Dallas officer kills man after mistaking his apartment for her own

[BLAKE]

"In cross-examining Guyger, prosecutors emphasized that her training as a police officer should have informed her to back away from the door, hide and call for backup if she had suspected an intruder.

Guyger had her police radio, and she lives just two blocks from police headquarters, so she could have had other officers arrive quickly, prosecutors pointed out. Had she done that, Guyger was asked, might Jean be alive today?

"Yes, sir," she said."

This exactly.

[Ruffdaddy]

Baron threw up a good point and its very similar to what NPR has written:

"In cross-examining Guyger, prosecutors emphasized that her training as a police officer should have informed her to back away from the door, hide and call for backup if she had suspected an intruder.

Guyger had her police radio, and she lives just two blocks from police headquarters, so she could have had other officers arrive quickly, prosecutors pointed out. Had she done that, Guyger was asked, might Jean be alive today?

"Yes, sir," she said."

....

"In the state's closing arguments on Monday, prosecutor Hermus said the only way a defendant can claim self-defense to murder is when there is no other reasonable alternative.

Hermus said that was not the case when Guyger shot Jean.

"Self-defense means you're acting defensively," Hermus said. "She became the aggressor. That's not self-defense.""

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/01/765788338/ex-dallas-officer-who-killed-neighbor-in-upstairs-apartment-found-guilty-of-murd

[LS1Goat]

I don't agree with this at all. Amber Guyger did not come home that night with the sole intention of killing someone. That doesn't make any sense. She worked what a 13 hour shift, on top that she was sexting with a colleague on the way home and got distracted. I read at one point or the Defense had mentioned it, there were people who live in the building that said many times that have mistakenly went to the wrong floor on occasion. She did make some questionable decisions. Was overzealous in how she entered the situation. It's not logical to assume to she went home that night and thought I'm going to kill someone. It's manslaughter at best. They got denied a change of venue for a reason. Because of this very outcome. The Murder charge is bullshit. The prosecutor telling people she was just fine after an extended shift and it had no impact on her decision making progress.

And I assure you that public outcry, riots, and mayhem was in the back of everybody heads involved with this debacle. Thus, the request for a change of venue. Well, they got their wish. I hope she gets the charges reduced on appeal. I think she got hosed. It's a tragedy, not murder with forethought.

[lincolnboy]

If it was another country she would be guilty. Butter face butt nice body. Someone's new prison bitch.

[Ruffdaddy]

Damn, oh well she'll get an appeal and win it, I'm sure.
In reality she got convicted of texting/sexting and not paying attention to what she was doing and killed someone for that inattention. She also didn't do her herself any favors by testifying in her defense which I thought was a mistake.

This is along the lines of why i thought manslaughter would have been such a straight forward case.

What Baron said makes a lot of sense though and hopefully the appeal doesn't let her off the hook.

[Rick Modena]

Damn, oh well she'll get an appeal and win it, I'm sure.
In reality she got convicted of texting/sexting and not paying attention to what she was doing and killed someone for that inattention. She also didn't do her herself any favors by testifying in her defense which I thought was a mistake.

[jewozzy]

I never thought about it that way. Makes sense now why murder was pursued I guess.

The defense wanted murder to be pursued because the burden of proof on the state is much higher. I get that part but I don't agree with the Judge on not allowing some of the expert witnesses and testimony to be heard in front of the jury.

[jewozzy]

They already have a firm ready to appeal.

The fatal error on her part was opening the door and going in, gun drawn. She decided to go into the apartment, where she testified she heard someone in there, and shoot with the intention to kill that person.

This part may have been the worst prep for a trial I've ever seen, and I've sat in on dozens of murder cases.

She never should have testified that her intent was to kill. I think her brain was moving 100mph. She should have obviously said what is trained in all law enforcement "shoot to stop the threat". I'm not sure if that was a strategy by the defense which would have then forced the "mental state" she had at the time or what because no one ever says "I shot to kill the person" in an officer involved shooting. You're not trained to use that language so either she was completely ignorant to what she was saying or the defense had a strategy that backfired.

[Ruffdaddy]

They already have a firm ready to appeal.

The fatal error on her part was opening the door and going in, gun drawn. She decided to go into the apartment, where she testified she heard someone in there, and shoot with the intention to kill that person.

I never thought about it that way. Makes sense now why murder was pursued I guess.

[svauto-erotic855]

I'm shocked but I think she has some legal grounds for appeal. Two experts in the field both said they didn't feel she committed a crime based on the penal code and were not allowed to testify in front of the jury.

Either way I guess no riots for a while.

This aspect of the verdict has me pretty bummed out.

[svauto-erotic855]

Guilty of murder.

Thank goodness some common sense prevailed in this case. I'm just pissed that the jury didn't have the option of giving her a death sentence.

Without a doubt they will find some kind of trial error and get this kicked out on appeal. The new trial after that it's going to be a circus and she would be a fool not to cop a plea and beg for probation.

[Ruffdaddy]

I'm shocked but I think she has some legal grounds for appeal. Two experts in the field both said they didn't feel she committed a crime based on the penal code and were not allowed to testify in front of the jury.

Either way I guess no riots for a while.

Two biased experts....I cant believe you're still not getting this...

[Baron Von Crowder]

They already have a firm ready to appeal.

The fatal error on her part was opening the door and going in, gun drawn. She decided to go into the apartment, where she testified she heard someone in there, and shoot with the intention to kill that person.

[jewozzy]

I'm shocked but I think she has some legal grounds for appeal. Two experts in the field both said they didn't feel she committed a crime based on the penal code and were not allowed to testify in front of the jury.

Either way I guess no riots for a while.

[4bangen]

Didn't see that coming.