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

It’s a wandering daughter job.

  • 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

Just now, Gene Parmesan said:

Assuming she did go, I think the bad optics probably does more damage than any bail violation punishment.  But then again she won't be on trial for murder so maybe those optics don't really mean much.

She was indicted on murder charges, so, unless the prosecution drops or dismisses that charge in favor of something it can't prove (the manslaughter offenses in Texas really don't apply here), yeah she will be on trial for murder.

7 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

As noted in the article, two issues here.  One, it's a bad look and two a possible bail conditions violation.  So now everybody's "haha, stupid bitch, throw her in jail for violating her bail."

But hold up.  Bail and pretrial detention serve the primary purpose of securing a defendant's appearance at trial.  The second purpose may be to detain someone thought to be a danger to society.  There cannot and should not be any element of punishment in bail/detention decisions, unless a failed attempt to flee the jurisdiction is proven (and that is really an entirely separate crime).

Remember, in our system, the defendant is innocent until proven guilty and a defendant under bail or in pretrial detention is, emphatically, innocent.

So, to me, it is really problematic to detain her pending trial for this.  Now, is some punishment in order for ignoring court orders?  Probably yes, but also probably far short of detention, or detention for more than a few days or weeks.  A fine or a GPS monitor or a curfew or something is probably more appropriate.

Now, before someone jumps my shit for defending Amber Guyger, this is a general statement of how I think things should play out for defendants pre-trial, not a commentary on the actions of Amber Guyger.

Our criminal justice system is FUBAR.  In our gusto for seeing justice (more accurately retribution and punishment, justice aint got shit to do with it) for certain defendants, we entirely lose sight of the fact that for every shithead defendant that deserves "justice," there are a hundred thousand other defendants being ground to dust in our system.

 

 

Now ask yourself what if it was a black man (or anyone) who wasn't a police officer? Would the prosecutor would be just as willing to overlook violating terms of pre-trial release?

1 hour ago, RPM said:

Now ask yourself what if it was a black man (or anyone) who wasn't a police officer? Would the prosecutor would be just as willing to overlook violating terms of pre-trial release?

Do black folks do cruises?

3 hours ago, El Diablo said:

Do black folks do cruises?

They sit around the pool / ocean

12 hours ago, Hawndoh said:

Taking a cruise shows just how confident she was that the department would cover it all up. 

She could have booked the cruise before the shooting. 

37 minutes ago, ShaggyBevo RIP said:

She could have booked the cruise before the shooting. 

Yep. That totally overrides court orders.

  • 1 month later...
16 minutes ago, C-Man said:

What's the latest here?

Heard on the ticket this morning that some pending cases where she was the arresting officer are being dropped.

  • Popular Post
On 2/5/2019 at 9:25 AM, Seasick Sailor said:

I wouldn't shoot her, but my wife would.

 

On 3/20/2019 at 11:44 PM, RPM said:

Yep. That totally overrides court orders.

Maritime law and what not.  Be a shame if Captain mistook her cabin for his.  

1 hour ago, Gene Parmesan said:

Heard on the ticket this morning that some pending cases where she was the arresting officer are being dropped.

 

 

On 3/20/2019 at 6:43 PM, El Diablo said:

Do black folks do cruises?

Isaac did.

Every damned day.

2 hours ago, AbeFroman said:

 

Good ole Medano beach.  I've done, uh, the very same kind of "research" there.

Much more covertly, however.

52 minutes ago, RPM said:

 

 

I wonder if that means some extra malfeasance has been found that might affect her day-to-day more than this.  Otherwise you might think it would have happened months ago.  Or maybe it's Creuzot.

Edited by TwiceHorn

3 minutes ago, Cajun said:

Isaac did.

Every damned day.

80s 70s GIF

I wonder if that means some extra malfeasance has been found that might affect her day-to-day more than this.  Otherwise you might think it would have happened months ago.  Or maybe it's Creuzot.
I figure she can't effectively testify in a timely manner, but she's a piece of shit, so who knows.

