Trial of the year over.

[Vacation4us]

The prosecution was going to charge the policewoman with manslaughter, but the public was outraged and wanted her tried for murder. I guess people did not want her to get off too easily with this stupid mistake. And the jury also found her guilty of the charge.

PS. A manslaughter conviction usually comes with a 2-year prison term. For murder, the minimum is 5 years, according to info on the Web.

If this is true it’s disgusting. We are supposed to have a fair system not a lynch mob mentality that is far to prevalent today.

 

[Vacation4us]

Friend of mine lives in these apartments and they are confusing. The defense was able to find something like ~50 other residents that had gone to the wrong apartment before since living there. Amazingly, of those ~50, none of them felt the need to kill the person that was in their own apartment.

Correct verdict IMO.

So the apartments are confusing and at least 50 other people have a history of going to the wrong apartments.

But you still see no possibility that her story is true?

 

[Vacation4us]

The fact that no neighbor testified that they heard yelling does not mean that no argument occurred (i.e - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). I would note that: a) not every argument requires yelling; and b) yelling could have occurred and the neighbors may have not noticed.

Yes, I'm aware this latter point could be a problem for the prosecution, too, in the case of the "show me your hands" testimony you cited, but based on my reading over the last several years, this is something police do after they shoot someone - they say "I told him to show me his hands and when he didn't, I thought he might be reaching for a gun and feared for my life. So I shot him." In many cases, the victim did NOT in fact have a gun, but this statement got the police officer off the hook. I'm sure every police officer in the country knows that they should always say they yelled "Show me your hands " whether they actually did or not.

Again, I'll admit I have no knowledge as to what actually happened, but I find her tale to be so objectively unreasonable as to be simply not credible.

Finally, as someone above noted, she actually testified that she intended to kill him.

Anyway you slice it, this is a tragedy all around. For him and his family, as well as for her and her family. I don't know what we can do as a society about trigger-happy people who have a badge and a gun. I wish I did.

I have no words. Clearly you have a personal belief that is totally biased against the defendant if you believe what you posted.

 

[BeachOrCity]

I did not know this til yesterday but during sentencing they showed some social media stuff where she admitted being racist pretty blatantly. From my perspective that racism effected her decision in the moment to shoot the victim.
I think the 10 years (5 w good behavior) is not all all too harsh.

 

[NW-Bound]

oh really? scaredy-cat trigger happy?
Despite wall to wall publicity, such shootings are quite rare. And of course these "scaredy cats" respond to calls and get ambushed. Several cops have died that way recently.

I think your comments are way out of line.

There are other shootings that do not have the publicity of this case. I have been trying to find another body-cam video worn by a policewoman when she shot an unarmed guy.

And yes, I acknowledge that law enforcers have a tough job, and many do face sudden danger.

See videos I posted earlier.

If you want to see a model cop, watch the video below.

While writing a traffic ticket violation, this cop was ambushed by a thug that happened to walk by. After surviving the attack, he resumed issuing the citation to the waiting motorist.

He did get a flesh wound from being shot, and went to the hospital afterward. He was later honored with an award.

About cops trained to be on their toes at all times, there was this incidence in Flagstaff, AZ, where a cop responding to a family dispute call was shot and killed in a matter of a second when he least expected it.

 

[NW-Bound]

I have no words. Clearly you have a personal belief that is totally biased against the defendant if you believe what you posted.

Gumby was a prosecutor, I believe. He had been working with the police, and knows more than us laymen.


About the woman yelling "Show me your hands", even if she did it, I do not see how the victim would comply, not knowing that the woman was a police officer, nor that he was doing anything wrong inside his home.

Do you obey the commands of anyone who burst through your door?

If the apartment was dark, and the woman was at the door, he could only see her silhouette against the outside, and not recognize her uniform. In any case, she said in her testimony that the victim advanced towards her while saying "Hey hey hey..."

She also said to see only his silhouette because the light was not on inside the apartment.

Again, I believe that the woman walked into the wrong apartment, and was upset to find an "intruder", and thought she was justified to shoot to kill a burglar. Even if she was truly burglarized, she was not to shoot someone if she was not in danger. And perhaps she had no reason to think she was in danger, but was outraged that her "home" was invaded.

