media posts that make her look like she was looking to kill. The two that caught my attention were memes talking about shooting to kill. Makes me think about how social media has changed the world. Best be mindful of what you say out on the interweb. You just never know how it may come back at you one day. She probably thought nothing of posting the memes when she did it. Now it is being used against her to establish a state of mind. She was trying to delete all of them just after the shooting.

https://newsone.com/3887986/amber-guyge ... dia-posts/

Combine those posts with her testimony about how she was shooting to kill and sentencing is looking bad for her.

In some parts of the world law enforcement credentials are a license to kill. All of this evidence supports the argument that Amber thought she had a license to kill. Only now is she learning she didn't.

What an embarrassment. At the very least DPD needs to review their hiring procedures.

[03Lightningrocks]

They are in the sentencing phases and the DA has used a couple of her social media posts that make her look like she was looking to kill. The two that caught my attention were memes talking about shooting to kill. Makes me think about how social media has changed the world. Best be mindful of what you say out on the interweb. You just never know how it may come back at you one day. She probably thought nothing of posting the memes when she did it. Now it is being used against her to establish a state of mind. She was trying to delete all of them just after the shooting.

https://newsone.com/3887986/amber-guyge ... dia-posts/

Combine those posts with her testimony about how she was shooting to kill and sentencing is looking bad for her.

In some parts of the world law enforcement credentials are a license to kill. All of this evidence supports the argument that Amber thought she had a license to kill. Only now is she learning she didn't.

What an embarrassment. At the very least DPD needs to review their hiring procedures.

[Grayling813]

At the very least DPD needs to review their hiring procedures.

Hiring, training, use of force guidelines, de-escalation, moral standards ie don't have sex with married co-workers....

[flintknapper]

K.Mooneyham wrote:

Where did that Police Officer's Creed come from?

The first was posted on this forum some years ago by a forum member (then in Academy) stating it was read to them.

I have spoken with some of the LEO I know in the College Town I live next to and they confirm that various versions of 'Police Survival Creeds/Warrior Creeds' were presented to them while in Academy. No doubt as part of their training and in addendum to a more 'public service' creed...of which there are many variations.

Also, where did the other creed come from, and who uses that one?

The second was pointed out to me by an officer (retired now) that used to come into my place of employment (before I retired). We used to talk about different aspects of police work and he related certain 'changes' in the way things are done today compared to when he was on patrol. Some things...he liked...others he did not.



You can google Police Creeds, Survival Creeds, Warrior Creeds and read to your heart's content. WHO uses them (or others) is anyone's guess, training literature (beyond the basics) and the 'attitude' each Cadet leaves with...I am sure varies.

For certain...these are more dangerous times for LEO than in the past. The reasons for this are many, but I wish things could be more like they were when I was younger and there was still a 'connection' between LEO and the citizenry.

[Papa_Tiger]

K.Mooneyham wrote:

Where did that Police Officer's Creed come from?

The first was posted on this forum some years ago by a forum member (then in Academy) stating it was read to them.

I have spoken with some of the LEO I know in the College Town I live next to and they confirm that various versions of 'Police Survival Creeds/Warrior Creeds' were presented to them while in Academy. No doubt as part of their training and in addendum to a more 'public service' creed...of which there are many variations.

Also, where did the other creed come from, and who uses that one?

The second was pointed out to me by an officer (retired now) that used to come into my place of employment (before I retired). We used to talk about different aspects of police work and he related certain 'changes' in the way things are done today compared to when he was on patrol. Some things...he liked...others he did not.



You can google Police Creeds, Survival Creeds, Warrior Creeds and read to your heart's content. WHO uses them (or others) is anyone's guess, training literature (beyond the basics) and the 'attitude' each Cadet leaves with...I am sure varies.

For certain...these are more dangerous times for LEO than in the past. The reasons for this are many, but I wish things could be more like they were when I was younger and there was still a 'connection' between LEO and the citizenry.

A subtle but significant shift is the change in title of the officers themselves - Law Enforcement Officer rather than Peace Officer or Police Officer. It is a shift from "protect and serve the community" (more peaceful in my opinion) to "enforcement of law" (more militaristic/forceful, conjures up the image of an enforcer or strong-arm to force compliance). Words have power and unfortunately with the new way we refer to officers, it has a tendency to draw some of those who only know or want to use force as an option.

[jerry_r60]

I have not followed this case closely but here are a couple thoughts:
Her lawyer must have thought there was no chance without having her testify. IANAL but I think once he calls her then she has waived her right to plead the 5th to an individual question. Not sure about that but I think that's what happens.

Another thought, I thought this was manslaughter, if there were no other facts that came out to contradict the story that she mistakenly entered that apartment. It makes me wonder if how that was presented was not believed by the jury. If they didn't believe that then I'm curious what was believed to be the motive.

Did the Jury really believe she entered the apartment thinking it was her own and encountered what she believed was an intruder and shot/killed that intruder and they still found her guilty of murder?

