TexasCHLforum.com

Ruark wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 8:38 pm This is 30 minutes, but it's worth watching if you're interested. It shows the prosecution introducing the case to the jury. Pretty damning, before the trial even starts. One other thing useful about this video: if you ever end up in court for a self defense shooting, this gives you a taste of what you might be up against.

carlson1 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 4:36 pm The most power victim statement (Botham’s brother) I have heard and ended like nothing I have seen. I am old man, but I couldn't help it I cried.

srothstein wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:44 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 3:36 pmI 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.

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 3:04 pm

WildBill wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:17 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 1:35 pm

C-dub wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:08 pm WOW

WOW

WOW

When they appeal, I wonder how much of the testimony this jury didn’t get to hear will be presented or allowed. Then if this is overturned that’s it, right? It doesn’t go down to manslaughter, right?

And if that happens she is free because they dumped their mag in this trial with regards to convicting on murder instead of manslaughter.

IANAL, but I think that if there was a procedural error, such as improperly excluding testimony, then the case gets reverted back and can be re-tried (with the relevant testimony included). So not a complete reversal and freedom, but definitely a better outcome for the defendant than where she is at right now. Worst case, she ends up in the same exact spot.

I think that is why the judge allowed the castle doctrine defense, so the defense couldn't use that on appeal.
I am not sure about the other testimony - she did allow some testimony from DPS that related to state of mind.
The figures about how many other people went to the wrong apartments is a different story. I guess we will have to wait and see.
I understand why the defendant was allowed to testify, but I think it may have backfired. Although I don't know what else they could
have done to present their side of the story.

I'm not sure how the jury could have failed to understand her side of the story. It was pretty straightforward. She was tired, she went to the wrong apartment. She then made a series of bad judgment calls (entering the apartment without calling for backup, shooting without clearly identifying her target / determining whether he was armed, failing to use first aid supplies she had with her, etc).

I think the jury heard her side and decided that she was guilty. Maybe it will get overturned on appeal and another jury might see things differently.