Jump to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Surly Horns

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

Dallas officer kills man after mistaking apartment for her own, police say

Featured Replies

49 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

I'm not sure your logic is correct here. The only reason it could be considered murder is because her action was deliberate, not because she had other options. If a jury is convinced that she really believed she was in her own home and she perceived the threat as real, she could be acquitted. 

I understand and it's why I find myself going back and forth on the question. It's a can of worms. My meager understanding is that mistake of fact can be used as a defense. I expect the lawyers on both sides to beat that phrase unmercifully.

  • Replies 5k
  • Views 444.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • First off I’d like to say that I’m heartbroken for the Jean family. As a parent myself, I hope Mr. Jean’s father and mother find some peace in the outcome. They appear to be a wonderful family that ra

  • SubliminalHorn
    SubliminalHorn

    Just relax the throat and stay in rhythm 

Posted Images

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

 The defense might be well-advised to try to move it to one of the more outlying counties.

Can't imagine a judge would allow that. But I'm a skeptical mother fucker who's not drunk.

Just now, El Diablo said:

I understand and it's why I find myself going back and forth on the question. It's a can of worms. My meager understanding is that mistake of fact can be used as a defense. I expect the lawyers on both sides to beat that phrase unmercifully.

I hate to say this, but according to the law she may not have committed a crime. The law affords you the right to defend yourself against a perceived threat, even if that threat isn't real. 

3 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

I understand and it's why I find myself going back and forth on the question. It's a can of worms. My meager understanding is that mistake of fact can be used as a defense. I expect the lawyers on both sides to beat that phrase unmercifully.

As near as i can figure it, and 4th and 5 I think sussed it out this way, she has to first prove a reasonable mistake of fact to invoke a self-defense argument.  And then her use of force has to be proportional to the reasonably perceived threat, most likely.  So, her actions are going to be subject to a reasonableness inquiry at two levels.

I would not be surprised if she were convicted, but given a fairly lenient sentence.

It's not quite as simple as immortal13 sets out, but it could play out that way.

Edited by TwiceHorn

Well now we can speculate as to the likelihood of a plea deal, or not. Without knowing much, my guess is this goes to trial.

thank god.

since i will be in Dallas this weekend.

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

As near as i can figure it, and 4th and 5 I think sussed it out this way, she has to first prove a reasonable mistake of fact to invoke a self-defense argument.  And then her use of force has to be proportional to the reasonably perceived threat, most likely.  So, her actions are going to be subject to a reasonableness inquiry at two levels.

I would not be surprised if she were convicted, but given a fairly lenient sentence.

It's not quite as simple as immortal13 sets out, but it could play out that way.

That's why I am curious as to what exactly happened after the door opened. Did he do anything to give her justification for shooting? Good thing for her she left no witnesses 

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

As near as i can figure it, and 4th and 5 I think sussed it out this way, she has to first prove a reasonable mistake of fact to invoke a self-defense argument.  And then her use of force has to be proportional to the reasonably perceived threat, most likely.  So, her actions are going to be subject to a reasonableness inquiry at two levels.

I would not be surprised if she were convicted, but given a fairly lenient sentence.

Makes some sense. Some leeway given on the reasonably possible mistake of being in the wrong home and thinking it was her own but on the question of shooting the poor guy, maybe not so reasonable. I think the evidence will provide the answers. Brisket will lose his shit.

23 minutes ago, Herpa Derpa said:

As the son of a man who prosecuted for Henry Wade, color me motherfucking impressed.  She may still walk, but the indictment alone is a tonal shift for this town.

I had a friend in high school whose Dad was one of Wade's prosecutors.  Then he was a defense attorney that got paid in boats, cars and motorcycles frequently.  Then he was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine.  Texas graduates, pere et fils.

/csb

4 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

That's why I am curious as to what exactly happened after the door opened. Did he do anything to give her justification for shooting? Good thing for her she left no witnesses 

Bingo. It's all going to hinge on what she said in her first interview. Look for "furtive movements" x 100

I think one of the key factors is whether she is permitted to invoke the castle doctrine (being in one's home may not be a question of fact about which one can be mistaken:  either you are or you are not).  If she is permitted to invoke the castle doctrine version of self-defense, then her actions have to be less reasonable/proportionate to the threat.

