Officer Invades Apartment, Shoots Resident

[Soccerdad1995]

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.

[Grayling813]

I really thought she would be convicted of manslaughter. I agree with others who have said there is definitely some possibilities for this to be overturned on appeal and re-tried.

Sad story all around.

Only good news is "maybe" there won't be any rioting in the streets of Dallas tonight.

[Redneck_Buddha]

Was not there, did not hear the testimony. On its face, some kind of punishment is warranted. However, the first screw up was not granting a change of venue. The judge's conduct has been "interesting" since the outset. But like I said, I was neither at the scene, in the court room, nor am I a lawyer.

[The Annoyed Man]

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.

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.

[flechero]

Only good news is "maybe" there won't be any rioting in the streets of Dallas tonight.

What, no upper middle class revolt? No throwing Cabernet bottles at the passing Escalades and BMW's?? No looting at Golfsmith or Lombardo apparel??

[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/

[Grayling813]

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/

And remember...the internet is forever. Just because you delete something doesn't mean someone can't find it...like the Internet Wayback Machine, or wherever it was posted still has it on the server just not displayed.

[jb2012]

Only good news is "maybe" there won't be any rioting in the streets of Dallas tonight.

What, no upper middle class revolt? No throwing Cabernet bottles at the passing Escalades and BMW's?? No looting at Golfsmith or Lombardo apparel??

Response of the week hahahahaha

[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/

And remember...the internet is forever. Just because you delete something doesn't mean someone can't find it...like the Internet Wayback Machine, or wherever it was posted still has it on the server just not displayed.

I wonder if she gets to stay out on bail during the sentencing phase or does she go to jail immediately now that she is convicted of murder?

[powerboatr]

wow, after last nights reading i was sort of convinced man slaughter.

but i remain steadfast in a few questions that maybe will be answered.
her apartment was not decorated like jean's, didn't she notice the room was different or smelled different? I would assume through police training, that attention to detail is a paramount skill used often.
thats what stuck me. How do you not know the room is different from your own?

glad its partly over for now

[Redneck_Buddha]

Always invoke the 5th. This is a perfect example of why.

[RicoTX]

I didn't watch or read the entire case, so I may be missing something, but I think your actions upon realizing your mistake would play a big role with the jury. Did she do everything she could after shooting him to try to save him? I have no issue really with the verdict, and I do think she made a mistake saying she intended to kill him when she fired her gun. I still can't get my head around the whole mistaken apartment thing. Yes, manslaughter may have been a more appropriate charge, but again I think a lot would depend on your actions immediately following the event.

[flintknapper]

her apartment was not decorated like jean's, didn't she notice the room was different or smelled different? I would assume through police training, that attention to detail is a paramount skill used often.
thats what stuck me. How do you not know the room is different from your own?

^^^^^^
It is well documented that in periods of tremendous stress/fear that it is 'possible' to experience:

1. Tunnel vision.
2. Auditory Exclusion.
3. Tachypsychia.

So...failing to notice furnishings or other things (out of place) is not out of the realm of possibilities.

But the Officers grand mistake was failing to retreat, take up a more favorable position (she was smack dab in the Fatal Funnel IF the guy had been armed) and then call for back-up.

And let's face it, 'most' female LEO will be at a disadvantage when confronting the average grown male. It is a disparity of force (sans weapons) that they are all too aware of. As such....I believe they are more predisposed to draw their pistol (the equalizer) and be ready to shoot than might be warranted in many situations. And yes...I am well aware they go through the same training...yada, yada, yada.

But I've seen too many situations where a diminutive officer is challenged unless back-up arrives or they first come on (appropriate or not) like a pit bull. This can lead to a feeling of vulnerability which can lead to over reactions.

And to make matters worse today's LEO come out of Academy (many) having been exposed to something like this:

If today is to be THE DAY, so be it. If you seek to do battle with me this day you will receive the best that I am capable of giving.

It may not be enough, but it will be everything that I have to give and it will be impressive for I have constantly prepared myself for this day. I have trained, drilled, and rehearsed my actions so that I might have the best chance of defeating you.

I have kept myself in peak physical condition, schooled myself in the martial skills and have become proficient in the application of combat tactics. You may defeat me, but you will pay a severe price and will be lucky to escape with your life.

You may kill me, but I am willing to die if necessary. I do not fear Death, for I have been close enough to it on enough occasions that it no longer concerns me.

But I do fear the loss of my Honor and would rather die fighting than to have it said that I was without Courage.

So I WILL FIGHT YOU, no matter how insurmountable it may seem, and to the death if need be, in order that it may never be said of me that I was not a Warrior.

