Amber Guyger has been found GUILTY

[Xprimentyl]

So white police officer Amber Guyger has been found guilty of murder [https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/01/white-cop-amber-guyer-convicted-of-murdering-unarmed-black-neighbor-botham-jean-10843239/] for the killing of her black neighbor Botham Jean.

I don?t even know how to begin to find the thread on this subject from last year, but I recall opinions running high, people fervently advocating on both sides of the ?guilt? issue. Well, she was found guilty of MURDER, the intent to kill clear to the jury of her peers, ?fatigue? and ?honest mistake? out the window, nope, she murdered that man in his own home. The best I?ll give her is ?gross and lethal incompetence,? a trait I?m not willing to waive for someone [once] paid to protect and serve. She got what she deserved; sentencing to start soon. Apparently, murder can come with a sentence of 5 to 99 years; I won?t opine as to what sentence I think she should or will get, I?m just glad it?s now a matter of public record that she is a killer.

 

[Batou667]

Putting nuance and subtlety aside for a moment: good.

Bugger "right to bear arms", sod "respect the badge", f***k "castle doctrine". You enter an innocent stranger's home and shoot them dead, you're a burglar and a murderer, I don't care how dazed, confused, startled or otherwise discombobulated you are. For a random yahoo with a sidearm to commit this monumental screw-up would be a criminal error of judgement, for a police officer to do this, makes you question the standards to which that police departments holds their personnel.

I'm not sure why this had to have a racial undertone but... white cop, black dead guy, I suppose it couldn't NOT be a race issue.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

I honestly don't know what to feel about this.

You train killers, you shouldn't be surprised when they kill.

But I was teetering to the side of Murder being justified. I stopped mainly because of this [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/amber-guyger-found-guilty-murder-trial-fatal-shooting-neighbor-botham-n1060506]:

Prosecutors said Jean was watching television and eating ice cream in his living room when Guyger burst inside, likely scaring him. The trajectory of the bullet showed that he was either getting up from his couch or cowering when Guyger fired her service weapon, they added.

Testifying in her own defense last week, Guyger told jurors that she was scared for her life when she entered an apartment that she thought was hers and the man inside began coming toward her and yelling, "Hey! Hey! Hey!"

Also she claims she didn't render first aid because she needed one hand for the phone. Apparently she has the only phone made in the last decade without speaker. I really do not know.

But Murder [https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.19.htm] as Defined by the state of Texas is clear.

Sec. 19.02. MURDER. (a) In this section:

(1) "Adequate cause" means cause that would commonly produce a degree of anger, rage, resentment, or terror in a person of ordinary temper, sufficient to render the mind incapable of cool reflection.

(2) "Sudden passion" means passion directly caused by and arising out of provocation by the individual killed or another acting with the person killed which passion arises at the time of the offense and is not solely the result of former provocation.

(b) A person commits an offense if he:

(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;

(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual; or

(3) commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.

(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.

(d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he caused the death under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree.

The argument that had to be made was that Amber was afraid for her life. One tends to doubt if you're afraid for your life if you're caught in a situation where your testimony seems false.

 

[Xprimentyl]

I honestly don't know what to feel about this.

You train killers, you shouldn't be surprised when they kill.

But I was teetering to the side of Murder being justified. I stopped mainly because of this [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/amber-guyger-found-guilty-murder-trial-fatal-shooting-neighbor-botham-n1060506]:

Prosecutors said Jean was watching television and eating ice cream in his living room when Guyger burst inside, likely scaring him. The trajectory of the bullet showed that he was either getting up from his couch or cowering when Guyger fired her service weapon, they added.

Testifying in her own defense last week, Guyger told jurors that she was scared for her life when she entered an apartment that she thought was hers and the man inside began coming toward her and yelling, "Hey! Hey! Hey!"

Also she claims she didn't render first aid because she needed one hand for the phone. Apparently she has the only phone made in the last decade without speaker. I really do not know.

But Murder as Defined by the state of Texas is clear.

Sec. 19.02. MURDER. (a) In this section:

(1) "Adequate cause" means cause that would commonly produce a degree of anger, rage, resentment, or terror in a person of ordinary temper, sufficient to render the mind incapable of cool reflection.

(2) "Sudden passion" means passion directly caused by and arising out of provocation by the individual killed or another acting with the person killed which passion arises at the time of the offense and is not solely the result of former provocation.

