The other poster thanked me for elevating the conversation. Apparently he disagrees with you.
Having seen the comments here I'd say he who is judged to be an ass by some of the commentators is off to a good start.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Dallas PO enters wrong apartment, kills occupant
- Thread starter Palladin
- Start date
The other poster thanked me for elevating the conversation. Apparently he disagrees with you.
Having seen the comments here I'd say he who is judged to be an ass by some of the commentators is off to a good start.
"I'm gonna resort to personal insults and then excuse the immaturity as my public service attempt to educate the naive..."
"...then pretend his sarcastic appreciation is legitimate."
Yep.
Now let's stop feeding trolls and stick to updates on the news story that most of us are following this thread for.
Feeding - over. Added to ignore list. That solves that.
Palladin
NES Member
Watch Live: Amber Guyger Takes Stand in Her Defense
Guyger said she lived in her South Side Flats apartment on her own, with her Yorkie. She said when she walked her dog she would carry a knife after learning there were a number of break-ins in the area.
She's a Leo, WTF would she carry a knife?? How about a gun ??
Guyger said she lived in her South Side Flats apartment on her own, with her Yorkie. She said when she walked her dog she would carry a knife after learning there were a number of break-ins in the area.
She's a Leo, WTF would she carry a knife?? How about a gun ??
911 call.
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2009
- Messages
- 41,857
- Likes
- 79,514
If I was in her shoes, the investigators would be asking me: "We know you said that you shot the intruder in your apartment,
but can you explain the bloody drag marks coming down from his apartment...?"
but can you explain the bloody drag marks coming down from his apartment...?"
Live link to trial.
I was watching some of the trial and found a few things interesting.
1. The judge denied one of the defense teams "expert" witnesses. This is something that in general, I'm against. In this case, it was absolutely the right decision because there was nothing expert about what the defense wanted to do. It is however testimony you often get to see in trials. And usually when you see it, it leaves you thinking the whole thing is sham, so far as passing off someone as an "expert", when its nothing more than sheer speculation.
In this case, the defense wanted to use an expert witness to testify the positions he believed the victim to be in, and the defendant to be in, when she shot him. He was going to do this based entirely off the trajectory of the bullet that missed him and hit the wall. The judge, who admitted several times she isn't a geometry or trigonometry expert, kept asking how that would show with any scientific basis the trajectory of the bullet that did hit him, and where/how he was positioned. Which is a pretty damn good point. The defense tried to say it was the same thing as a medical examiner giving an opinion, which the judge rejected, because it's absurd. She definitely got this one right.
2. This was the most interesting. Usually, the prosecution calls on some police use of force expert, not the defense. Because usually, it's not a cop on trial. Here, we saw the exact opposite. What an interesting dynamic. If you didn't know ahead of time, when the defense was asking questions you would have sworn they were the prosecutor, and vice versa. It perfectly illustrated how blatantly biased these so called witnesses are, and how unfair trials in which prosecutors use them in are.
During the hearing to determine whether this witness would be allowed, he gave his "expert" opinion that her use of force was reasonable, and that she believed her use of force was reasonable, based on his training and experience. You all know the shtick. The stuff prosecutors when it's the other way around LOVE. Of course here, they objected. They accurately pointed out that whether her force was reasonable is the job of the jury. The judge agreed. She is limiting his testimony only to, based on his training and experience, people in a similar situation, or under stress, what physical sensations someone might experience. The judge again made the right decision.
That whole thing completely exposed how corrupt prosecutors are when they use these so called experts to give their personal opinions, which nearly always are that whatever force a cop used was reasonable. They know it's a jury's job to do this, and that it's purely a biased opinion, not an expert one. Yet it's almost always allowed. I'm hopeful this judge is actually an honest and fair one.
