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 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.
If only one person is making the claim, and the claim is self-serving, and there is no corroboration, then no, it's not "well-established".
The claim is of course well established whether truthful or not. And it is virtually impossible that it will be refuted.
The claim being self serving has no bearing on its truthfulness.
You've moved the goalposts.
You started this by saying it was well-established that Guyger issued orders to Jean.
Now what you are saying is that what is well-established is that Guyger claims to have issued orders to Jean.
That's two different things. Neither is well-established, however. Guyger's claims are only indirectly referenced in the affidavit to support the manslaughter charge. We've yet to hear anything directly from Guyger. And the claim being self-serving has bearing on its credibility (ie truthfulness). The fact that no one corroborates Guyger's account means that a jury or judge will have to make their own conclusions regarding how reliable Guyger's version of events is, and how rational her actions will be. You are neither judge nor jury so your opinions are interesting, but irrelevant. See how relevance works?
You started this by saying it was well-established that Guyger issued orders to Jean.
Now what you are saying is that what is well-established is that Guyger claims to have issued orders to Jean.
That's two different things. Neither is well-established, however. Guyger's claims are only indirectly referenced in the affidavit to support the manslaughter charge. We've yet to hear anything directly from Guyger. And the claim being self-serving has bearing on its credibility (ie truthfulness). The fact that no one corroborates Guyger's account means that a jury or judge will have to make their own conclusions regarding how reliable Guyger's version of events is, and how rational her actions will be. You are neither judge nor jury so your opinions are interesting, but irrelevant. See how relevance works?
Nope. You introduced the term "claim". I simply presumed its normal meaning.
It is well established that there was dialog between Jean and Guyger. Guyger's claim that it was directive including to raise arms is perfectly reasonable and consistent with expected police procedure. And I find no fault with Jean failing to respond. He was likely baffled by what was happening. And of such is tragedy made. But a crime? Not clear.
Nope. You introduced the term "claim". I simply presumed its normal meaning.
It is well established that there was dialog between Jean and Guyger. Guyger's claim that it was directive including to raise arms is perfectly reasonable and consistent with expected police procedure. And I find no fault with Jean failing to respond. He was likely baffled by what was happening. And of such is tragedy made. But a crime? Not clear.
That's bizarre. There are no witnesses to Guygers claim that she told Jean to raise his arms...none. But there are two witnesses who state "They heard knocking down the hallway followed by a woman's voice that they believe to be officer Guyger saying, 'Let me in. Let me in"
The two witnesses don't have a dog in this fight but Guyger had every reason to falsely claim that she gave a directive to the victim prior to killing him.
The claim is of course well established whether truthful or not. And it is virtually impossible that it will be refuted.
The claim being self serving has no bearing on its truthfulness.
Self-serving statements might be true, but always get more scrutiny than neutral or self-incriminating statements.
1. 'Yes, your honor, I ran the stop sign going 70 mph in a 40 mph zone, deserve whatever punishment you hand out, and would do it again' vs. 2. 'I made a full stop going 33 mph.' 2 might be true, but standing alone will always be more suspect than 1.
In this case, if she said she saw a large shadow, panicked, pulled her weapon and fired at a figure she saw ... without corroborating evidence either way has more intrinsic credibility than the claim she made, even though her claim might be true.
That's bizarre. There are no witnesses to Guygers claim that she told Jean to raise his arms...none. But there are two witnesses who state "They heard knocking down the hallway followed by a woman's voice that they believe to be officer Guyger saying, 'Let me in. Let me in"
The two witnesses don't have a dog in this fight but Guyger had every reason to falsely claim that she gave a directive to the victim prior to killing him.
And the guy across the hall heard no such thing and was purportedly in the best position to hear. And such action on Guyger's part would make no sense. And the guy across the hall heard dialog though not the words. So you think Guyger was discussing the weather with him before shooting him?
And these witnesses did not make the same claim to the police.
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.
Any "state of being" (including tiredness) might lead an evaluator to conclude that her perceptions and judgments were not to be trusted - even if she was perceived as attempting to be truthful. The standard will be whether her actions were "reasonable" given all circumstances.
She may well not qualify statutorily for a pass under stand your ground standards for conditions may well have to exist in fact not merely in belief if only because the one is easy to prove (it was either her property or not) and the other much more nebulous.
So if she must then try to prove her actions were "reasonable" how difficult might that be to establish? That it's not always easy or clear is why stand your ground exists to begin with.
Some of what's been reported about the shooting itself sounds slightly strange. For example, she did not enter that doorway as a police officer would (standing to one side while pushing it open to avoid fire) but thinking it her apartment appears to have stood right in the doorway where she would have been backlit. Then seeing Jean, she says she gave him instructions and when those were ignored opened fire. Her arms initially were full (why she didn't see the red carpet); she would have had to unholster the gun etc.
