TX - Former Dallas Police Officer Amber Guyger, indicted for Murder of Botham Shem Jean #4

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thora_Jay said:
This case makes me sick to my stomach and I am full of disgust.

A human being relaxing in his own home late at night is murdered due to the fact that a member of an “Elite” Law Enforcement sworn to protect the public had not a clue as to where she resided.

She claims being tired, yet she wrote reports, legal documents prior to clocking out. Really? She was of sound mind to do that, yet right after clocking out she became senseless on her way home? She just happened to go to the door of the resident exactly one floor above her.

I am in no way shape or form believing the grasping at straws crap of being tired, getting lost and going the wrong apartment.

I can see that there will be more than one case dismissed on people that she accused in reports during her career because of her claim of being too tired from hours worked.
Click to expand...

Yes, the whole situation is very disturbing. Innocent people are not safe from police violence, even in the privacy of their own home.
 
I’m happy to see we have a new thread about this case. I’m hoping we can all be nicer to each other so this one can remain open. Please try to be kind to others, even if there views seem crazy or even self-serving.

Second, as much as I would love more information, I don’t want it at the risk of getting justice for the victim. I want the officer to have her due process just like any other citizen would (no more no less).
 
Mistake of Fact - LawShelf Educational Media

Mistake of Fact; the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the requisite intent to commit the crime. If the prosecution cannot prove that beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant must be acquitted.

I think that the prosecution is going to do an end run around here, and state that manslaughter charges are a moot point, because of the "Mistake of Fact", meaning that there was no intent to kill Mr. Jean. The Killer went to the wrong apartment (mistake), she saw an intruder (based on her mind set), and came to the conclusion that he was in fact, there to harm her. She responded, without intent, because she was still under the assumption of "mistake of fact", therefore unless the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Amber Guyger actually knew she was at Mr. Jean's apartment, rather than her own, charges would be dismissed.

Is that what you guys see? That is what it looks like to me. She may get off Scott free, not even a manslaughter charge.

And then, she can appeal to get her job back, with pay.
 
mickey2942 said:
Mistake of Fact - LawShelf Educational Media

Mistake of Fact; the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the requisite intent to commit the crime. If the prosecution cannot prove that beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant must be acquitted.

I think that the prosecution is going to do an end run around here, and state that manslaughter charges are a moot point, because of the "Mistake of Fact", meaning that there was no intent to kill Mr. Jean. The Killer went to the wrong apartment (mistake), she saw an intruder (based on her mind set), and came to the conclusion that he was in fact, there to harm her. She responded, without intent, because she was still under the assumption of "mistake of fact", therefore unless the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Amber Guyger actually knew she was at Mr. Jean's apartment, rather than her own, charges would be dismissed.

Is that what you guys see? That is what it looks like to me. She may get off Scott free, not even a manslaughter charge.

And then, she can appeal to get her job back, with pay.
Click to expand...


My head may spin if we have another Oscar Pistorius type case.
 
mickey2942 said:
Mistake of Fact - LawShelf Educational Media

Mistake of Fact; the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the requisite intent to commit the crime. If the prosecution cannot prove that beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant must be acquitted.

I think that the prosecution is going to do an end run around here, and state that manslaughter charges are a moot point, because of the "Mistake of Fact", meaning that there was no intent to kill Mr. Jean. The Killer went to the wrong apartment (mistake), she saw an intruder (based on her mind set), and came to the conclusion that he was in fact, there to harm her. She responded, without intent, because she was still under the assumption of "mistake of fact", therefore unless the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Amber Guyger actually knew she was at Mr. Jean's apartment, rather than her own, charges would be dismissed.

Is that what you guys see? That is what it looks like to me. She may get off Scott free, not even a manslaughter charge.

And then, she can appeal to get her job back, with pay.
Click to expand...

Amazing how, if the roles were reversed, there would be no chance in blue blazes of such a scenario of a killer getting off scot free. My ancestors who fought and died in the Revolutionary War must be spinning in their graves.
 
mickey2942 said:
I guess you get what you pay for, because this is based on the 2nd story...not the first one. It is shrewdly clever. Definitely someone spent some time with the law books to figure this one out, that quickly as a defense.
Click to expand...