 

[Gumby]

I have no words. Clearly you have a personal belief that is totally biased against the defendant if you believe what you posted.

Based on some of your prior posts, I believe you are married to either an active or retired police officer, so you may have some of your own biases. That's OK. Our individual views of events are inevitably colored by our own experiences.

To repeat, for at least the third time, I do not purport to know what happened in this case. You may be right that it would be easy to misidentify her own apartment. Based on my experience, I doubt it, but you may have different experience. In any event, the apartment mistake is not dispositive for me. It is what came after that matters.

My view is that the other undisputed conduct to which Officer Guyger actually testified - among them, failure to retreat when she had the option, failure to seek backup, shooting at a target she couldn't clearly see and identify -- is so astonishingly unreasonable that her story just can't be true. Nobody, least of all a trained police officer, is that stupid.

And I don't think it is biased to observe that she had every incentive to cast herself as a moron rather than a murderer and to say that she feared for her life, because you can't shoot someone just for burgling your home, only for threatening your life.

But who knows? I could be completely wrong and she really is that unreasonable. I'm sure the appeal will get at some of these issues.

 

[NW-Bound]

What I have seen time and time again is that an officer feels justified in pulling the trigger if he/she feels threatened, or if he/she sees the person makes a wrong move.

They absolutely don't have to see a weapon. All they need is a suspicion that the victim is "going" for a weapon. The person being shot could be making a gesture, or scratching an itch, it does not matter. Shoot to kill when in doubt.

Search the Web, and you will find plenty of cases. For example, a deaf driver was shot, and it could be because he was trying to make a sign language. He did not obey commands.

 

[Just_Steve]

Based on some of your prior posts, I believe you are married to either an active or retired police officer, so you may have some of your own biases. That's OK. Our individual views of events are inevitably colored by our own experiences.

To repeat, for at least the third time, I do not purport to know what happened in this case. You may be right that it would be easy to misidentify her own apartment. Based on my experience, I doubt it, but you may have different experience. In any event, the apartment mistake is not dispositive for me. It is what came after that matters.

My view is that the other undisputed conduct to which Officer Guyger actually testified - among them, failure to retreat when she had the option, failure to seek backup, shooting at a target she couldn't clearly see and identify -- is so astonishingly unreasonable that her story just can't be true. Nobody, least of all a trained police officer, is that stupid.

And I don't think it is biased to observe that she had every incentive to cast herself as a moron rather than a murderer and to say that she feared for her life, because you can't shoot someone just for burgling your home, only for threatening your life.

But who knows? I could be completely wrong and she really is that unreasonable. I'm sure the appeal will get at some of these issues.

Maybe.

New York Penal Law § 35.20 states:

3. A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to
be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that
another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such
dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other
person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to
prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such
burglary.

 

[NW-Bound]

Maybe.

New York Penal Law § 35.20 states:

3. A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to
be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that
another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such
dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other
person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to
prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such
burglary.

I like the above.

"Hey, drop my TV or I will shoot! No, put it down gently on the ground."

I wonder if other places have the same law.

 

[NW-Bound]

OK, I found out more about the laws where I live.

Regarding home intruders:

Arizona doesn’t have specific castle laws; however, Arizona does permit physical force, and deadly force when reasonable and immediately necessary to prevent several serious crimes, including Burglary in the first and second degree. Practically speaking, intruders inside the home can usually be reasonably perceived to be committing theft or another felony in one’s home, which is the definition of burglary. Thus, the use of physical force against home intruders is almost always permissible. Deadly force is also allowed, but it must be reasonable and immediately necessary under the circumstances.

On the other hand, use of deadly force for theft outside the home is not permissible.

In Arizona, under ARS 13-408, a person can use reasonable physical force to prevent theft or criminal damage of property that’s currently under their control and possession. However, if only the loss of personal property is threatened, one cannot use deadly force. For example, if a thief were to try to take your cell phone, you would likely be justified in kicking, punching, and slapping in an effort to stop the thief. Conversely, it would be unreasonable to shoot or stab that person, unless of course, the thief was simultaneously threatening deadly force.