(b) A person commits an offense if he:

(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;

(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual; or

(3) commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.

(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.

(d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he caused the death under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree.

The argument that had to be made was that Amber was afraid for her life. One tends to doubt if you're afraid for your life if you're caught in a situation where your testimony seems false.

I?ve no doubt she was scared for her life.

BUT?

Before she got to that point, how many blatant signs of her mistake did this police officer miss before she reached for the highest exercise of her authority? Every reason for her to be distracted aside, it takes [what you?d hope would be] a clear and discerning mind to reach for a holstered firearm and shoot with the intent to kill.

I?ve lived in plenty of apartments; I?ve even approached the wrong door before. Never made into the wrong apartment because, welp, my key didn?t work (hers did? Haven?t been able to pin down whether the door was unlocked or not or if she opted to force her way into the locked door,) but I?d imagine the first thing I?d recognize is the complete lack of recognition of anything in it, i.e.: not my couch, not my TV, not my pictures on the wall, etc. The second would be the smell. We all have our own smell, whether it?s air fresheners, pets, food, the lingering of colognes and perfumes, we each have a unique and recognizable custom scent within our living spaces. Third, what ?intruder? is siting on not your couch watching not your TV eating not your ice cream?

Given all those very basic, blatant, easily identifiable and crucial observations not aligning with what she would recognize in her own place, rather than question herself, she chose to kill. Maybe I?m spoiled by Hollywood?s portrayal of law enforcement, but isn?t there an option to draw your weapon with a firm ?FREEZE!? in an attempt to try to diffuse a potentially lethal situation? I?ve never had to draw a firearm in a split-second, life-or-death situation, but given that Jean was seated, eating ice cream and watching TV, I imagine HE was the one far more taken off guard with less time to respond, so I find it hard to believe he presented such an immediate threat that he couldn?t have been afforded those crucial few seconds any reasonable person (let alone a trained police officer) would need to realize they were not where they thought they were and realize they were in the wrong, not the wide-eyed, incredulous person holding a bowl of ice cream on the business end of a weapon.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

I find it hard to believe he presented such an immediate threat that he couldn?t have been afforded those crucial few seconds any reasonable person (let alone a trained police officer) would need to realize they were not where they thought they were and realize they were in the wrong, not the wide-eyed, incredulous person holding a bowl of ice cream on the business end of a weapon.

Basically this.

If you're a cop, even off duty, you should be held to a higher standard than civilians.

So yeah, while this comes down on the harsh side of things, it makes total sense as a verdict. Hopefully we see more like it until the cops learn to exercise a teeny little bit of restraint when wielding deadly weapons.

 

[Abomination]

I wasn't there to review everything that happened in the case but the murder verdict, and not manslaughter, is interesting. I thought for something to be murder it needs to be premeditated.

I suppose some things from Guyger's testimony did not stand up under scrutiny and the jury agreed premeditation was the only explanation for their actions.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

I've no doubt she was scared for her life.

BUT...

Before she got to that point, how many blatant signs of her mistake did this police officer miss before she reached for the highest exercise of her authority? Every reason for her to be distracted aside, it takes [what you'd hope would be] a clear and discerning mind to reach for a holstered firearm and shoot with the intent to kill.

I've lived in plenty of apartments; I've even approached the wrong door before. Never made into the wrong apartment because, welp, my key didn't work (hers did? Haven't been able to pin down whether the door was unlocked or not or if she opted to force her way into the locked door,) but I'd imagine the first thing I'd recognize is the complete lack of recognition of anything in it, i.e.: not my couch, not my TV, not my pictures on the wall, etc. The second would be the smell. We all have our own smell, whether it?s air fresheners, pets, food, the lingering of colognes and perfumes, we each have a unique and recognizable custom scent within our living spaces. Third, what 'intruder' is siting on not your couch watching not your TV eating not your ice cream?

Given all those very basic, blatant, easily identifiable and crucial observations not aligning with what she would recognize in her own place, rather than question herself, she chose to kill. Maybe I'm spoiled by Hollywood's portrayal of law enforcement, but isn't there an option to draw your weapon with a firm 'FREEZE!' in an attempt to try to diffuse a potentially lethal situation? I've never had to draw a firearm in a split-second, life-or-death situation, but given that Jean was seated, eating ice cream and watching TV, I imagine HE was the one far more taken off guard with less time to respond, so I find it hard to believe he presented such an immediate threat that he couldn't have been afforded those crucial few seconds any reasonable person (let alone a trained police officer) would need to realize they were not where they thought they were and realize they were in the wrong, not the wide-eyed, incredulous person holding a bowl of ice cream on the business end of a weapon.