Had Jean been a burglar with a gun in hand he almost certainly would have plenty of time to shoot first especially since he was alerted by her fiddling with the lock.
Why in the world start with commands exposed as she was? If "gun" was on her mind, why not whip around the door jam out of sight?
Had she followed "reasonable" behavior for a police officer there might well have been an opportunity for a verbal interchange with Jean that led to some clarity.
Had she followed "reasonable" behavior for an unarmed civilian no doubt she would have fled.
Both scenarios would have left Jean alive.
I can accept that she was initially confused ... and that startled by a figure in "her" apartment that she just reacted - perhaps blindly and perhaps unreasonably.
And like I've said being trained as a police officer I'd also expect that she'd be held to police "standards" for reasonable behavior when choosing to fire. That was her skill level. To try to argue that she didn't perform to that level because she was startled, tired etc. might be a slippery slope.
Being given a gun to carry can be a burden as well as a responsibility. She failed (and like I've said) may have no protections under stand your ground statutes.
Any "state of being" (including tiredness) might lead an evaluator to conclude that her perceptions and judgments were not to be trusted - even if she was perceived as attempting to be truthful. The standard will be whether her actions were "reasonable" given all circumstances.
She may well not qualify statutorily for a pass under stand your ground standards for conditions may well have to exist in fact not merely in belief if only because the one is easy to prove (it was either her property or not) and the other much more nebulous.
So if she must then try to prove her actions were "reasonable" how difficult might that be to establish? That it's not always easy or clear is why stand your ground exists to begin with.
Some of what's been reported about the shooting itself sounds slightly strange. For example, she did not enter that doorway as a police officer would (standing to one side while pushing it open to avoid fire) but thinking it her apartment appears to have stood right in the doorway where she would have been backlit. Then seeing Jean, she says she gave him instructions and when those were ignored opened fire. Her arms initially were full (why she didn't see the red carpet); she would have had to unholster the gun etc.
Had Jean been a burglar with a gun in hand he almost certainly would have plenty of time to shoot first especially since he was alerted by her fiddling with the lock.
Why in the world start with commands exposed as she was? If "gun" was on her mind, why not whip around the door jam out of sight?
Had she followed "reasonable" behavior for a police officer there might well have been an opportunity for a verbal interchange with Jean that led to some clarity.
Had she followed "reasonable" behavior for an unarmed civilian no doubt she would have fled.
Both scenarios would have left Jean alive.
I can accept that she was initially confused ... and that startled by a figure in "her" apartment that she just reacted - perhaps blindly and perhaps unreasonably.
And like I've said being trained as a police officer I'd also expect that she'd be held to police "standards" for reasonable behavior when choosing to fire. That was her skill level. To try to argue that she didn't perform to that level because she was startled, tired etc. might be a slippery slope.
Being given a gun to carry can be a burden as well as a responsibility. She failed (and like I've said) may have no protections under stand your ground statutes.
I don't know but the standard of proof for her defense probably is preponderance of evidence or more likely than not to be true. The prosecution has a higher burden of beyond a reasonable doubt.
I don't think there is any higher standard for being a police officer, it seems it's lower. I don't think her defense will have all the problems you're suggesting but maybe. What are you saying, that she should be prosecuted for murder or for manslaughter?
I don't know but the standard of proof for her defense probably is preponderance of evidence or more likely than not to be true. The prosecution has a higher burden of beyond a reasonable doubt.
I don't think there is any higher standard for being a police officer, it seems it's lower. I don't think her defense will have all the problems you're suggesting but maybe. What are you saying, that she should be prosecuted for murder or for manslaughter?
I don't think there is any reasonable doubt. She killed him. The lower standard for a police officer is only if she was acting as a police officer. She was not in this case; I've no idea what standards might exist for use of a police weapon off duty. Regardless, any person who wrongly takes the life of another would have the burden of establishing that they acted "reasonably" to the best of their ability.
Here, in this particular circumstance it would strike me that much of the burden falls on her not the prosecution.
For confused, tired she did not. For example, the closest witness heard words but I *think* he said that he couldn't tell if any were from a male voice? Sure, I can understand that she started to act as a trained police officer and gave a warning but then realizing she was exposed by remaining in the doorway shot before giving him the chance to reply. Certainly she didn't wait around to hear that he was the lawful tenant.
While that is understandable were her actions legally sufficient or reasonable? Reasonable cannot be her fear level - a psychological state known only to herself. What a legal loophole that would be.
It wouldn't surprise me if she is charged with the highest degree of manslaughter possible. Some "mistakes" simply ruin lives - including hers. It's a shame, for everyone involved.
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.
