Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When police officer (or anyone) draws a gun in preparation to kill someone without taking a glance at the surroundings--which is a basic situational awareness combat skill under any circumstances--that is far worse negligence than forgetting the baby in the back seat.
Negligence is negligence. A person is expected to not forget her baby and leave them in a dangerous situation.
If her account is correct, she deliberately shot an intruder in the dark, in her apartment - is that any different to forgetting there is a baby in the back seat?
You say it yourself - deliberate, as in there's deliberation involved. Pulling a trigger is a willful, considered act - forgetting a baby isn't. Once you decide that you have to resort to deadly force, you should be responsible for being correct in your assessment of the situation.
There's a difference between thinking and acting on "This person in front of me should die" as compared to "I wonder if I'll be late for the meeting" or whatever people think when they forget a kid.
It does matter what a person thinks because it's a defense to be mistaken in facts.
State of mind is clearly an important factor in many crimes.That being said, there are many, many exceptions to the "mistaken in facts" defense, otherwise there'd be no way to persecute recklessness.
You say it yourself - deliberate, as in there's deliberation involved. Pulling a trigger is a willful, considered act - forgetting a baby isn't. Once you decide that you have to resort to deadly force, you should be responsible for being correct in your assessment of the situation.
There's a difference between thinking and acting on "This person in front of me should die" as compared to "I wonder if I'll be late for the meeting" or whatever people think when they forget a kid.
But both thoughts could be due to negligence or recklessness and the outcome is the same, actually in the latter there might've been more suffering of the innocent victim. I can see the argument for the former being more beyond negligence and being reckless than the latter though. That's probably why she was charged with manslaughter and not just negligent homicide so far.
State of mind is clearly an important factor in many crimes.That being said, there are many, many exceptions to the "mistaken in facts" defense, otherwise there'd be no way to persecute recklessness.
Recklessness doesn't require you to know the facts, just to be aware that you are proceeding in a risky manner. I think mistaken of fact defense is more for the higher culpability of knowingly and intentionally.
Not exactly surprising; LE unions and or benevolent organizations often do pick up legal expenses (up to and including bail) for fellow officers in trouble.
It does seem that DPA's hired mouthpiece for Amber Guyger is sticking to the well known script:
"Robert Rogers, who represents the former officer, Amber Guyger, said Monday night that Police Chief U. Renee Hall “bowed to pressure from anti-police groups and took action before all of the facts had been gathered and due process was afforded.â€
Unfortunately she has no clue she is not in her apartment. The floor plan has a hall from the front door to the living area that would appear exactly the same as her apartment until she penetrated and turned the lights on. By then it is too late.
You know we've been over this. You know there was a red mat in front of the door. You know the hallway was well-lighted--which is a legal requirement. You know there was further a lighted door number. You know that the door was either ajar or unlocked--either of which should have been a tip-off to anyone that something was wrong.
Nearly everyone got to their correct apartments every day. Most people do not make that mistake every day in that apartment complex, so it's false to say she had "no clue."
As I said, I carry a gun. I know doggoned well that if I draw my gun, I'd better damned well take a second look at where I am, who is around me, and what my situation is. The law requires it, morality requires it.
You know we've been over this. You know there was a red mat in front of the door. You know the hallway was well-lighted--which is a legal requirement. You know there was further a lighted door number. You know that the door was either ajar or unlocked--either of which should have been a tip-off to anyone that something was wrong.
Nearly everyone got to their correct apartments every day. Most people do not make that mistake every day in that apartment complex, so it's false to say she had "no clue."
As I said, I carry a gun. I know doggoned well that if I draw my gun, I'd better damned well take a second look at where I am, who is around me, and what my situation is. The law requires it, morality requires it.
And yes we have been over this but you continue to ignore the reality. She is tired, has an arm load of stuff, and is on autopilot. She knows precisely where she is and will reject any minor imperfections. Terribly sad as it will cost Jean his life and her at least her chosen career.
The door mat could have gotten her attention. Unfortunately it did not likely because she was coming off a long shift and was fatigued. The lighted number would never get a response from anyone who knew where they were. It the digits were four or five times bigger it might have worked. But those numbers are for a person seeking them not to pull attention from one who was not.
Thew door being ajar would likely trigger the cop reflex and maybe even the drawing of the gun. It would much more likely cause an Adrenalin rush and aggressive behavior then thoughts of whether in the right placed.
35 years or so ago I went off with a police officer to search back yards for a reported burglar/window peeper. As soon as we got into the dark he pulled his pistol and ran with it down by his side. He had no intentions of shooting anyone but intended to have the gun in play if we made contact with the dude. Lasted 10 minutes including going over a couple of fences. No joy and he holstered the gun. I would just point out he clearly drew his gun with no intention of shooting anyone but just in case.
So we will just have to agree here and see what happens as the thing goes down.
You know that the door was either ajar or unlocked-
Not yet proven. The data has not been released.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