I understand all you're saying. And as I said, I agree with the ruling.

When I said 'One tends to doubt if you're afraid for your life if you're caught in a situation where your testimony seems false', I'm talking about specifically people who are in positions of power tend to be believed less when they are found to be accounting situations wrongly.

Take a hypothetical Boss who is at trial for sexual assault of his employee. His statement was that she was coming on to him just as hard as he was to her. But someone can produce a recording that she was saying "I don't know about this, I probably should go home. You're my Boss." with no obvious come-on.

From that point on, that man is guilty in the minds of 85% of people. That one conversation doesn't show every conversation they had, and it might have honestly been before that was recorded or after. But he will be judged by her saying "I don't know", "I should go home", and "You're my Boss". That is the only evidence provided, and no one can win with "Trust me, ignore these presented facts, listen to me only".

Can you read this, Trump Defenders? [/Shots Fried]

The Jury was provided with Ballistic evidence that is kind of hard to dispute. Unless Botham was approaching her with his back to her in a threatening manner, she had no leg to stand on.

I wholeheartedly believe she went to the wrong place. I don't know if they produced the sext messages, but I know the few times I've gotten those I could have ended up in California before I realized something was wrong.

But this is where my first part comes in.

If you train a person to be a killer, they will kill. You always default to your most exercised response. It took me literally a decade after my family left the Bronx for me not to stop and hide behind thick looking objects if a car started to go slowly down the street. Being in drive-bys will do that for you.

I'm not saying she's less of a Murder because of Police Training. I'm saying we have more Murderers on the street due to police training. And that's why most likely half of Law Enforcement in this country probably take this as a bogus, political ruling. Because she only acted in a way that is natural to most of them. I'm sure we'll see some blips on how this is an unfair ruling slated against cops pretty soon.

I wasn't there to review everything that happened in the case but the murder verdict, and not manslaughter, is interesting. I thought for something to be murder it needs to be premeditated.

I suppose some things from Guyger's testimony did not stand up under scrutiny and the jury agreed premeditation was the only explanation for their actions.

Hey, I linked Texas's ruling on Murder in my first post in this thread. Here ya go [https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.19.htm].

Sec. 19.02. MURDER. (a) In this section:

(1) "Adequate cause" means cause that would commonly produce a degree of anger, rage, resentment, or terror in a person of ordinary temper, sufficient to render the mind incapable of cool reflection.

(2) "Sudden passion" means passion directly caused by and arising out of provocation by the individual killed or another acting with the person killed which passion arises at the time of the offense and is not solely the result of former provocation.

(b) A person commits an offense if he:

(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;

(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual; or

(3) commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.

(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.

(d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he caused the death under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree.

She definitely committed the 2 clause, so it would be considered Murder.

A drunk person operating a crane and having his payload drop on a co-worker is Manslaughter. Not one of his actions were intended on any type of harm to anyone else, even though his actions did cause the loss of life of someone else.

Self Defense or not, Guyger took out her weapon and fired. Her actions only could result in harm or death. It's murder.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Snip

I understand all you're saying. And as I said, I agree with the ruling.

When I said 'One tends to doubt if you're afraid for your life if you're caught in a situation where your testimony seems false', I'm talking about specifically people who are in positions of power tend to be believed less when they are found to be accounting situations wrongly.

Take a hypothetical Boss who is at trial for sexual assault of his employee. His statement was that she was coming on to him just as hard as he was to her. But someone can produce a recording that she was saying "I don't know about this, I probably should go home. You're my Boss." with no obvious come-on.

From that point on, that man is guilty in the minds of 85% of people. That one conversation doesn't show every conversation they had, and it might have honestly been before that was recorded or after. But he will be judged by her saying "I don't know", "I should go home", and "You're my Boss". That is the only evidence provided, and no one can win with "Trust me, ignore these presented facts, listen to me only"

Can you read this, Trump Defenders? [/Shots Fried]

The Jury was provided with Ballistic evidence that is kind of hard to dispute. Unless Botham was approaching her with his back to her in a threatening manner, she had no leg to stand on.

