GUILTY TX - Former Dallas Police Officer Amber Guyger, indicted for Murder of Botham Shem Jean #6

[Mickey Mouse]

That standing on the door on top of the red carpet realizing the door was unlocked she didn’t know or look around to realize she was at the wrong door. That is completely unreasonable imo. Then you’d have to believe she didn’t shoot him while he was squatting off the couch. That he was coming towards the door and was a genuine threat to her when she fired. This is refuted by the evidence from the ME. Basically, you’d have to take her word for everything in order to believe she’s only guilty of the lesser charges. And in doing so close your eyes and ears to the objective facts and common sense and logic.

SFF and BBM

Didn't AG testify that she was standing in the doorway and could *feel* the metal threshold? She was aware of the threshold beneath her feet, but she didn't notice the softer surface of the doormat she stood on?

 

[Jax49]

SFF and BBM

Didn't AG testify that she was standing in the doorway and could *feel* the metal threshold? She was aware of the threshold beneath her feet, but she didn't notice the softer surface of the doormat she stood on?

Yep. She did!

 

[Weki]

SFF and BBM

Didn't AG testify that she was standing in the doorway and could *feel* the metal threshold? She was aware of the threshold beneath her feet, but she didn't notice the softer surface of the doormat she stood on?

Right - that’s what she said - “the silver thing.” I think she emphasized that to get away from the red carpet question that you’re asking. We’re to believe she never even stepped on the red carpet. Again, her testimony stretches credulity.

 

[Poppyflower]

The defense makes a big deal about her finding "a good (parking) spot". It seems that doesn't happen often. So wouldn't that be red flag that she might be on the wrong floor? I think it might give me pause to double check I'm on the right floor.

 

[gitana1]

This is totally JMO, but I think she was bumping from one privilege to another as it benefited her narrative.

Agreed. I hope the state points that out and I hope the jury gets that.

 

[Poppyflower]

She was not a security officer for the apartments, she did not have a master key.

THANK YOU!!!

I must have read a rumor about this somewhere! I'll alert my post so that this info doesn't confuse anyone else lol

 

[blue22]

SFF and BBM

Didn't AG testify that she was standing in the doorway and could *feel* the metal threshold? She was aware of the threshold beneath her feet, but she didn't notice the softer surface of the doormat she stood on?

She did testify that. And then a witness for the defense said that an unfamiliar doormat was a clue and she realized that she went to the wrong floor. So....there's that. That witness was a defense own goal.

 

[AllyBeeUK]

On a larger scale, I have a big problem with someone who instigates a confrontation, kills someone, and then claims self-defense. The self-defense argument in these instances assaults the conscience. There have been many high profile cases like this. Curtis Reeves comes to mind at the moment. I’m specifically quoting that case bc both shooter and victim are white. Reeves is a former officer and elderly. Reeves instigated an altercation, shot the guy, then claimed he was in fear for his life.

In this case, of course, she’s claiming mistake of fact but the underlying argument is the same from the perspective of the victim. She entered his home, claimed she was in fear for her life, and killed him. I can’t stomach it and I never will.

I feel exactly the same way. At no point was he ever a threat to her. The poor guy was minding his own business inside his apartment, eating ice cream. She walked in and shot him, with the intention of killing him. She might have made a mistake in thinking she was in her own apartment and this might give her a defence in law but morally it does not.

On a different note, from reading these posts it is clear that we police very differently in the U.K. than in the U.S. It is sometimes underestimated how very different we are culturally. Just an observation.

 

[gitana1]

I think in order to believe she was acting recklessly or negligently you’d have to buy into her defense. Once you do that then you’re effectively removing the possibility of murder. And once you do that, then she’s justified in the killing itself and it’s just a question of punishment for her error. That’s really what the argument for lesser charges is about.

That standing on the door on top of the red carpet realizing the door was unlocked she didn’t know or look around to realize she was at the wrong door. That is completely unreasonable imo. Then you’d have to believe she didn’t shoot him while he was squatting off the couch. That he was coming towards the door and was a genuine threat to her when she fired. This is refuted by the evidence from the ME. Basically, you’d have to take her word for everything in order to believe she’s only guilty of the lesser charges. And in doing so close your eyes and ears to the objective facts and common sense and logic.

That's not a correct legal analysis. Again, the elements of a lesser included are contained within the higher offense. So being able to find her guilty of murder means you could have also found her guilty of manslaughter but you went a step further. Murder has an extra element. But finding that all the elements of manslaughter have been met does not preclude the higher charge. Otherwise it would not e a lesser included.

That's simply a misunderstanding of the law.

Do you believe she knew she was in the wrong apartment and chose to shoot him anyhow?

Because that's not what the state believes. They're simply stating that her mistake was not reasonable under the circumstances. So it's not a defense to homicide.

