Dallas officer enters apartment she mistakes for her own, fatally shoots man inside

Page 42 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,637
50,864
136
Intent is key.

She intended to kill a human; she didn't think she was shooting at an animal.

Yes, thinking you are shooting at something that is not a person could be manslaughter because you did not intentionally kill a human. In this case she publicly admitted her intent to kill the human in question.

Intent does not mean ‘intended to go into the wrong house and kill a person’. It means ‘intended to kill a person’ and the fact of that is not in dispute.
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,538
759
146
It's not about believing the prosecution's angle that she decided to wantonly kill him. It's about her own testimony that she intended to kill him. There isn't more than one way to look at that.

It's silliness to latch onto that. Some people here argued against me that's self-defense, too, though virtually everyone I've come across that''s into guns or in law enforcement thinks it's about incapacitating the person or "stopping the threat". Why would I put so much importance on that if some people think "to kill" is self-defense as well because they reason that death may not be certain but could be likely?

Intent does not mean ‘intended to go into the wrong house and kill a person’. It means ‘intended to kill a person’ and the fact of that is not in dispute.

You're literally arguing there can never be a mistake of fact case in regards to self-defense in Texas if you shot a person.


Sec. 8.02. MISTAKE OF FACT. (a) 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.

(b) Although an actor's mistake of fact may constitute a defense to the offense charged, he may nevertheless be convicted of any lesser included offense of which he would be guilty if the fact were as he believed.
 
Last edited:

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
You're literally arguing there can never be a mistake of fact case in regards to self-defense in Texas if you shot a person.

No, you can have mistake of fact, but if the jury did not buy the mistake of fact defense the fact that she intended to kill him makes it murder not manslaughter.

Basically in the end for the jury to find her guilty they either did not accept her mistake of fact defense or did not accept that it was reasonable to use deadly force in that situation. Since she testified that she intended to kill him murder is the correct charge in Texas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
I'm surprised. With murder, she has to serve at least half.

I think it is a good sentence. She needed to be found guilty and do some time, but in the end I don't believe there any was real malice, and she is unlikely to make such a mistake again, so there was no need for a particularly long one.
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,538
759
146
No, you can have mistake of fact, but if the jury did not buy the mistake of fact defense the fact that she intended to kill him makes it murder not manslaughter.

Of course. I pointed that out previously. Though I would amend that they probably didn't buy the whole prosecution narrative. I think they latched onto her statement with what the jury instructions said, but as I said, I think it's silly to put so much importance on that like some of you are.

Since she testified that she intended to kill him murder is the correct charge in Texas.

Just like allsolm, it makes zero sense to latch onto this. There were a few people on this thread who claim if you're shooting in self-defense, you intend to kill. And they meant even in perfect self-defense. Sheesh.
 
Last edited:

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,538
759
146
I think it is a good sentence. She needed to be found guilty and do some time, but in the end I don't believe there any was real malice, and she is unlikely to make such a mistake again, so there was no need for a particularly long one.

If you actually believed the prosecution (i.e. she already intended to kill him before going in with no commands etc.), it seems a bit light even to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BoomerD

allisolm

Elite Member
Administrator
Jan 2, 2001
25,080
4,544
136
It's silliness to latch onto that. Some people here argued against me that's self-defense, too, though virtually everyone I've come across that''s into guns or in law enforcement thinks it's about incapacitating the person or "stopping the threat".

There was no threat. She was outside the apartment in the hall.Standing on the red welcome mat that did not exist at her own door. She could have walked away. She could have called for assistance. She could have done a lot of things. She drew her gun, went in, and did not shoot to incapacitate the person but rather to intentionally kill him. I don't think it's silliness to latch on to any of that, but that's just me... and the jury.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
Just like allsolm, it makes zero sense to latch onto this. There were a few people on this thread who claim if you're shooting in self-defense, you intend to kill. And they meant even in perfect self-defense. Sheesh.
No, you are mistaking me. It makes sense because in Texas manslaughter only applies to the accidental death of someone through negligence. If the death of someone was the intent it is always murder not manslaughter. Since she admits that she intended to kill him, if the jury does not buy her self defense plea for whatever reason, it must be murder not manslaughter because it was not accidental, even if the reason that she decided to kill him was a mistake.