INSTEAD OF THIS:

Police Officer’s Creed

As a law enforcement officer, my fundamental duty is to serve mankind; to safeguard
lives and property, to protect the innocent against deception, the ‐weak against
oppression or intimidation, and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and to respect
the Constitutional rights of all men to liberty, equality, and justice.

I‐will keep my private life unsullied as an example to all, maintain courageous calm in
the face of danger, scorn, or ridicule; develop self‐restraint; and be constantly mindful
of the welfare of others.

Honest in thought and deed in both my personal and official
life, I will be exemplary in obeying the laws of the land and the regulations of my
department. Whatever I see or hear of a confidential nature or that is confided to me in
my official capacity ‐will be kept ever secret unless revelation is necessary in the
performance of my duty.

I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, animosities, or
friendships to influence my decisions. With no compromise for crime and with relentless
prosecution of criminals, I‐will enforce the law courteously and appropriately without
fear or favor, malice or ill will, never employing unnecessary force or violence and never
accepting gratuities.

I recognize the badge of my office as a symbol of public faith, and I accept it as a public
trust to be held so long as I am true to the ethics of the police service. I will constantly
strive to achieve these objectives and ideals, dedicating myself to my chosen
profession... law enforcement.

[srothstein]

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.

[K.Mooneyham]

her apartment was not decorated like jean's, didn't she notice the room was different or smelled different? I would assume through police training, that attention to detail is a paramount skill used often.
thats what stuck me. How do you not know the room is different from your own?

^^^^^^
It is well documented that in periods of tremendous stress/fear that it is 'possible' to experience:

1. Tunnel vision.
2. Auditory Exclusion.
3. Tachypsychia.

So...failing to notice furnishings or other things (out of place) is not out of the realm of possibilities.

But the Officers grand mistake was failing to retreat, take up a more favorable position (she was smack dab in the Fatal Funnel IF the guy had been armed) and then call for back-up.

And let's face it, 'most' female LEO will be at a disadvantage when confronting the average grown male. It is a disparity of force (sans weapons) that they are all too aware of. As such....I believe they are more predisposed to draw their pistol (the equalizer) and be ready to shoot than might be warranted in many situations. And yes...I am well aware they go through the same training...yada, yada, yada.

But I've seen too many situations where a diminutive officer is challenged unless back-up arrives or they first come on (appropriate or not) like a pit bull. This can lead to a feeling of vulnerability which can lead to over reactions.

And to make matters worse today's LEO come out of Academy (many) having been exposed to something like this:

If today is to be THE DAY, so be it. If you seek to do battle with me this day you will receive the best that I am capable of giving.

It may not be enough, but it will be everything that I have to give and it will be impressive for I have constantly prepared myself for this day. I have trained, drilled, and rehearsed my actions so that I might have the best chance of defeating you.

I have kept myself in peak physical condition, schooled myself in the martial skills and have become proficient in the application of combat tactics. You may defeat me, but you will pay a severe price and will be lucky to escape with your life.

You may kill me, but I am willing to die if necessary. I do not fear Death, for I have been close enough to it on enough occasions that it no longer concerns me.

But I do fear the loss of my Honor and would rather die fighting than to have it said that I was without Courage.

So I WILL FIGHT YOU, no matter how insurmountable it may seem, and to the death if need be, in order that it may never be said of me that I was not a Warrior.

INSTEAD OF THIS:

Police Officer’s Creed

As a law enforcement officer, my fundamental duty is to serve mankind; to safeguard
lives and property, to protect the innocent against deception, the ‐weak against
oppression or intimidation, and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and to respect
the Constitutional rights of all men to liberty, equality, and justice.

I‐will keep my private life unsullied as an example to all, maintain courageous calm in
the face of danger, scorn, or ridicule; develop self‐restraint; and be constantly mindful
of the welfare of others.

Honest in thought and deed in both my personal and official
life, I will be exemplary in obeying the laws of the land and the regulations of my
department. Whatever I see or hear of a confidential nature or that is confided to me in
my official capacity ‐will be kept ever secret unless revelation is necessary in the
performance of my duty.

I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, animosities, or
friendships to influence my decisions. With no compromise for crime and with relentless
prosecution of criminals, I‐will enforce the law courteously and appropriately without
fear or favor, malice or ill will, never employing unnecessary force or violence and never
accepting gratuities.

I recognize the badge of my office as a symbol of public faith, and I accept it as a public
trust to be held so long as I am true to the ethics of the police service. I will constantly
strive to achieve these objectives and ideals, dedicating myself to my chosen
profession... law enforcement.

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?