I wholeheartedly believe she went to the wrong place. I don't know if they produced the sext messages, but I know the few times I've gotten those I could have ended up in California before I realized something was wrong.

But this is where my first part comes in.

If you train a person to be a killer, they will kill. You always default to your most exercised response. It took me literally a decade after my family left the Bronx for me not to stop and hide behind thick looking objects if a car started to go slowly down the street. Being in drive-bys will do that for you.

I'm not saying she's less of a Murder because of Police Training. I'm saying we have more Murderers on the street due to police training. And that's why most likely half of Law Enforcement in this country probably take this as a bogus, political ruling. Because she only acted in a way that is natural to most of them. I'm sure we'll see some blips on how this is an unfair ruling slated against cops pretty soon.

Ah, I think I understand you now. But the Boss/employee sexual harassment assumes some ambiguity; in Guyger?s case, there literally was none.

After some digging, I found that She?d tried her electronic FOB on Jean?s door and was able to push it open due to a faultily installed door plate which prevented his door for locking properly sometimes. Also, the defense had some 90 tenants who said they?d also made the mistake of approaching the wrong apartment door due to the aesthetic uniformity of the building. Those are all well and good; Guyger made two reasonable mistakes.

Unfortunately, the mistake unique to her and the one that allowed for only 3 hours deliberation from the jury was her knee-jerk reaction in the final moments where reasonability fell away and she was grossly negligent and wrong. It would literally have taken 3 seconds of observation once she was inside to realize SHE was the only thing that didn?t belong, but she took that time to assert intentionally lethal force, murder. There are a lot of people in prison for murder who chose to kill; I?m sure many of them regret having made that choice, but hindsight being 20/20 isn?t the benefit of the doubt or reason for leniency.

Spoiler: ?For some fitting levity, an anecdote??

I used to be a second shift supervisor for a furniture warehouse; one of my nightly duties was to lock all doors and shut off all lights. One night, I?d finished my last door check and shut off all main lights and was heading for the exit when I saw the silhouette of a man wearing a ball cap standing roughly between me and the door, maybe 15 yards away; I was previously alone in the building and wasn?t expecting ?company.? Obviously, I was a little taken aback, so I froze, waited a couple of seconds for this person to acknowledge me. Nothing. I hollered ?can I help you?? Nothing. I crouched behind a couch and grabbed for a piece of scrap pallet wood and demanded to know what this person wanted. Nothing. I was panicked now; I reached in my pocket for my company cell phone and threated to call the cops if this person didn?t leave; I flashed the screen at him since cells weren?t as prolific in the early 2000s and had to prove I was good for my threat. Not so much as a wince. Fight-or-flight had kicked in pretty well at this point; I began questioning if anyone else has come into the building with this guy (it was a large, now dark warehouse, mind you) and whether or not running was the safe bet.

I spent a good minute staring down my unflinching, shadowy soon-to-be murderer, and it hit me: early that day, we?d transitioned our delivery drivers from employees to independent owner-operators for a third party company, and that company had brought in new uniforms for them? along with a mannequin on which to display them.

I was nearly killed by a department store dummy​

I thank God I didn?t call the cops; imagining the humiliation I would have felt admitting it to my boss, and never mind my direct reports? I was a young, newly promoted supervisor, so I?d already struggled gaining their respect seeing as a few weeks early we?d been peers; they?d have had my dignity for lunch for months.

I say all that to say, despite my lack of training and a lethal weapon, I still managed to keep from ?fearing for my life? long enough to reason through what I was going through, and that was with an inanimate object, not someone that could easily raise their hands within a couple seconds to say ?it?s cool dude; you?re not the only one standing here feeling like a ?dummy?.?

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

That story is just too fishy for me. There had to have been something shady going on there, nobody can be this dumb.

Either way, good thing that she's going away. Lock your doors.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

That story is just too fishy for me. There had to have been something shady going on there, nobody can be this dumb.

Either way, good thing that she's going away. Lock your doors.

when this first happened it was reported she was drunk. The police department determined on their own she wasnt. So maybe they swept it under the rug, so no one looks into drinking on the job and drunk driving police.

Either way color me surprised. I totally expected her to get off. Makes me wonder though if a white Male officer would have been found guilty? And I say that as a white Male- it's interesting the cop found guilty was a woman.

 

[Agema]

I'm honestly not sure I can complain about this. I suppose there's a case for manslaughter, but shit, you storm into the wrong flat mob-handed and kill a lawful resident...