Someone explain why previous cases are thrown out because of future actions of an officer? Is it because their testimony and investigation is now tainted? Just wondering where they draw the line with these officer's cases and how far they go back. Believe me, I am not a fan of cops at all and so many of these drug cases are fucking waste of resources but if the case was legit and the cop did everything they should have at the time, wondering why it should be dropped because of an action in the future that had nothing to with those cases.

2 minutes ago, Vic Mackey said:

Someone explain why previous cases are thrown out because of future actions of an officer? Is it because their testimony and investigation is now tainted? Just wondering where they draw the line with these officer's cases and how far they go back. Believe me, I am not a fan of cops at all and so many of these drug cases are fucking waste of resources but if the case was legit and the cop did everything they should have at the time, wondering why it should be dropped because of an action in the future that had nothing to with those cases.

Prosecutors dropped the case because they knew it'd be a waste of time with her as their main witness. 

21 minutes ago, Vic Mackey said:

Someone explain why previous cases are thrown out because of future actions of an officer? Is it because their testimony and investigation is now tainted? Just wondering where they draw the line with these officer's cases and how far they go back. Believe me, I am not a fan of cops at all and so many of these drug cases are fucking waste of resources but if the case was legit and the cop did everything they should have at the time, wondering why it should be dropped because of an action in the future that had nothing to with those cases.

If misconduct occurred remotely in time and of a different type than anything thing officer may have done in a pending case, then the defense can/should be instructed not to raise it.  Like a weird murder case occurring years after a DWI stop or a burglary bust.

I am guessing that they either found some irregularity in her past investigative work (seems like she might be kind of a dipshit, a cowboy, or both), or they decided that the publicity is too pervasive to avoid, even if not raised at trial.

2 hours ago, Vic Mackey said:

Someone explain why previous cases are thrown out because of future actions of an officer? Is it because their testimony and investigation is now tainted? Just wondering where they draw the line with these officer's cases and how far they go back. Believe me, I am not a fan of cops at all and so many of these drug cases are fucking waste of resources but if the case was legit and the cop did everything they should have at the time, wondering why it should be dropped because of an action in the future that had nothing to with those cases.

Because she was a psycho, which wasn’t known at the time of her collars?

i dunno, just spitballing here.

15 hours ago, RPM said:

 

 

I'd like to see video of her coming down the hall, walking in slow motion and whipping her head around to fling her hair. I want this in slow motion.

Eight hours to get the victim's toxicology report.  Eight months to get the murderer's toxicology report.  

Why this lab is something of a geographic anomaly.  Close to the blacks, far from the truth.  

4 hours ago, Lobo said:

Eight hours to get the victim's toxicology report.  Eight months to get the murderer's toxicology report.  

Why this lab is something of a geographic anomaly.  Close to the blacks, far from the truth.  

I don’t remember a victims toxicology report being released.

My bad, it's been so long I blended the story about what they found in his apartment with his "backstory" and a bunch of other shamelessly added details that had absolutely zero bearing on why two rounds were put into his body.  The very fact that intelligent people that have followed this story closely have already forgotten that it's been 8 months of zero reports on her personal toxicology is pretty fucking telling, certainly more damming than anything you or I could write.  

The thin blue line is the strip that should be showing up on the litmus paper showing what I know is an absolutely delightful cocktail of illegally obtained prescription drugs and rum.

On 4/26/2019 at 5:36 PM, RPM said:

 

 

Line of the article, right here:

 

Quote

Records indicate one county prosecutor asked that their case be dismissed because Guyger had been accused of "murdering an innocent man in his own home," The Dallas Morning News reported.

 

It appears from reportage that the sole reason the cases have been dismissed is the murder indictment.

Timing seems a bit odd, since that's been pending for six months now.  Maybe it's because the first of them came up for trial or some other setting, so they just now got around to looking at them.  Or maybe it's Creuzot's willingness to let things drop.