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think one of the key factors is whether she is permitted to invoke the castle doctrine (being in one's home may not be a question of fact about which one can be mistaken:  either you are or you are not).  If she is permitted to invoke the castle doctrine version of self-defense, then her actions have to be less reasonable/proportionate to the threat.

Hadn't though of that. They could even stretch the doctrine to include the entire apartment complex as part of the "castle". 

My guess is that they portray her as equal parts "highly trained officer who understands threat assessment" and "poor white girl who was scared for her life".

I’m hearing that if MS isn’t charged/indicted it isn’t a lesser included offense so if she walks on murder, she walks. Maybe 4th and 5 will chime in.

It will be interesting to find out what type of interaction(s), if any, had occurred between the two prior to the shooting. With that many witnesses interviewed, I'm willing to bet the other residents might have had something to add. 

I accidentally posted this update in the wrong forum, and managed not to murder anyone over the mistake.

1 minute ago, LongestHorn said:

I accidentally posted this update in the wrong forum, and managed not to murder anyone over the mistake.

Keep you gun in its holster, buddy

19 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

I hate to say this, but according to the law she may not have committed a crime. The law affords you the right to defend yourself against a perceived threat, even if that threat isn't real. 

I don't think so.  You are saying you have to prove subjective intent only.  It is objective + subjective, i.e., would a reasonable person have concluded self defense was necessary, and did you honestly conclude it was necessary.

 

She could have actually believed she needed to act in self defense but it was objectively unreasonable to believe so and still be guilty.  (I think)

 

https://www.lclark.edu/live/files/7234-lcb144art5forellpdf

1 minute ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

I don't think so.  You are saying you have to prove subjective intent only.  It is objective + subjective, i.e., would a reasonable person have concluded self defense was necessary, and did you honestly conclude it was necessary.

 

She could have actually believed she needed to act in self defense but it was objectively unreasonable to believe so and still be guilty.  (I think)

 

https://www.lclark.edu/live/files/7234-lcb144art5forellpdf

Right, and I am not saying her actions would pass the standard of reasonability.  That is why I would love to know what really happened after that door opened. 

Edited by immortal13

1 minute ago, LongestHorn said:

So ghosts is a muder defense?

Depends on how scared of ghosts you are

1 minute ago, LongestHorn said:

Did he say boo?

 

6 minutes ago, LongestHorn said:

So ghosts is a muder defense?

Spooks

12 minutes ago, LongestHorn said:

So ghosts is a muder defense?

You think she'd be comfortable around people in white sheets. 

39 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

Makes some sense. Some leeway given on the reasonably possible mistake of being in the wrong home and thinking it was her own but on the question of shooting the poor guy, maybe not so reasonable. I think the evidence will provide the answers. Brisket will lose his shit.

She walks.  You know how the facts will work out.

Had this been a generic person (hell, let's flip it -- black guy walks into white girl's apartment), it's a guaranteed conviction of AT LEAST manslaughter.

But because she's a cop, AND because he's a big black guy....she walks.

35 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Bingo. It's all going to hinge on what she said in her first interview. Look for "furtive movements" x 100

Furtive movements.

Did not obey my lawful commands (nevermind that fuck you, I don't obey shit when I'm in my own home watching goddamned TV).

He was in a drug-crazed frenzy (they'll 100% use the MJ against him).

Reefer_Madness_(1936).jpg

So, of course, she feared for her life.  And she knows all about these dangers, because she's a trained cop.  If a cop feels threatened, then it's a genuine threat, because a trained cop would never be afraid of something that's NOT a genuine threat.  QED.

She walks.

  • Author
1 hour ago, South Austin said:

Fuck this cynicism.  I say the jury doesn't buy her bullshit anymore than we do and they convict.  I ain't even drunk.

I hope so.  I'll hold on to a shred of hope for humanity, but an acquittal here would do away with it entirely.

37 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

I don't think so.  You are saying you have to prove subjective intent only.  It is objective + subjective, i.e., would a reasonable person have concluded self defense was necessary, and did you honestly conclude it was necessary.