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

For those who may not know or may have forgotten:

from Websleuths TOS aka The Rules: Etiquette & Information

RACE/SEX/POLITICS/RELIGION BASHING and INTOLERANCE

Threads or posts promoting or expressing intolerant views toward a particular social group (such as race, religion, gender and sexual orientation) are prohibited. Introducing politics into a discussion is not allowed.

If members receive a warning for the above infractions, those points remain on the member's account permanently. That doesn't allow much leeway for any other lesser infractions.

 

[BeachSky]

The defense makes a big deal about her finding "a good (parking) spot". It seems that doesn't happen often. So wouldn't that be red flag that she might be on the wrong floor? I think it might give me pause to double check I'm on the right floor.

...talking to her partner/lover on the phone she said for a few minutes after she backed her truck into that prime spot.
If she fired from the metal threshold and she did not realize it was not her apt until she got to the counter where she saw the ottoman ..that must mean she was stepping over a wounded Bo ..who defense says was 10-13 ft from the threshold door. His ( we now know moved) flip flops near the door.
(Sorry for the run on sentence)

Doesn’t add up
MOO

 

[kodi]

I think in order to believe she was acting recklessly or negligently you’d have to buy into her defense. Once you do that then you’re effectively removing the possibility of murder. And once you do that, then she’s justified in the killing itself and it’s just a question of punishment for her error. That’s really what the argument for lesser charges is about.

That standing on the door on top of the red carpet realizing the door was unlocked she didn’t know or look around to realize she was at the wrong door. That is completely unreasonable imo. Then you’d have to believe she didn’t shoot him while he was squatting off the couch. That he was coming towards the door and was a genuine threat to her when she fired. This is refuted by the evidence from the ME. Basically, you’d have to take her word for everything in order to believe she’s only guilty of the lesser charges. And in doing so close your eyes and ears to the objective facts and common sense and logic.

Excellent post. Thank you for this.


Edited for punctuation.

 

[Weki]

Yes, I believe she knew she was at the wrong door and proceeded anyway. That’s the only reasonable conclusion imo based on what we know objectively and using common sense (which the jury is allowed to use). I believe she instigated the whole thing intentionally. The idea that she was in some kinda fog doesn’t compute to me. And I believe she lied on the stand. She lied about where she fired and where he was. Why is she lying? Why didn’t she render aid? Why wasn’t she just completely heart broken when she realized her “mistake”? Instead her focus was on Rivera.

Anyway, I never claimed to be a criminal attorney and my comments are not meant to be legal analysis. I will say though that a Texas criminal defense attorney on ABC was making the same argument this morning - that based on her testimony the lesser charges are moot. And it made sense to me. But we’ll know soon enough.

 

[Mickey Mouse]

The defense makes a big deal about her finding "a good (parking) spot". It seems that doesn't happen often. So wouldn't that be red flag that she might be on the wrong floor? I think it might give me pause to double check I'm on the right floor.

Yes! And typically people tend to park in roughly the same spots, so she also missed that the usual cars weren't around.

 

[Mickey Mouse]

THANK YOU!!!

I must have read a rumor about this somewhere! I'll alert my post so that this info doesn't confuse anyone else lol

It was a rumour, one of the early witnesses was the apartment manager who cleared it up and said she wasn't.

 

[Mickey Mouse]

Yes, I believe she knew she was at the wrong door and proceeded anyway. That’s the only reasonable conclusion imo based on what we know objectively and using common sense (which the jury is allowed to use). I believe she instigated the whole thing intentionally. The idea that she was in some kinda fog doesn’t compute to me. And I believe she lied on the stand. She lied about where she fired and where he was. Why is she lying? Why didn’t she render aid? Why wasn’t she just completely heart broken when she realized her “mistake”? Instead her focus was on Rivera.

Anyway, I never claimed to be a criminal attorney and my comments are not meant to be legal analysis. I will say though that a Texas criminal defense attorney on ABC was making the same argument this morning - that based on her testimony the lesser charges are moot. And it made sense to me. But we’ll know soon enough.

She may have considered her future with a living victim, able to testify against her, versus a dead victim. It wouldn't surprise me at all if she intentionally chose not to render aid.

ETA. That could also be why she chose to call 911 instead of using her radio.

 

[iluvmua]

And I doubt he said "Hey Hey Hey".

He probably said something like What are you doing in my apartment?

Jmo

 

[BeachSky]

A defense lawyer on CTV brought up a good point. Why would she not think that there was more than one person in her apt? Could of been a second guy in her bedroom.
He said it doesn’t make sense especially with her 5 yrs training - that she went IN.

JMO

 

[Jax49]

When considering how exhausted she was, remember she had plans that night. Whether you believe her (heading to gym) or that she wanted to met with her married lover she wasn't going home to crash. moo

 

[BeachSky]

And I doubt he said "Hey Hey Hey".

He probably said something like What are you doing in my apartment?

Jmo

Question
If he had Alexa ...
would it of saved data as to what they both said?