I was bemused to see that the defence attempted to use the Castle Doctrine - that a homeowner has a right to kill an intruder - on the grounds that if she genuinely (even if mistaken) thought that was her flat, she had a right to lethal force. It would have been intolerably ironic, so I'm glad to see that it didn't work.

 

[BrawlMan]

Good. She deserves jail for being a drunk idiot who can't tell her apartment from someone else. The only one worth crying for is the life loss over something senseless. My heart goes out for the victim's family.

I'm honestly not sure I can complain about this. I suppose there's a case for manslaughter, but shit, you storm into the wrong flat mob-handed and kill a lawful resident...

I was bemused to see that the defence attempted to use the Castle Doctrine - that a homeowner has a right to kill an intruder - on the grounds that if she genuinely (even if mistaken) thought that was her flat, she had a right to lethal force. It would have been intolerably ironic, so I'm glad to see that it didn't work.

The facts the defense tried to pull something like that sickens me, and make we want to kick them in the groin for even attempting so foolish and wrong.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

I'm honestly not sure I can complain about this. I suppose there's a case for manslaughter, but shit, you storm into the wrong flat mob-handed and kill a lawful resident...

I was bemused to see that the defence attempted to use the Castle Doctrine - that a homeowner has a right to kill an intruder - on the grounds that if she genuinely (even if mistaken) thought that was her flat, she had a right to lethal force. It would have been intolerably ironic, so I'm glad to see that it didn't work.

I'm totally surprised it didnt work. As a police officer I fully expected her to get off free, for it to be deemed a "Good shoot"

 

[Trunkage]

I'm honestly not sure I can complain about this. I suppose there's a case for manslaughter, but shit, you storm into the wrong flat mob-handed and kill a lawful resident...

I was bemused to see that the defence attempted to use the Castle Doctrine - that a homeowner has a right to kill an intruder - on the grounds that if she genuinely (even if mistaken) thought that was her flat, she had a right to lethal force. It would have been intolerably ironic, so I'm glad to see that it didn't work.

I'm totally surprised it didnt work. As a police officer I fully expected her to get off free, for it to be deemed a "Good shoot"

I'd point out that she isn't 'one of the guys'...

Edit: scrolled up and saw you made the same comment

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

Wonder where the usual /pol/ crowd is? I figured Anonymous, Steven Crowder, and the rest of the usual suspects would be lobbying hard to get this woman off the hook or giving her a medal like they did with Anders Brevik.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

I'm honestly not sure I can complain about this. I suppose there's a case for manslaughter, but shit, you storm into the wrong flat mob-handed and kill a lawful resident...

I was bemused to see that the defence attempted to use the Castle Doctrine - that a homeowner has a right to kill an intruder - on the grounds that if she genuinely (even if mistaken) thought that was her flat, she had a right to lethal force. It would have been intolerably ironic, so I'm glad to see that it didn't work.

I'm totally surprised it didnt work. As a police officer I fully expected her to get off free, for it to be deemed a "Good shoot"

Or that she didn't get off with "I felt my life was threatened. Defense rests" which usually gets any cop off the hook for any shooting.

 

[Worgen]

Wonder where the usual /pol/ crowd is? I figured Anonymous, Steven Crowder, and the rest of the usual suspects would be lobbying hard to get this woman off the hook or giving her a medal like they did with Anders Brevik.

Wait, they tried to get that brevik asshole, off?

 

[Agema]

I'm totally surprised it didnt work. As a police officer I fully expected her to get off free, for it to be deemed a "Good shoot"

I'll bet had she been on duty, it would have been a very different story.

 

[Kyrian007]

I'm shocked. I was sure this was going to be another, "that's so sad... oh well, she's a cop so its ok" situation. I'm especially shocked that her training came up as evidence toward premeditation necessary to make it a murder charge. The prosecution asking her if she was trained to shoot center mass... shoot with the intent to kill. When she said yes... there it is. Means and especially intent to kill. My hope is this will be seen as a precedent, maybe get police agencies to look at more de-escalation training and less "first response is a hail of bullets aimed at center-mass" training.

 

[Pseudonym]

Yeah, she should definitely be sent to prison. Being so trigger-happy that you'll shoot somebody because you think they are in your house without just asking them who they are or what they are doing there is just crazy. Not sure it is murder though. Isn't murder supposed to be premeditated? A panicked kill like this seems closer to manslaughter.