  • Author

Defense attorney: "You have stated publicly that you work long hours to such exhaustion that you entered the wrong apartment by accident, shooting and killing an innocent man. Isn't it possible that these long hours and exhaustion also affected your judgment in evaluating the crime scene involving my client."

 

 

Amber: Image result for plead the fif

Edited by 'stache

On 4/27/2019 at 9:45 AM, Lobo said:

 

Why this lab is something of a geographic anomaly.  Close to the blacks, far from the truth.  

What are you, the goddamned Pater Familius?

 

4 hours ago, 'stache said:

Defense attorney: "You have stated publicly that you work long hours to such exhaustion that you entered the wrong apartment by accident, shooting and killing an innocent man. Isn't it possible that these long hours and exhaustion also affected your judgment in evaluating the crime scene involving my client."

 

 

Amber: Image result for plead the fif

The police want to stay away from this at all costs. If her hours were consistent with most officers and she in any way indicates it may have hindered her judgement, that will be the basis for attorneys to try and dismiss any case by any cop who worked similar hours. Might not be successful, but it would be a shit show for them. Not that I would mind the police having to deal with a shit show of their own creation.

WFAA released the 911 call she made that night. 

She didn't seem very concerned with him at all and only was concerned about her job at the time. Didn't make any real attempts at all to try and help him, especially being a trained police officer. Quick to shoot and didn't even help. Didn't sound real upset. Fuck her.

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/special-reports/botham-jean/uncensored-911-call-amber-guyger-after-shooting-botham-jean/287-89eb47bb-7f14-46fd-8406-141ffabb44a1

23 minutes ago, Vic Mackey said:

WFAA released the 911 call she made that night. 

She didn't seem very concerned with him at all and only was concerned about her job at the time. Didn't make any real attempts at all to try and help him, especially being a trained police officer. Quick to shoot and didn't even help. Didn't sound real upset. Fuck her.

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/special-reports/botham-jean/uncensored-911-call-amber-guyger-after-shooting-botham-jean/287-89eb47bb-7f14-46fd-8406-141ffabb44a1

From what I've read and heard about this (it's been a while, perhaps i've forgotten something) it sure seemed like she murdered the dude... but that call makes it sound like she's right there with him, applying pressure, in a panic. If she was actually helping him however possible, that phone call audio may be why she's found not guilty. 

I didn't hear her trying to help him at all. I guess everyone hears it differently, which will make it tough for a jury to decipher this tape in the trial.

Nothing in that call changes anything. She killed an unarmed guy in his living room. The call just shows she knows how bad she fucked up. I'd be panicked and saying sorry, too.

The “I’m so tired” utterance at the end was calculated.  Fuck this bitch. 

27 minutes ago, cabowabo said:

The “I’m so tired” utterance at the end was calculated. 

I bet she was so scared, too.  She has the acting chops of a young Jesse Spanno

The call did make me feel a little more sympathetic to her, but that doesn't remove her culpability to me. Shooting people has consequences. Even cops need to understand that. This could have easily been avoided had she not approached the situation with a shoot-first mentality. 

I think this is manslaughter and not murder.  There was no intent.  There was fatigue-induced disorientation and fear. 

She took the man's life, and for that she should stand trial and face the consequences.  But I think the charge should be manslaughter.

4 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

I think this is manslaughter and not murder.  There was no intent.  There was fatigue-induced disorientation and fear. 

She took the man's life, and for that she should stand trial and face the consequences.  But I think the charge should be manslaughter.

What do you mean there was no intent?  The gun didn't accidently discharge as she was pointing it at him.  She pulled the trigger with the intent to shoot the victim.  She was just mistaken that she was justified to do so. 

11 minutes ago, Gene Parmesan said:

What do you mean there was no intent?  The gun didn't accidently discharge as she was pointing it at him.  She pulled the trigger with the intent to shoot the victim.  She was just mistaken that she was justified to do so. 