If you actually believed the prosecution (i.e. she already intended to kill him before going in with no commands etc.), it seems a bit light even to me.

I don't know if they bought that or not. It seems hard to buy considering that if she had paid enough attention to notice that someone was in the apartment she would have noticed any of the dozen of things that should have told her it was not her apartment. Then you are right and it is too light a sentence, because at that point you have to basically believe that she went there specifically to kill him.

I think that the jury (and myself - I watched most of the trial livestream) ended up feeling that killing Botham Jean was not reasonable, even if she believed she was in her apartment. She shot him before he even finished standing up. It shows that she took no care in the use of deadly force.
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,538
759
146
No, you are mistaking me. It makes sense because in Texas manslaughter only applies to the accidental death of someone through negligence. If the death of someone was the intent it is always murder not manslaughter. Since she admits that she intended to kill him, if the jury does not buy her self defense plea for whatever reason, it must be murder not manslaughter because it was not accidental, even if the reason that she decided to kill him was a mistake.

I don't get your point. It's always about self-defense in cases like these. It's murder anywhere if it wasn't about self-defense.


 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,244
10,818
136
And again, It seems silly to me that mistake of fact leads to murder charge. She intended to stop the threat of a burglar, of which she clearly thought she was in her own home, and it's reasonable to think she was afraid. With similar facts in a case where she was actually in her own home (e.g. burglar dies near ottoman eating bowl of icecream with downward trajectory and she heard sounds before she went in), it wouldn't even have gone to trial. Just an aside, I agree it would be murder if what the prosecution argued was true, but I don't think that was proven beyond a reasonable doubt (around ~95% likelihood).
If she was so in fear, why did she open the door? Police are trained to kill, but they also aren't supposed to shoot someone seating on the sofa watching TV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

SteveGrabowski

Diamond Member
Oct 20, 2014
7,428
6,157
136
Ten years (with parole probably a possibility after five) seems fair here, as this was certainly murder since she intended to kill him but it wasn't premeditated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,635
3,509
136
I think it is a good sentence. She needed to be found guilty and do some time, but in the end I don't believe there any was real malice, and she is unlikely to make such a mistake again, so there was no need for a particularly long one.

Now Texas needs to make all non-violent drug offense sentences less than what she got for killing a dude eating ice cream on his couch.

At least she'll be a cop in prison, so hopefully every day is a nightmare.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,022
2,872
136
There was no threat. She was outside the apartment in the hall.Standing on the red welcome mat that did not exist at her own door. She could have walked away. She could have called for assistance. She could have done a lot of things. She drew her gun, went in, and did not shoot to incapacitate the person but rather to intentionally kill him. I don't think it's silliness to latch on to any of that, but that's just me... and the jury.

I'm not familiar enough with law enforcement. Do you or anyone have knowledge that if a solo police officer finds evidence that a burglary may have occurred if it is reasonable that they enter the premises alone? This is certainly not what had happened, but it is what Guyger said she thought had happened. In that context, I don't believe she entered the premises intending to find and kill someone. She intended to kill Jean when she perceived him as a direct threat to her that was not following the commands of an armed officer. That was also not what was happening, but it's what Guyger said she thought was happening. Shooting to incapacitate is not what officers are trained to do. In the face of threat justifying discharging a firearm, the correct response according to officer training is to shoot to kill.
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,538
759
146
There was no threat. She was outside the apartment in the hall.Standing on the red welcome mat that did not exist at her own door. She could have walked away. She could have called for assistance. She could have done a lot of things. She drew her gun, went in, and did not shoot to incapacitate the person but rather to intentionally kill him. I don't think it's silliness to latch on to any of that, but that's just me... and the jury.

Yes. And many people have even been acquitted or not charge in cases like these. I'm sure you would get different results with multiple juries.