[apostate]

I was under the impression appellate courts rule on whether there were procedural errors, or the judge misinterpreted/misapplied the law, leading to a wrongful conviction. That, generally speaking, the appellant doesn't get a new trial to try a different defense strategy, simply because they talked themselves into a conviction the first go 'round.

[The Annoyed Man]

I think she made a fatal error during her testimony. The prosecutor asked her if, when she fired at the victim, did she intend to kill him....and she answered unequivocally, "yes". He immediately repeated the question, as if he couldn’t believe her affirmative answer, and the second time, she answered, "yes, to stop the threat" .... implying that she did intend to kill him to stop the threat. BAD answer. She must have been very flustered on the witness stand.

The answer that would have done less damage, would have been to answer the FIRST time, "no, I did not intend to kill him. I intended to stop the threat"; and repeat that answer if asked it again. I was really surprised when she answered the way she did.

But, it seemed likely that she would be convicted, and probably rightly so. David French published an article today saying that one of the "benefits" of her conviction is that too often, officers hide behind the "I was scared" defense when being investigated/charged in the shootings of citizens, and too often the justice system has given them a pass on that. He said that the Guyger verdict will have the effect of trimming that tendency back some.

I honestly don’t know of that’s a garbage take or not, but it was an angle I hadn’t considered.

TAM, that snippet was what I had seen on a news show when I posted that she had just convicted herself of murder. I agree that her answer, which we have always said here and drilled into cadets in the academy, should have been that you shoot to stop the threat, not to kill or even injure. In a shooting, you do not have a preference for how the threat stops, whether it is a surrender and drop the weapon they are attacking with, fall to the ground injured, turn and run, or are killed. You just want the threat stopped.

I disagree with Mr. French's assessment of police shootings and the effect of this case on them. In reality, I see this as more of an armed citizen arriving home to find a burglary than a police shooting. Her being an officer was just a coincidence and really had little to do with the case.

The next step will tell us a lot more about how the jury felt about her as a defendant and how the circumstances affect it. I am assuming she is letting the jury sentence her though I did not check it. They could even recommend probation if they feel the totality of the circumstances justify it. I know of one case where the jury convicted an officer of aggravated sexual assault and then gave him just three years of probation for a sentence. They followed the law on the charge, which was proven, but believed the officer that he thought the sex was consensual.

I don’t think anybody believes that this wasn’t at the minimum manslaughter. I don’t have first hand knowledge of how and what actual charges were filed against her, but I had 2 or 3 criminal defense attorneys I chat with on Twitter explain to me that in THIS case, the question before the jury was guilt or absence of guilt on one charge—murder—and that a murder conviction in Texas carries a 5 to Life sentencing range. Neither of them mentioned probation as a possibility, so I assume that the minimum sentence she can receive is 5 years. Given the racially charged nature of the trial, the activists outside the courtroom, and all of the publicity, I have trouble believing that she’ll get off that "lightly". My guess is that she’ll get something in the 10-20 year range.

[Ruark]

There is certainly a race component in this case, no question about it. I was watching the prosecutor yesterday; he was blaring into the cameras, "This is for Michael Brown!" "This is for Eric Garner!!" "This is a victory for all black people!!!" It reminded me of the cheering when O.J. Simpson was acquitted.

[Ruark]

Another thought, I thought this was manslaughter, if there were no other facts that came out to contradict the story that she mistakenly entered that apartment. It makes me wonder if how that was presented was not believed by the jury. If they didn't believe that then I'm curious what was believed to be the motive.

Did the Jury really believe she entered the apartment thinking it was her own and encountered what she believed was an intruder and shot/killed that intruder and they still found her guilty of murder?

My thoughts as well. What happened to the principle of introducing "doubt"? Did the jury really believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that she deliberately, knowingly walked into his apartment and slaughtered him?

[Terry]

Another thought, I thought this was manslaughter, if there were no other facts that came out to contradict the story that she mistakenly entered that apartment. It makes me wonder if how that was presented was not believed by the jury. If they didn't believe that then I'm curious what was believed to be the motive.

Did the Jury really believe she entered the apartment thinking it was her own and encountered what she believed was an intruder and shot/killed that intruder and they still found her guilty of murder?

My thoughts as well. What happened to the principle of introducing "doubt"? Did the jury really believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that she deliberately, knowingly walked into his apartment and slaughtered him?

I think the challenge here is that she admitted to deliberately entering what she thought was her apartment with the intent to find the intruder. She placed herself in this situation. It doesnt make sense to enter your apartment when you think there's an intruder inside unless you fear for someone's safety. Even if you decide to enter your apartment to defend your property, it doesnt make sense that the first thing you do as soon as you see someone is shoot them. She didnt call out before entering she didnt try to figure out what's going on. What if it was her landlord. Or her ex boyfriend surprising her. It appears that she entered the apartment with the intent to shoot whoever was in there. I for one am happy that the law worked and this trigger happy idiot is not walking around armed!

[Scott B.]

Few female officers are going to win a stand-up fight with a male 'suspect'. That may lead to a shoot first situations. Sentencing should be interesting.