No, you're arguing that if your interpretation of the law is correct then she should never have been convicted and it will be easily overturned on appeal. Since I wasn't the defense attorney I can't speak for what they were thinking or not. Maybe you should call them and ask them.
Time will tell which view of the law holds up in this case.
If one little line of questioning was so important, it would be ripe for the appeals to look at. However, looking at her mistake of fact and Castle Doctrine defense may be more difficult as it involves more considerations. I have little knowledge about appeals and how reluctant courts are to try to overturn jury decisions, so I’ll cut it here.
AG's defense was that she was acting in self-defense. It relies on mistake of fact and Castle Doctrine. Where does the silly scrutiny of how she defended herself come in? It doesn't. It's about buying the self-defense or not.
I believe you are ignoring that you absolute can shoot to kill someone if they are attacking you.
Wut. Even disregarding common sense, I’ve repeatedly told you that you’ve been greatly exaggerating the standard on when to use force.
If you manage to stop the attack that is when you stop shooting. If the person happens to be dead then it is not murder. If you continue shooting after it is reasonable to do so to defend your life, then that is when it becomes murder. Or if you shoot when there is no immediate threat to your life or safety. It does not matter if you are in your own house or not.
All castle doctrine says is that when you are in your own house you have no duty to try to retreat before you begin using deadly force to protect yourself from an attack. But the shooter still needs to be defending themselves. And, in some states, property. But, if it is found there was no reasonable threat then you can't shoot.
Castle Doctrine gives presumption of reasonableness if these conditions below are met, which are very protective of homeowners. There is a presumption that you had reason to fear even if they don’t attack (not surprising as cops don’t have to wait either).
1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force or deadly force was used unlawfully and with force entered, or attempted to enter, the actor's home, vehicle, or place of business or employment; unlawfully and with force removed, or attempted to remove, the actor from the home, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or was committing or attempting to commit certain serious crimes;
2) did not provoke the person against whom the force or deadly force was used; and
3) was not otherwise engaged in certain criminal activity at the time the force or deadly force was used.
You keep ignoring this point. Since Mr. Jean was found by the evidence to not be a threat to Amber Geiger (sp?) it was not a self-defense shooting.
This is where mistake of fact and Castle Doctrine comes in. At the time, she thought she was in her own home and an “intruder” was inside that had “broken in”. So it comes down to whether you want to believing what she said to the extent that you’re not believing the alternative is around ~95% or more in likelihood.
And, since she seems to have said she went in planning to kill him, I think that's what made it murder.
How do you square this with what you’re saying? They’re not the same.
Guyger said that going through the doorway with her pistol drawn, "was the only option that went through my head."