Somehow I can't shake the idea that this was premeditated, too. Not planned days in advance, but a slow burn, going on for a while, culminating in the hatching of a plan to go upstairs, confront the guy and try to scare him, plant some drugs to get him busted, etc. I'd be willing to bet she already tried to get the apartment management to break his lease or some such. JMO, she had her excuse/story planned that would make it appear accidental if things went wrong. She's probably not a very bright person, so her excuse wasn't very good, hence the need to have an FOP attorney help come up with a different one after the fact. Her goal, JMO, was to somehow force him to break his lease and move out.

So yeah, that's not manslaughter. The fact she's been fired implies the case against her is fairly strong.
 
Betty P said:
Somehow I can't shake the idea that this was premeditated, too. Not planned days in advance, but a slow burn, going on for a while, culminating in the hatching of a plan to go upstairs, confront the guy and try to scare him, plant some drugs to get him busted, etc. I'd be willing to bet she already tried to get the apartment management to break his lease or some such. JMO, she had her excuse/story planned that would make it appear accidental if things went wrong. She's probably not a very bright person, so her excuse wasn't very good, hence the need to have an FOP attorney help come up with a different one after the fact. Her goal, JMO, was to somehow force him to break his lease and move out.

So yeah, that's not manslaughter. The fact she's been fired implies the case against her is fairly strong.
Click to expand...
I would add to your theory... Once he was evicted she would move upstairs to his top floor apartment, voila! No more noise problem from above.
 
Via Marple said:
I would add to your theory... Once he was evicted she would move upstairs to his top floor apartment, voila! No more noise problem from above.
Click to expand...
Very good. Also, a possible plan. Perhaps, if she was working as a security guard for the ac, she was making friends and greasing connections to make sure she got the next vacant apartment on that level. IF a thorough investigation is done, evidence will probably turn up that corroborates this or similar plans and activities. Sadly, it's the police investigating fellow officers, so it's hard to say how good an investigation they conduct, what will be lost or ignored, etc.

I hope she didn't plan to kill him. I hope she only came up with some cockeyed scheme to scare him, make him look suspicious and have him arrested and in jail for a while so she could plant incriminating evidence in his apartment. JMO, she had probably already done a background check on him and realized she wouldn't be able to frame or blackmail him to his employer with a previous record. Clean record would also mean its impossible to come up with some excuse to get a search warrant or some similar excuse for her to break in and arrest him.

I do hope LE check to see if the killer had done prior background checks on the victim using LE computers.
 
Last edited:
Betty P said:
Very good. Also, a possible plan. Perhaps, if she was working as a security guard for the ac, she was making friends and greasing connections to make sure she got the next vacant apartment on that level. IF a thorough investigation is done, evidence will probably turn up that corroborates this or similar plans and activities. Sadly, it's the police investigating fellow officers, so it's hard to say how good an investigation they conduct, what will be lost or ignored, etc.
Click to expand...
Try to be optimistic... Once this is over, the people in the know can speak freely what they know. Such details are not something a dodgy investigation could cover up.
 
I know what happens to Whistleblowers, it just isn't worth it. I am pretty sure these folks already know that. Sargent Schultz was very intelligent..."I know nothing, I see nothing".

All you need to know about working in the real world I learned from "Hogan's Heroes". I should write the book..
 
Via Marple said:
Try to be optimistic... Once this is over, the people in the know can speak freely what they know. Such details are not something a dodgy investigation could cover up.
Click to expand...

Except we've seen dodgy investigations allow killers to go free, numerous times. Learning hidden evidence from people who speak freely "after the fact" does no good once the killer has been acquitted.
 
mickey2942 said:
Mistake of Fact - LawShelf Educational Media

Mistake of Fact; the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the requisite intent to commit the crime. If the prosecution cannot prove that beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant must be acquitted.

I think that the prosecution is going to do an end run around here, and state that manslaughter charges are a moot point, because of the "Mistake of Fact", meaning that there was no intent to kill Mr. Jean. The Killer went to the wrong apartment (mistake), she saw an intruder (based on her mind set), and came to the conclusion that he was in fact, there to harm her. She responded, without intent, because she was still under the assumption of "mistake of fact", therefore unless the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Amber Guyger actually knew she was at Mr. Jean's apartment, rather than her own, charges would be dismissed.