With that said, I still don't see a murder conviction. And with the prosecution focusing on that, and not negligent homicide, their chances of a conviction for that also decreases. If they focused on just a negligent homicide or manslaughter or whatever it's called in Texas, they'd have a great chances, just based on her testimony alone. Seeing pictures of the apartment, the red mat, her testimony she heard noise before she entered, the 911 call, her after actions, her focused on the affair she was having, deleting texts off her phone, it's seems rather clear to me her shooting him was a result of her own criminal negligence.
1. The judge denied one of the defense teams "expert" witnesses. This is something that in general, I'm against. In this case, it was absolutely the right decision because there was nothing expert about what the defense wanted to do. It is however testimony you often get to see in trials. And usually when you see it, it leaves you thinking the whole thing is sham, so far as passing off someone as an "expert", when its nothing more than sheer speculation.
In this case, the defense wanted to use an expert witness to testify the positions he believed the victim to be in, and the defendant to be in, when she shot him. He was going to do this based entirely off the trajectory of the bullet that missed him and hit the wall. The judge, who admitted several times she isn't a geometry or trigonometry expert, kept asking how that would show with any scientific basis the trajectory of the bullet that did hit him, and where/how he was positioned. Which is a pretty damn good point. The defense tried to say it was the same thing as a medical examiner giving an opinion, which the judge rejected, because it's absurd. She definitely got this one right.
2. This was the most interesting. Usually, the prosecution calls on some police use of force expert, not the defense. Because usually, it's not a cop on trial. Here, we saw the exact opposite. What an interesting dynamic. If you didn't know ahead of time, when the defense was asking questions you would have sworn they were the prosecutor, and vice versa. It perfectly illustrated how blatantly biased these so called witnesses are, and how unfair trials in which prosecutors use them in are.
During the hearing to determine whether this witness would be allowed, he gave his "expert" opinion that her use of force was reasonable, and that she believed her use of force was reasonable, based on his training and experience. You all know the shtick. The stuff prosecutors when it's the other way around LOVE. Of course here, they objected. They accurately pointed out that whether her force was reasonable is the job of the jury. The judge agreed. She is limiting his testimony only to, based on his training and experience, people in a similar situation, or under stress, what physical sensations someone might experience. The judge again made the right decision.
That whole thing completely exposed how corrupt prosecutors are when they use these so called experts to give their personal opinions, which nearly always are that whatever force a cop used was reasonable. They know it's a jury's job to do this, and that it's purely a biased opinion, not an expert one. Yet it's almost always allowed. I'm hopeful this judge is actually an honest and fair one.
With that said, I still don't see a murder conviction. And with the prosecution focusing on that, and not negligent homicide, their chances of a conviction for that also decreases. If they focused on just a negligent homicide or manslaughter or whatever it's called in Texas, they'd have a great chances, just based on her testimony alone. Seeing pictures of the apartment, the red mat, her testimony she heard noise before she entered, the 911 call, her after actions, her focused on the affair she was having, deleting texts off her phone, it's seems rather clear to me her shooting him was a result of her own criminal negligence.
I watched some more today. Particularly her own testimony. And it’s changed my perspective. I now understand the murder charge.
She was asked if she intended to shoot and kill him, and she said yes. She had a trama kit with her in a bag that she literally put down right next to him while he bled to death that she never used and when asked why said “It never crossed my mind.” The only thing she did was “a sternum rub”! She also testified that she would never wish anyone would have to go through HER situation. Not that she wouldn’t wish anyone to go through HIS situation. At no point did I see her express any serious concern for the guy she killed. It was all about her. Not a good look.
What also didn’t help her credibility is that she was having an affair with her married partner. She claimed to have broken it off, on moral grounds, yet admitted they continued to send each other naked photos all the way up to and including that very day. Because that’s different then having an affair and not a big deal. Ouch!
But back to the murder charge. The defense is going with self defense. They’ve conceded that her intention was to shoot and kill him. So really, either it’s justified self defense, or it’s murder. There isn’t much room for the lesser included charges. And really, that’s the only defense they can make. Anything else would force them to concede to one of the lesser charges. It’s probably smart on their part. It now forces the prosecution into the higher standard required for murder.
