Officer Invades Apartment, Shoots Resident

[C-dub]

It's been a couple days since I heard this on the news and can't remember who said the following. I think it was a defense lawyer, a woman, that was talking about the circumstances the she, Guyger, knew them to be at the time she fired her shots. The lawyer was talking about her options and I thought she mentioned something about whether or not running away was an option if she feared for her life. That part bothered me because we do not have that obligation here in Texas before using deadly force.

I watch Fox4 news in the mornings. Did anyone else see that segment?

[jason812]

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.

[WildBill]

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.

Did the Ranger witness the shooting? If not, that it's his opinion, not evidence.

[C-dub]

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.

Did the Ranger witness the shooting? If not, that it's his opinion, not evidence.

If that were the precedent, then wouldn't Guyger be the only one the jury should be allowed to hear from?

[thatguyoverthere]

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)?

[Grayling813]

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.

[Mike S]

It's been a couple days since I heard this on the news and can't remember who said the following. I think it was a defense lawyer, a woman, that was talking about the circumstances the she, Guyger, knew them to be at the time she fired her shots. The lawyer was talking about her options and I thought she mentioned something about whether or not running away was an option if she feared for her life. That part bothered me because we do not have that obligation here in Texas before using deadly force.

I watch Fox4 news in the mornings. Did anyone else see that segment?

You are correct that in Texas we don't have a duty to retreat, as long as these elements of TPC 9.32 are met:

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

And, if this applies, then the next section prohibits it from being posed to the jury:

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

I haven't been listening to the trial, but if failure to retreat was mentioned in front of the jury, I'd guess it was decided that either she "wasn't lawfully present", or being in the wrong apartment constituted another crime such as trespassing.

[narcissist]

Really sounds like Houston and Dallas are a great place to live, with all the mishaps happening.

[C-dub]

It's been a couple days since I heard this on the news and can't remember who said the following. I think it was a defense lawyer, a woman, that was talking about the circumstances the she, Guyger, knew them to be at the time she fired her shots. The lawyer was talking about her options and I thought she mentioned something about whether or not running away was an option if she feared for her life. That part bothered me because we do not have that obligation here in Texas before using deadly force.

I watch Fox4 news in the mornings. Did anyone else see that segment?

You are correct that in Texas we don't have a duty to retreat, as long as these elements of TPC 9.32 are met:

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

And, if this applies, then the next section prohibits it from being posed to the jury:

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

I haven't been listening to the trial, but if failure to retreat was mentioned in front of the jury, I'd guess it was decided that either she "wasn't lawfully present", or being in the wrong apartment constituted another crime such as trespassing.

I haven listened to or seen any of the trial either. I only get sound bites on the local news. The lawyer that brought it up is not connected to the case.

[jason812]

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.

[thatguyoverthere]

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.

Apparently I did remember correctly. Here's a reference to his statement. Here's a quote from the Dallas CBS station website:

Trooper David Armstrong also said that he doesn’t believe the former Dallas officer committed a crime when she shot and killed Botham Jean inside his apartment after thinking it was her unit and that he was an intruder. However, this was said outside the presence of the jury. Judge Tammy Kemp ruled the jury would not be allowed to hear it.

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2019/09/25/tex ... tham-jean/

[C-dub]

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.

If that happens I don't want to be anywhere near Dallas for a few days after that verdict. I'm about 15-20 miles from downtown and that might even be too close on that day.

[03Lightningrocks]

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.

If that happens I don't want to be anywhere near Dallas for a few days after that verdict. I'm about 15-20 miles from downtown and that might even be too close on that day.

It is sad that we live in a culture that has gone from being about equal rights to one that is about special rights. The race should not matter and it sure as heck did not matter the night he was killed. She screwed up in a very bad way and should now have to pay for it. End of story. But no, they will turn it into a race issue. I am sick of it.

[Archery1]

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.

Did the Ranger witness the shooting? If not, that it's his opinion, not evidence.

If that were the precedent, then wouldn't Guyger be the only one the jury should be allowed to hear from?

No, expert witnesses will testify. The Ranger is law enforcement, but he is not an expert on the law. They have many, many code books and lawyers who are. As was stated, in his opinion, but opinions are not facts or expert.

[carlson1]

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