Is that what you guys see? That is what it looks like to me. She may get off Scott free, not even a manslaughter charge.

And then, she can appeal to get her job back, with pay.
Click to expand...
I'm not seeing what you're seeing.

I don't see why the prosecution would have any trouble proving she intended to commit the crime.


What was her intent when she pointed her gun at him and fired at him? If it wasn't to kill him, then what was it?
 
Rocco said:
I'm not seeing what you're seeing.

I don't see why the prosecution would have any trouble proving she intended to commit the crime.


What was her intent when she pointed her gun at him and fired at him? If it wasn't to kill him, then what was it?
Click to expand...
She had no specific, developed intent to commit any crime, let alone murder.
 
The civil tort of wrongful death of BSJ by AG is clear. What is the underlying factor? Negligence - she was in his apartment not her own.

But is her negligence a criminal act? Perhaps. Criminally negligent homicide occurs when someone is so negligent, so unreasonably negligent, that another person died because of their act. The affirmative defense of mistake of fact is a question of fact for a jury to weigh. If every benefit of the doubt went to AG with the still confused facts we don't have, JMO I would probably find her criminally negligent specifically for not flipping on a light switch which I believe was right there within easy non-dominant hand reach in "her" (and BSJ's) door entry. I am ignoring the red mat and earwitnesses, other extraneous items like maybe AG was a security guard, etc.

The standard for manslaughter in Texas is recklessness. If there is ice on the road and although cautious and lawfully driving, someone's car goes out of control killing someone, there is no criminal act, just the civil liability. But if someone who is sober is driving 100mph and kills someone, it's vehicular manslaughter because the speed that they were driving at is inherently reckless. It doesn't matter that they had no intent to kill, they were reckless. If a drunk driver over the BAC limit, or any lower BAC or under the influence of drugs, kills someone, that's intoxication manslaughter. Again, no intent to kill, and for this charge reckless driving acts need not be shown, but the impaired driving in and of itself is reckless. All that said...

was AG reckless? I can only say that the quality of her weapon use and control will not be deemed reckless. She fired 1-and-2, with pause and aim. This is not reckless discharge of a weapon but controlled use. It is her decision to use her weapon while she is factually not in her apartment but someone else's apartment that may be criminally negligent or even rise to criminally reckless. I don't know if she was reckless, but I do think that if she had just one beer on her way home, plus being very tired, then she may be deemed impaired, and therefore reckless no differently than a driver well below BAC after just one beer who kills someone. More clear details in this case may also elevate her actions from possible criminally negligent homicide to the reckless standard of manslaughter, for which she was arrested.

I do not see this case rising to murder unless a whole lot more information comes out. She was not in the commission of a crime, she did not act with intent to murder. Compare the known alleged facts in this case to those of Clara Harris who lay in wait in her car, parked at the hotel where her husband was visiting his mistress. She waited until he emerged, and then she intentionally ran him over multiple times until he was dead. That case is murder, and is a sample of the intent or knowing of the murder statute in Texas. Harris was very lucky with the passion downgrade from murder1 to murder2. Most murders involve persons who know each other, or a Ted Bundy stranger rapist-murderer. I do not see the required mens rea for the murder standard in this case.

Hey, it's just one opinion in a sea of opinions. We need a LOT more information on this case. JMO.
 
Remember, this is a Texas jury. I doubt AG would want a bench trial, but it could be possible. Texas...Unless a lot more damaging information comes out, she may very well walk out, and get her job back.
 
Betty P said:
Except we've seen dodgy investigations allow killers to go free, numerous times. Learning hidden evidence from people who speak freely "after the fact" does no good once the killer has been acquitted.
Click to expand...
Well then... There must be a lot of killers who have got away with murder, in particular those who can charm, lie convincingly, with a bit of acting skills thrown in. Biases are everywhere. There is less justice in the world than we'd like to think.
:rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 98 more.
Total: 2,473 (members: 99, guests: 2,374)

Online statistics

Members online
99
Guests online
2,374
Total visitors
2,473
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
594,594
Messages
18,008,800
Members
229,440
Latest member
SLEUTHER TRAE PGH
Back
Top