I still think what actually happened is that she killed him due to her criminal negligence.
She was asked if she intended to shoot and kill him, and she said yes. She had a trama kit with her in a bag that she literally put down right next to him while he bled to death that she never used and when asked why said “It never crossed my mind.” The only thing she did was “a sternum rub”! She also testified that she would never wish anyone would have to go through HER situation. Not that she wouldn’t wish anyone to go through HIS situation. At no point did I see her express any serious concern for the guy she killed. It was all about her. Not a good look.
What also didn’t help her credibility is that she was having an affair with her married partner. She claimed to have broken it off, on moral grounds, yet admitted they continued to send each other naked photos all the way up to and including that very day. Because that’s different then having an affair and not a big deal. Ouch!
But back to the murder charge. The defense is going with self defense. They’ve conceded that her intention was to shoot and kill him. So really, either it’s justified self defense, or it’s murder. There isn’t much room for the lesser included charges. And really, that’s the only defense they can make. Anything else would force them to concede to one of the lesser charges. It’s probably smart on their part. It now forces the prosecution into the higher standard required for murder.
I still think what actually happened is that she killed him due to her criminal negligence.
There's no premeditation, so murder is out the door. I don't know how she doesn't get hit with Manslaughter or similar charge. It was a mistake, but she brought a gun into that mistake and killed someone in his own home.
You or I would be 'Holy crap, sorry bro, wrong apartment', she drew and fired.
I also watched the hearing on whether to allow ANOTHER so called “use of force expert”. It reaffirmed how these guys aren’t actually experts at all. They are simply just cops or former cops who base their opinions that a police use of force is justified on other police use of force incidents, which likewise are also determined to be justified. And those are determined to be justified based on other incidents in a literally never ending cycle.
This guy attempted to pass off having other scientific expertise, but that was based entirely on non-peer reviewed articles written for cops by cops.
I was waiting on him to be asked how many times he’s testified that a police use of force was not reasonable.
These guys are simply paid witnesses who give personal opinions for the purpose of defending police under the guise of being experts.
I completely understand why the defense wants to use them. They’d be stupid not to. Their job is to put on the best defense for their client. However when the prosecution uses them, being that it is supposed to be the prosecutions job to present facts and get to the truth, it’s a totally perversion of justice. They provide zero factual or scientific information and simply espouse a biased opinion. And worse yet is judges often allow them and believe that it’s a valid expertise field comparable with actual scientific experts.
This guy attempted to pass off having other scientific expertise, but that was based entirely on non-peer reviewed articles written for cops by cops.
I was waiting on him to be asked how many times he’s testified that a police use of force was not reasonable.
These guys are simply paid witnesses who give personal opinions for the purpose of defending police under the guise of being experts.
I completely understand why the defense wants to use them. They’d be stupid not to. Their job is to put on the best defense for their client. However when the prosecution uses them, being that it is supposed to be the prosecutions job to present facts and get to the truth, it’s a totally perversion of justice. They provide zero factual or scientific information and simply espouse a biased opinion. And worse yet is judges often allow them and believe that it’s a valid expertise field comparable with actual scientific experts.
Texas law does not require premeditation for a second degree murder conviction. It requires they intended to cause serious bodily injury or death. She did, and testified directly to that.
There was a criminal defense attorney from Texas who was talking about this during breaks in the trial on the live stream. He was saying based on what he knew about the case before trial and now during it that murder is the only charge. It’s simply a matter of was it self defense or not now.
I agree and don’t believe it’s actually murder. I’m not trying the case.
Edit:
Rereading the actual Texas Penal code, it is murder. Negligent Homicide or involuntary manslaughter or when the actual act that causes the death be a result of something accidental, a mistake, recklessness, etc. She didn’t accidentally shoot him. She shot him intentionally. That the reason she shot him was a mistake or based on her negligence leading up to it, isn’t the same thing.
