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.
She should be, of course! But cops seldom get convicted. She will walk. There is almost zero chance of a conviction. I just think the city of Dallas (and I live here in this area) need to be prepared for rioting when that happens. They need to understand why people are angry at an unjust court system and police brutality that goes unchecked and unpunished.
It would have been better for her to get a manslaughter charge, because a conviction would have been easier to get on the lesser charge. I think they charged her with murder, knowing it wouldn't stick. She has not plea bargained because she & her lawyer know the murder charge won't stick.
No, cops get convicted often enough, feel free to browse the Internet for this. You are confusing cops in a duty situation, versus a cop in an off-duty situation. Cops in a duty situation rarely get convicted because rarely is it even a crime, because the context of a fleeing suspect adds considerable weight. however, a person who happens to be a cop and engages in criminal activity, is a far different story. There have been plenty of people who happen to be cops, convicted of crimes.
I agree, a murder charge will not stick, and it has nothing to do with her being a cop, it has to do with the situation.
She was arrested for manslaughter and technically that would have been the easier conviction. However, the grand jury indicted Guyger for murder. They heard the witnesses, reviewed the evidence and made the change. I have to respect their decision. I'm afraid the decision may have been a mistake though. I was confident with the manslaughter charge, not as much now with the murder charge. All it takes is one juror to mess a conviction up.
"In the Texas Penal Code, there is a listed defense known as “Mistake of Fact.”
According to the code, “it is a defense to prosecution that the actor through mistake formed a reasonable belief about a matter of fact if his mistaken belief negated the kind of culpability required for commission of the offense.”
And that is what I've been talking about. If the defense can demonstrate that the officer "through mistake formed a reasonable belief" that she was in her own apartment, then self-defense becomes her valid defense.
This trial will require a unanimous verdict.
If they can convince only one obstinate member of the jury that the officer mistook the "fact" of the location of her apartment, she will walk.
On one felony jury I was on, one woman stated at the outset, "I don't think he's guilty" and then she took out her knitting. One person willing to do her knitting while sitting on a "not guilty" vote can last for weeks. Been there, experienced that.
She was arrested for manslaughter and technically that would have been the easier conviction. However, the grand jury indicted Guyger for murder. They heard the witnesses, reviewed the evidence and made the change. I have to respect their decision. I'm afraid the decision may have been a mistake though. I was confident with the manslaughter charge, not as much now with the murder charge. All it takes is one juror to mess a conviction up.
I knew immediately when they charged her with murder instead of manslaughter charge that it was an attempt to exonerate her. They knew a murder charge wouldn't stick.
I knew immediately when they charged her with murder instead of manslaughter charge that it was an attempt to exonerate her. They knew a murder charge wouldn't stick.
So you are saying the Grand Jury wanted to exonerate her? I don't know about that, I feel they were just going with emotion.
So you are saying the Grand Jury wanted to exonerate her? I don't know about that, I feel they were just going with emotion.
Yes. They know a murder conviction will be harder to get. They knew with a manslaughter charge it would be easier to put her behind bars. So they upgraded it to murder. She hasn't plea bargained because she knows she'll walk.
Yes. They know a murder conviction will be harder to get. They knew with a manslaughter charge it would be easier to put her behind bars. So they upgraded it to murder. She hasn't plea bargained because she knows she'll walk.
No, the grand jury went by a strict interpretation of the law.
If she pulled the trigger deliberately--which she did, easily shown--then the only available charge, as the Texas law is written, is murder.
I still believe Guyger lied about rendering aid to Botham. I don't think she did CPR and didn't mention this in the 911 call, either. I wonder if that fact will play out in the trial.
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.