 

[jazz4cash]

oh really? scaredy-cat trigger happy?
Despite wall to wall publicity, such shootings are quite rare. And of course these "scaredy cats" respond to calls and get ambushed. Several cops have died that way recently.

I think your comments are way out of line.

Not out of line at all IMO. I wholeheartedly agree that too many cops are not well trained and/or lack temperament for the job.

 

[Vacation4us]

I admit I too have my own bias. I definitely knew nothing about this case prior to seeing a snippet on the news yesterday. I have no real opinion on her guilt or innocence. My initial impression was she must be young and unseasoned.

I haven’t learned the art of multi quotes or highlighting specifically what I was referring to in your message.

My DH is in law enforcement. So clearly I am pro law enforcement. I do find it astounding how law enforcement has been vilified in recent years. Certain organizations pushed for body cams, cops resisted and lost. Guess what those certain organizations have changed their tune and so have the beat cops. Why? Because more cops have been proven to be telling the truth and it’s no longer just the cops or the defendants word. But I digress.

My comment was based on;

. I'm sure every police officer in the country knows that they should always say they yelled "Show me your hands " whether they actually did or not.

Your statement leaves me speechless and once again disappointed for all the men and women who work tirelessly to serve their communities.

 

[NW-Bound]

oh really? scaredy-cat trigger happy?
Despite wall to wall publicity, such shootings are quite rare. And of course these "scaredy cats" respond to calls and get ambushed. Several cops have died that way recently.

I think your comments are way out of line.

Not out of line at all IMO. I wholeheartedly agree that too many cops are not well trained and/or lack temperament for the job.

I no longer watch TV so do not know of all incidences. However, a quick search on Youtube will show plenty of unarmed people being shot.

For example, here's the case of Justine Damond who was shot dead after she called 911 to report a possible assault and rape case behind her home.

When the police arrived and checked out the area, she came out and approached a squad car on the driver's side, and startled the two policemen inside the car. The one in the passenger seat drew a gun, and shot her through the open window. She was in her pajamas, and barefoot.

There are more cases like the above, if one is interested.

 

[NW-Bound]

Here are some statistics.

Each year, about 1000 people are shot dead by law enforcers. There's no statistics on how many are innocent and unarmed. There are another 2000 who are shot but survive.

On the other side, each year about 50 policemen are shot and killed by civilians in the US.


PS. It is estimated that 1 in 10 shot dead by law enforcers are unarmed.

 

[Gumby]

I admit I too have my own bias. I definitely knew nothing about this case prior to seeing a snippet on the news yesterday. I have no real opinion on her guilt or innocence. My initial impression was she must be young and unseasoned.

I haven’t learned the art of multi quotes or highlighting specifically what I was referring to in your message.

My DH is in law enforcement. So clearly I am pro law enforcement. I do find it astounding how law enforcement has been vilified in recent years. Certain organizations pushed for body cams, cops resisted and lost. Guess what those certain organizations have changed their tune and so have the beat cops. Why? Because more cops have been proven to be telling the truth and it’s no longer just the cops or the defendants word. But I digress.

My comment was based on;

. I'm sure every police officer in the country knows that they should always say they yelled "Show me your hands " whether they actually did or not.

Your statement leaves me speechless and once again disappointed for all the men and women who work tirelessly to serve their communities.

I suspected that was the part to which you objected, so let me explain why I say that.

First, let me give you some context. In my 27 year career as a lawyer, I questioned literally hundreds of witnesses. Every single one of them lied to me at least once. Simply put, witnesses lie - for a wide variety of reasons, but mostly because the truth jeopardizes them in some way. And the greater the negative consequences of telling the unvarnished truth, whether it be loss of their job, their freedom or their money, the more likely it is that they will lie. I don't have any reason to believe that police officers are less honest than other people, but I do know that they are people and all people lie.

How do I know that you (not you personally, but any witness) are lying ? Because the vast majority of the time (exceeding 99% of the time if I am questioning you on the stand and not at deposition), I already know the answer to my question before I ask it. I know everything you and every other witness has previously said about the topic. If there are documents involved, I know them inside and out, forward and backward -- better than you do. And I have sketched out for myself in advance, on paper, all the ways that you are going to try to evade, deflect, obfuscate, or otherwise not answer fully and truthfully. Then I have sketched out, for each one of those dodges, how I am going to follow up to make you say what you don't want to say, but which you and I both know is the truth.