Last edited:
headednorth
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 26,839
- Likes
- 49,602
I have to admit I havent watched any of this. One thing that has always bugged me (and I apologize if this has been discussed already) is how the door got opened. Her key wouldnt work. Was the door unlocked? Did he hear someone figgiting with the lock and he opened the door?
Palladin
NES Member
in discovery it was found that his door didn't always lock correctly when closed. i believe they use electronic locks, as the defense said she tried her key fob and it didn't work
Based on what I’ve seen and heard about from the trial, is that the door was shut though not latched. The doors have a self closing mechanism (so they can’t just be left totally ajar), but they don’t always have enough strength to fully close and latch the door. So I imagine the door was mostly closed, would appear closed without close look, but the latch wasn’t fully engaged, enabling it to just be pushed (pulled?) open.
Alright, last thing I want to bring up for now that I found interesting. And I wonder if the jury will pick up on it.
The defense is taking the position that her mindset is that she’s coming home, and opens the door, and is confronted by an intruder who’s trying to kill her. Her mindset is just that of an ordinary person coming home to this situation, and not as one of a trained police officer. During her testimony, during cross the prosecution brought up her police training, and procedures. They talked about how their procedures say to call for backup, use time to their advantage, take positions of cover and concealment, focus on deesclation, and how she did none of this. The defense made sure to reiterate she wasn’t thinking as a cop would when responding to or seeing a burglary, but rather as just a person arriving at their own home.
At the same time, the defense is also calling all these so called expert witnesses who’s expertise is in on duty police use of force, and how police training relates to it.
Well either her police training is relevant or it isn’t. Now I don’t blame the defense at all. They need to try and put on the best defense they can. I’d expect and hope they’d try and frame it as when the things she did line up with training and policy and procedure, that’s why. And when it doesn’t, they reject it and say it’s not applicable.
But it seems obvious to me, saying she didn’t nor should even be expected to act in accordance with training and procedure when it doesn’t line up, yet was just following her training when it does, isn’t an fair depiction of reality.
The prosecution pointed out several times and several things she could have done that would have prevented the shooting. And she agreed! Her sole contention was that she wasn’t thinking that way, and just wanted to go home. And that’s why, despite hearing noise in the apartment before ever opening the door, she went in and shot him within seconds.
The defense is taking the position that her mindset is that she’s coming home, and opens the door, and is confronted by an intruder who’s trying to kill her. Her mindset is just that of an ordinary person coming home to this situation, and not as one of a trained police officer. During her testimony, during cross the prosecution brought up her police training, and procedures. They talked about how their procedures say to call for backup, use time to their advantage, take positions of cover and concealment, focus on deesclation, and how she did none of this. The defense made sure to reiterate she wasn’t thinking as a cop would when responding to or seeing a burglary, but rather as just a person arriving at their own home.
At the same time, the defense is also calling all these so called expert witnesses who’s expertise is in on duty police use of force, and how police training relates to it.
Well either her police training is relevant or it isn’t. Now I don’t blame the defense at all. They need to try and put on the best defense they can. I’d expect and hope they’d try and frame it as when the things she did line up with training and policy and procedure, that’s why. And when it doesn’t, they reject it and say it’s not applicable.
But it seems obvious to me, saying she didn’t nor should even be expected to act in accordance with training and procedure when it doesn’t line up, yet was just following her training when it does, isn’t an fair depiction of reality.
The prosecution pointed out several times and several things she could have done that would have prevented the shooting. And she agreed! Her sole contention was that she wasn’t thinking that way, and just wanted to go home. And that’s why, despite hearing noise in the apartment before ever opening the door, she went in and shot him within seconds.
Okay okay, last thing for real this time.