 

She could have actually believed she needed to act in self defense but it was objectively unreasonable to believe so and still be guilty.  (I think)

 

https://www.lclark.edu/live/files/7234-lcb144art5forellpdf

This.  I'll be interested to read this law review.  But reasonableness is the standard and is measured as an ordinary person.  Your last sentence hits the nail on the head.  Even if she subjectively believed force was necessary that belief was unreasonable because it was not her apartment and a reasonable ordinary person would not enter another person's apartment believing it is theres with such certainty that they are ready to start blasting. The only reasonable examples of walking into someone else's place by accident are usually drunk people in dorms that look alike who simply pass out. If someone opens the door and says "what up bro this ain't your place" they just walk on and say "thank bro."  They don't have a service weapon and start blasting immediately.  That is not reasonable under any objective analysis.

Edited by 'stache

  • Author

To add to that, I still think it's likely she was heading home from a bar and was tipsy or drunk. Of course we'd never know because she'll be protected while they happily released almost immediately that Blacky McBlackerson had some pot in his place.

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

To add to that, I still think it's likely she was heading home from a bar and was tipsy or drunk. Of course we'd never know because she'll be protected while they happily released almost immediately that Blacky McBlackerson had some pot in his place.

Yeah. Her tox screen is important. If they made her take one. Regardless, a few of the 300 witnesses may be bar patrons/bar employees who can speak to this.

1 hour ago, immortal13 said:

That's why I am curious as to what exactly happened after the door opened. Did he do anything to give her justification for shooting? Good thing for her she left no witnesses 

I'm curious about this too.

1 minute ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Yeah. Her tox screen is important. If they made her take one. Regardless, a few of the 300 witnesses may be bar patrons/bar employees who can speak to this.

It's been reported that they took a sample of her blood.

Just now, immortal13 said:

It's been reported that they took a sample of her blood.

Yesterday...

  • Author
1 minute ago, immortal13 said:

It's been reported that they took a sample of her blood.

I'm pretty sure that's super secret private information.  Meanwhile, Potty McPotface shouldn't have done so much pot if he wanted to not get shot by a stranger in his own apartment.

Just now, Rip76 said:

I'm curious about this too.

What happened after the door opened?

She'll tell us EXACTLY what happened after it opened.  Wanna lay odds on whether she uses "furtive movements" or a similar term?  And something to the effect of "I gave him a lawful command to freeze and put his hands up, and he did not comply."  And something to the effect of "I am trained to notice the erratic behavior of someone under the influence of a dangerous illegal drug, and he showed all the traits."  Come on.  We all know how this will go.

/csb 

My daughter (the moniker for DDD) got called to be on the grand jury that heard this case.  She didn't get picked (whew).

She may have very well be under the influence, but I don't think cops can drink at a bar in uniform in this day and age with camera phones.  They would get busted all the time.

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

What happened after the door opened?

She'll tell us EXACTLY what happened after it opened.  Wanna lay odds on whether she uses "furtive movements" or a similar term?  And something to the effect of "I gave him a lawful command to freeze and put his hands up, and he did not comply."  And something to the effect of "I am trained to notice the erratic behavior of someone under the influence of a dangerous illegal drug, and he showed all the traits."  Come on.  We all know how this will go.

Don't forget "he was reaching for something" or " he had something in his hands"

Just now, immortal13 said:

Don't forget "he was reaching for something" or " he had something in his hands"

Oh.  How silly of me to forget.  Of course.  And it will be a "black, shiny object."

thoshiba-remote-1.jpg

8 minutes ago, kevwun said:

She may have very well be under the influence, but I don't think cops can drink at a bar in uniform in this day and age with camera phones.  They would get busted all the time.

Cop bars don't snitch on cops.

Yeah, but random people in the bar and the street outside do.

3 minutes ago, kevwun said:

Yeah, but random people in the bar and the street outside do.

Are you making furtive movements towards me?

No, but your mom likes it when I get furtive.

With a black girl the other night. Doing drugs and shit. I look up and go "Oh shit I should probably lock the door". She responds, "You mean it was unlocked the whole time?"

Amber Guyger walked thru Mesquite jail around 1:30 pm today and her bond was transferred to this new charge.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.