Sometimes, confronting the witness this way is all it takes to get the truth. Other times, if they are particularly intelligent and recalcitrant, I will employ other methods. I have feigned ignorance or naivete in order to get people to drop their guard (the Lieutenant Columbo method). I have also done things to make them frustrated and angry, because angry people are more likely lose control (the "Few Good Men" method). I once deliberately mispronounced the witness' name over a dozen times, even after he corrected me, until he got so angry at me that he made a mistake and told the truth. I have deliberately nitpicked inconsequential errors in a witness' calculations and implied that they don't know how to do their job, to get them frustrated and angry before I move on to the important questions.

Now, with respect to this particular matter. You may think otherwise, but I don't believe police officers are stupid. I am fairly certain that every single officer in the country knows that if he or she has shot someone on the job, the smart thing to do is to say that the victim posed a threat to your life, so the shooting is considered justified. That means you say that you told them to show their hands, they wouldn't and you thought they were reaching for a weapon. Heck, I'll concede that 99% of the time it actually did happen exactly as the officer testified. But in that other 1% of the time, the officer is still going to say that it happened even if it didn't (unless he or she knows that there is dash cam or body cam evidence to the contrary). Why? Because: a) the consequences to the officer for actually telling the truth are severe and b) he or she is human and all humans will lie under those circumstances.

So I'm not biased against police officers. I'm biased against human beings.


P.S. - Let me add one more thing. You mention "all the men and women who work tirelessly to serve their communities" and I have no doubt that that is your experience with your husband and his colleagues. I personally know several people in law enforcement and they are dedicated public servants and decent people. But not everyone in law enforcement is. I once prosecuted a state trooper. He was the responding trooper in a fatal motorcycle crash on the highway. While at the scene, he stole several thousand dollars and gold jewelry from the deceased cyclist. He probably would have gotten away with it too, but the young man's parents knew that he always carried a lot of cash and had some distinctive gold jewelry. When they went to claim their son's body at the hospital, they asked where it was. Subsequently, the ambulance crew was questioned and they said the trooper took it. It was found hidden up under the seat in his cruiser. He took a plea deal, which resulted in a felony conviction, the loss of his job and his pension, and a year in prison.

 

[Gumby]

Maybe.

New York Penal Law § 35.20 states:

3. A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to
be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that
another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such
dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other
person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to
prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such
burglary.

Here are the relevant Connecticut General Statutes

Sec. 53a-19. Use of physical force in defense of person. (a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, a person is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force, and he may use such degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose; except that deadly physical force may not be used unless the actor reasonably believes that such other person is (1) using or about to use deadly physical force, or (2) inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm.

Sec. 53a-20. Use of physical force in defense of premises. A person in possession or control of premises, or a person who is licensed or privileged to be in or upon such premises, is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by such other person in or upon such premises; but he may use deadly physical force under such circumstances only (1) in defense of a person as prescribed in section 53a-19, or (2) when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent an attempt by the trespasser to commit arson or any crime of violence, or (3) to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry by force into his dwelling as defined in section 53a-100*, or place of work, and for the sole purpose of such prevention or termination.

MY NOTE

* this is "home invasion" defined as entry by force to commit a felony upon the person inside (i.e. - not property)


So, in Connecticut, you can use physical force to stop a burglary in progress, but not deadly physical force. Moreover, she was not in possession or control or licensed or privileged to be in the premises, so Sec 53-20 would not apply in the first instance. Her only available defense would have been reasonable fear for her life or great physical harm under 53-19.

I don't know the law in Texas.

 

[DFDubb]

So the apartments are confusing and at least 50 other people have a history of going to the wrong apartments.

But you still see no possibility that her story is true?

I actually believe her testimony 100%, but unfortunately, being confused is not an excuse for ending an innocent persons life. She deserves the verdict and far more jail time than she got IMO, even though I believe it went down as she said. Being a cop is not a license to do what you'd like w/o consequence (which is how a lot of them act IMO).