The defense is also going with that she had “inattentional blindness”, which is why she didn’t notice it was the wrong apartment. The problem is, their “expert”, when describing it, is saying that when one is experiencing it they are hyper focused” on the threat, which is specific to, usually, the suspects hands, causing them to block out or not notice other things. She’s claiming the guy came at her with what she though was a weapon. He didn’t have one. If she was hyper focused on him, causing her to not notice it wasn’t her apartment, how’d she also not notice he didn’t have a weapon? I mean she apparently got EVERYTHING wrong.
It’s really almost inconceivable that she
1. Parked at the wrong floor.
2. Missed the apartment numbers.
3. Missed the bright red floor mat.
4. Realize why her key fob didn’t work.
5. Not notice the apartment looked totally different.
6. Not see that he didn’t have any weapon.
7. Administer no first aid.
The defense is also going with that she had “inattentional blindness”, which is why she didn’t notice it was the wrong apartment. The problem is, their “expert”, when describing it, is saying that when one is experiencing it they are hyper focused” on the threat, which is specific to, usually, the suspects hands, causing them to block out or not notice other things. She’s claiming the guy came at her with what she though was a weapon. He didn’t have one. If she was hyper focused on him, causing her to not notice it wasn’t her apartment, how’d she also not notice he didn’t have a weapon? I mean she apparently got EVERYTHING wrong.
It’s really almost inconceivable that she
1. Parked at the wrong floor.
2. Missed the apartment numbers.
3. Missed the bright red floor mat.
4. Realize why her key fob didn’t work.
5. Not notice the apartment looked totally different.
6. Not see that he didn’t have any weapon.
7. Administer no first aid.
headednorth
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 26,839
- Likes
- 49,602
I can sympathize with 1 through 4 from working in property maintenance. Same colors, same layout, etc, Ive walked into the wrong apartment more than once over the years. However I pretty much figure it out in a second or two at the most and its not even my place. I dont know how soon he "confronted" her after she went in or how close he was, whether it was lit well enough for her to determine it wasnt her place, etc, but unless it was less than a second or two and the lights were off, I can say from personal experience she should have come to the realization she was in the wrong apartment.
Conflict of terms I guess. I consider 'muder' murder as premeditated. Some places call it 2nd Degree or whatever for non-premeditated.
Since she wasn't on duty, I don't know if Graham comes into play in an official sense. If she was on duty, it would only have to be reasonable to respond that way. I know Graham vs Conner is THE standard for how to justify deadly force, but I have not gotten into the weeds with it in an off duty capacity. I only teach it as on duty and know the in's and out's in that case.
Graham vs. Conner was actually discussed with the judge. She agreed with the prosecution that it isn't the correct standard, though the correct standard seems nearly the same. It sounds like Texas has an "ordinary person" standard.
The murder charge is basically a 2nd degree murder charge, though it's just called murder. Capital murder is their equivalent to 1st degree murder. The charge she is facing has a sentence of 2-20 years. That seems like an appropriate range considering the facts here.
The murder charge is basically a 2nd degree murder charge, though it's just called murder. Capital murder is their equivalent to 1st degree murder. The charge she is facing has a sentence of 2-20 years. That seems like an appropriate range considering the facts here.
KBCraig
NES Member
Others have answered, but here's the law. See Section 19.02, "MURDER".
PENAL CODE CHAPTER 19. CRIMINAL HOMICIDE
Every time I think of this case, it pisses me off more and more.
I know she's entitled to a presumption of innocence and that her attorney is obligated to put up a good defense. But every time she cries and insists she wishes she was dead, I just shake my head and think about how hollow that is.
After all, if she really wished she were dead, she'd just go ahead and become dead.
I know she's entitled to a presumption of innocence and that her attorney is obligated to put up a good defense. But every time she cries and insists she wishes she was dead, I just shake my head and think about how hollow that is.
After all, if she really wished she were dead, she'd just go ahead and become dead.
The only evidence that suggests he approached her, is the word of the person who killed him.
Here is body cam from responding officers showing where his body was. It’s not a big apartment but he’s pretty far back in it.
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hiYMwP5hgDU