If she was so in fear, why did she open the door? Police are trained to kill, but they also aren't supposed to shoot someone seating on the sofa watching TV.

Using this logic, this cop shouldn't have been fearful when she decided to follow this fleeing man. Go look at the tape yourself and tell me she isn't afraid.


That is my point. That is the message the jury sent. Don't shoot unless you are sure, because if you are wrong it is murder.

How is this really different than other states? There is the possibly for some distinction such as them latching onto the statute language when AG said she "intended to kill", but I think that's a silly application of it if that's the main reason why they decided to go with murder instead of manslaughter.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
I didn't care for the murder verdict and overall preferred manslaughter - but I'm overall... I guess... fine with the end resulting sentence. I anticipated that I would be fine with anything between 5 - 20 years and I guess 10 is sorta towards the middle.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
Now Texas needs to make all non-violent drug offense sentences less than what she got for killing a dude eating ice cream on his couch.

I agree, but it is worth pointing out that the average sentence for murder in Texas is 16 years. People in Texas regularly get longer sentences for smoking a joint than for killing the person that sold it to them.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: DarthKyrie

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
How is this really different than other states? There is the possibly for some distinction such as them latching onto the statute language when AG said she "intended to kill", but I think that's a silly application of it if that's the main reason why they decided to go with murder instead of manslaughter.
In most other states murder requires premeditation. It Texas it only requires intent. She intended to kill him, therefore it can not be manslaughter. No matter why she intended to kill him. It was either Murder or not guilty.
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,538
759
146
In most other states murder requires premeditation. It Texas it only requires intent. She intended to kill him, therefore it can not me manslaughter. No matter why she intended to kill him. It was either Murder or not guilty.

I don't think so, but I'm just going by my very basic knowledge of it. Aren't a lot of states Murder 1 (planned) and Murder 2 (depraved mind, etc.) ? Texas is capital murder vs. murder.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
I don't think so, but I'm just going by my very basic knowledge of it. Aren't a lot of states Murder 1 (planned) and Murder 2 (depraved mind, etc.) ? Texas is capital murder vs. murder.

The difference between Murder and Capital murder in Texas is not the same as Murder 1 and Murder 2. Basically Capital Murder is murder in the commission of another felony, or murder of a police officer or firefighter. It only requires intent, not premeditation.

Edit: I looked up the specifics:
Nine different kinds of homicide qualify as capital murder in Texas:

•The victim is a peace officer or fireman acting under their lawful duty at the time of the offense;
•The defendant intentionally commits the murder during the commission or attempted commission of a kidnapping, burglary, robbery, aggravated sexual assault, arson, obstruction or retaliation, or terroristic threat;
•The defendant is paid to commit the murder or pays someone else to commit the murder;
•The murder occurs during an escape from a penal institution;
•An inmate, while incarcerated murders another A) who is an employee in prison operation, or B) with the intent to establish, maintain, or participate in a combination or in the profits of a combination;
•An inmate, while incarcerated for either capital murder or murder, A) kills another, or B) an inmate serving a life sentence or a term of 99 years for kidnapping, assaultive offenses, or aggravated;
•The defendant murders more than one person A) during the same criminal transaction, or B) during different criminal transactions but the murders are committed pursuant to the same scheme or course of conduct;
•The defendant murders a child under six years of age; or
•The defendant murders another person in retaliation for or on account of the service or status of the other person as a judge or justice.
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,538
759
146
The difference between Murder and Capital murder in Texas is not the same as Murder 1 and Murder 2. Basically Capital Murder is murder in the commission of another felony, or murder of a police officer or firefighter. It only requires intent, not premeditation.

Edit: I looked up the specifics:

I know the language is different. You made the claim murder requires premeditation, but there is Murder 2 as a second degree, which is what your average person thinks of if we're comparing Texas and other states. If self-defense fails entirely for either, it goes to murder.
 

purbeast0

No Lifer
Sep 13, 2001
53,024
5,905
126
There is a video of the brother of the victim in the courtroom telling her that he loves her and then asks the judge if he can hug her, and he goes and hugs her.

Very touching video.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie and Vic