The jury didn't get to see it, but she has a lot of racist crap she spewed out in texts and on social media before this incident. She was also sexually involved with her married partner. She seems like a pretty big POS from my vantage point.

 

[razztazz]

So the apartments are confusing and at least 50 other people have a history of going to the wrong apartments.
But you still see no possibility that her story is true?

A whole new application of the old phrase: "They all look alike."

No judgement. No discretion. No brains at all. Just go for the gun first last and always. Why? because you know you can. Eff'ed it up? Just say, for a split second, you "felt threatened" whether or not you had a legitimate reason to. Or mumble something about "waistband." Killing is always the first stop after "feeling threatened", right? At least for those those who know they will get away with it. If it's so easy to walk into an identical apartment why didn't she try that angle first instead of cavalierly killing somebody who was minding his own business and not theartening her in any way!? You walk into somebody's house by mistake you apologize profusely and leave. Or kill 'em I guess? I guess she's stupid. Or a murderer looking to get an H/O that day. If he had shot her because she deserved it 50 cops would have been there in 5 mins emptying their guns into him because,.... you guessed it,.... they "felt threatened."

Nobody, no society needs people like this in it. Take out the trash.

As far as a possibility of her story being true? So what? It's "reasonable doubt" not absolutely no possibility of doubt. People make that mistake all the time. Maybe the judge did it? Or the D.A.? Who's better positioned to cover up their own crime spree? But it's not likely. It all comes down to who do you believe. No way I'm believing that cock and bull story.

 

[kaneohe]

Anyone seen this? https://www.dallasnews.com/news/201...rLhkAA3SXVdMwNHEEDzGyW8dIFWkniAnBlKgcG0QeXuQ/

 

[Silver]

I guess the take home message of this entire incident is......make sure the door to your home is closed and locked, even when you are there.

If the door had been locked, and she tried to use her key and it failed.....he might still be alive.

 

[easysurfer]

Anyone seen this? https://www.dallasnews.com/news/201...rLhkAA3SXVdMwNHEEDzGyW8dIFWkniAnBlKgcG0QeXuQ/

Yes, I read that. Very touching. I'll save you from being hammered for posting a naked link :

Chants of “No justice, no peace” drifted from the hallway into the the 204th District Court, and then Botham Jean’s 18-year-old brother stepped up to the witness stand Wednesday.
This was Brandt Jean’s chance to tell Guyger exactly what he thought of the former Dallas officer after she was sentenced to 10 years in prison for murdering his brother last year when she mistook his apartment for hers.

There were only two rules for his “victim impact statement”: no threats and no profanity.
What came next was a stunning moment that played out after many had left the courtroom and the world watched online. Even courthouse veterans wept at something they’d never seen before.
Jean took a breath into the microphone and began to speak. He hadn’t told his family what he planned to say, he told Guyger. He spoke for himself, not them.
"If you truly are sorry," Jean said. "I know I can speak for myself, I forgive you."

 

[razztazz]

I guess the take home message of this entire incident is......make sure the door to your home is closed and locked, even when you are there.

If the door had been locked, and she tried to use her key and it failed.....he might still be alive.

yes. Protect yourself from mindless murdering cops who make transparent excuses to "get away with it" because they know they can.
No reason to keep doors locked at all times just in case the cops wrongfully decide to kill you, None.
Cops need to know they can't simply "get away with it." THAT would have saved an innocent life. The door is not at issue.

 

[Gumby]

razztazz. I think you are painting with an unfairly broad brush and unnecessarily intemperate language, and if we continue down this path, my fellow moderators will close the thread.

 

[Just_Steve]

Truncated.

So, in Connecticut, you can use physical force to stop a burglary in progress, but not deadly physical force. Moreover, she was not in possession or control or licensed or privileged to be in the premises, so Sec 53-20 would not apply in the first instance. Her only available defense would have been reasonable fear for her life or great physical harm under 53-19.

I don't know the law in Texas.

I agree with this, my response above was only to your statement "because you can't shoot someone just for burgling your home," which in a lot of jurisdictions is not the case.