What I mean is she didn't walk into that apartment expecting to find anyone, much less shoot them. She honestly thought she was in her apartment and there was an intruder. She was dazed and confused.  That's why I think the charge should be manslaughter and not murder.

Let's be clear that I still think she was wrong and she should face justice.  I'm not saying she gets a pass...not at all.  But I think the charge should be appropriate for what took place.  In the end, whether it is murder or manslaughter, her life is forever fucked anyway.  Prison is prison, and an ex-cop in prison for killing an innocent black man is going to get the same treatment regardless of which charge she is convicted of.

And just so we are on the same page and you understand what I'm talking about:

Quote
  • Second-degree murder: any intentional murder with malice aforethought, but is not premeditated or planned in advance. [73]
  • Voluntary manslaughter: sometimes called a crime of passion murder, is any intentional killing that involves no prior intent to kill, and which was committed under such circumstances that would "cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed". Both this and second-degree murder are committed on the spot under a spur-of-the-moment choice, but the two differ in the magnitude of the circumstances surrounding the crime. For example, a bar fight that results in death would ordinarily constitute second-degree murder. If that same bar fight stemmed from a discovery of infidelity, however, it may be mitigated to voluntary manslaughter.[74]

Now read those two definitions and tell me which one her crime falls under?  I say the second.

Edited by Uncle Nate

With Use of deadly force for self defense on today’s syllabus entry, I think we will start class today with the 911 call. 

And all the lights off. 

3 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Average Joe breaks into someone's house through an unlocked door and shoots the home owner we are giving average Joe benefit of the doubt and calling it manslaughter because he was tired and maybe drunk.

If this was a man who wasn't a police officer would you be making the same argument?

I don't believe you would.

This fits under second in every definition of the word.

I just don't think it fits the "...with malice aforethought" piece to the 2nd degree murder.  I do think it fits the voluntary manslaughter.  By definition, it still slaps her with the intent.  She's still guilty of willfully taking the man's life.  

And like I said, once she gets to prison, and she will, it won't matter a hill of beans if it was 2nd degree murder vs. voluntary manslaughter.  The prison population is going to make her suffer equally the same.

Hey man we plowed this ground months ago, go look at the culpable mental states in chapter 6 of the Texas Penal Code. And then read chapter 19. It’s a murder case. 

Hey man we plowed this ground months ago, go look at the culpable mental states in chapter 6 of the Texas Penal Code. And then read chapter 19. It’s a murder case. 
Absolutely. Anyone trying to justify what she did is delusional. And this 911 call made it even worse for me.

Again, just to be clear, me advocating for manslaughter over murder should not be interpreted as me trying to justify what she did.  Not at all.  

1 hour ago, LurkingHorn said:

The call did make me feel a little more sympathetic to her, but that doesn't remove her culpability to me. Shooting people has consequences. Even cops need to understand that. This could have easily been avoided had she not approached the situation with a shoot-first mentality. 

 

1 hour ago, Uncle Nate said:

I think this is manslaughter and not murder.  There was no intent.  There was fatigue-induced disorientation and fear. 

She took the man's life, and for that she should stand trial and face the consequences.  But I think the charge should be manslaughter.

Yeah, this is where I'm at. She fucked up. Plain and simple. But I don't think she willfully murdered Jean. It was just a horrible mistake on her part, and probably part of the cowboy police mentality that is so pervasive these days. It would've been much easier to back away and perhaps de-escalate the situation but she went in "shooting first and asking questions later" because that's the police way. She's going to prison because of it.

1 hour ago, 4th and 5 said:

Hey man we plowed this ground months ago, go look at the culpable mental states in chapter 6 of the Texas Penal Code. And then read chapter 19. It’s a murder case. 

Listen to 4th and 5, guys.  It ain't about your feelings, it's about the law.  It's a murder case.

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.