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.
The issue here is that Guyger did not meet the legal standard of the stand your ground or castle doctrine in Texas. This situation is so unusual that I doubt there is much existing case law. What she believed may be relevant for any final disposition of the case but it doesn't provide her with statutory legal protection.
Too, this may seem a minute distinction but she will be judged not on being a "reasonable person" but on behaving in a reasonable manner. That she made the mistake in entering the wrong apartment already demonstrates a certain unreasonableness that night that may call into question her subsequent decisions - shooting Jean and what she believed she saw in *his* behavior (degree of perceived threat).
Here, trying to say that he was big (from his silhouette) and black (if she could see that, or anyone could in subsequent lighting tests) may not cut it.
A person who is drunk and kills someone in a car accident is held to a higher level of responsibility than someone who his in possession of their full faculties, which she was not that night from tiredness etc.
Agree with your bold. She didn't meet those conditions.
I’ve always wondered where the descriptive that he was “big” is coming from, especially since he was in the dark. He looks slightly heavier set in his pictures, but I don’t know that I would call him a “big man” especially in the dark. Also, is it being implied that if he were slightly “smaller” he would have been less likely to have been shot? I guess I just don’t see how his size (if that can be accurately determined in the dark) is relevant.
A person who is drunk and kills someone in a car accident is held to a higher level of responsibility than someone who his in possession of their full faculties, which she was not that night from tiredness etc.
Agree with your bold. She didn't meet those conditions.
That's not necessarily true. It depends on the circumstances. If you're are in possession of full faculties but driving reckless causing the accident it's the same culpability. And if you didn't see the red light or the car you might just be considered negligent. Coming home tired from work is not necessarily acting reckless.
It has been well established that the officer gave directives to Jean. Specifically to raise his arms was reported early on. One does not shoot people who are not believed hostile.
The reason is she could not see what was in his hands. Why else would one issue such a command?
The gun culture creates a presumption that one is armed if not clear that you are not. Numerous examples.
I generally support permissive concealed carry laws and other such statutes because the citizen should have the right to equal armament in defending themselves. That however in no way effects the fact that the proliferation of firearms in the US leads to many deaths and is actually pretty well absurd. There is however nothing rational to be done about it. So the second is real and will continue for the foreseeable future.
That she made the claim early in the investigation does not make it "well-established". One person, making a claim that benefits them, doesn't establish anything. If others could verify it, then it would possibly be established..
Being mistaken of fact and that you were unaware are legally valid defenses. Mistakenly entering the wrong apartment is probably just negligence. When you say "unreasonable" I take that to mean reckless. You have to be aware to be reckless.
That may excuse her unlawfully entering another person's apartment. But it may not excuse her shooting the legal occupant of the apartment dead.
It has been well established that the officer gave directives to Jean. Specifically to raise his arms was reported early on. One does not shoot people who are not believed hostile.
The reason is she could not see what was in his hands. Why else would one issue such a command?
The gun culture creates a presumption that one is armed if not clear that you are not. Numerous examples.
I generally support permissive concealed carry laws and other such statutes because the citizen should have the right to equal armament in defending themselves. That however in no way effects the fact that the proliferation of firearms in the US leads to many deaths and is actually pretty well absurd. There is however nothing rational to be done about it. So the second is real and will continue for the foreseeable future.
How has it been well established that she gave orders to Jean? She claims that but I haven't read about anyone overhearing it.
"Two witnesses reported hearing a ruckus. “Both heard a knock or pounding… They heard pounding followed by a female voice saying open up, let me in, not a command by an officer,” he explained. Then he said they heard gunshots, followed by a male voice saying, “oh my God, why did you do that!” https://thegrio.com/2018/09/12/botha...ise-complaint/
If she actually gave him orders and if he didn't comply she still had no reason to shoot him, he could have been deaf FFS. You don't shoot until you perceive a real threat, and you can't claim that every person you see is a threat. Assuming she didn't actually murder him then the problem I see here is with police training and poor screening of police hires, not the 2nd amendment.
That she made the claim early in the investigation does not make it "well-established". One person, making a claim that benefits them, doesn't establish anything. If others could verify it, then it would possibly be established..
The claim is well established. And the truth of a police officers testimony may well be accepted. If there is contradicting evidence then there may be an issue. It is my understanding that the across the hall neighbor heard female and male voices conversing though he could not hear the actual words. The banging and "let me in" do not appear to align with the circumstances and was not reported by this neighbor.
The claim is well established. And the truth of a police officers testimony may well be accepted. If there is contradicting evidence then there may be an issue. It is my understanding that the across the hall neighbor heard female and male voices conversing though he could not hear the actual words. The banging and "let me in" do not appear to align with the circumstances and was not reported by this neighbor.
Your definition of "well-established" is flawed, then. The across-the-hall neighbor's claims neither support nor contradict the officer's account since that neighbor didn't hear what was said. The officer's claim is self-serving, and not supported by any witnesses. Therefore, it is not "well-established."
Your definition of "well-established" is flawed, then. The across-the-hall neighbor's claims neither support nor contradict the officer's account since that neighbor didn't hear what was said. The officer's claim is self-serving, and not supported by any witnesses. Therefore, it is not "well-established."
The claim is well established. Its truthfulness may well be debated but it appears very doubtful any evidence that it is not true will be found. There was dialog. And no one but the officer and the victim heard it.
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.
