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

Page 45 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,409
8,700
136
Basically even if she did think she was in her apartment her actions were completely unreasonable.
Unreasonable. OK. I make mistakes every day. EVERY DAY.

Question and for everyone here. Do you think she lied when she said she thought she was in her own apartment and that the person she saw there and killed was an intruder?
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,538
759
146
If you are right then her conviction will be overturned. I don’t believe it will be.

My point was that if your interpretation of the law was true (which I don't think is reality), then it should be easy. And like I said, where the hell was the defense if it was that important?
 
Last edited:

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
27,651
26,752
136
My point was that if your interpretation of the law was true (which I don't think is reality), then it should be easy. And like I said, where the hell was the defense if it was that important?

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.
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
My point was that if your interpretation of the law was true (which I don't think is reality), then it should be easy. And like I said, where the hell was the defense if it was that important?
I believe you are ignoring that you absolute can shoot to kill someone if they are attacking you. 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.

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. And, since she seems to have said she went in planning to kill him, I think that's what made it murder.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,007
8,041
136
Question and for everyone here. Do you think she lied when she said she thought she was in her own apartment and that the person she saw there and killed was an intruder?

I have no evidence to contradict it.
I believe her, and that is why I am okay with 10 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,538
759
146
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."
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
It's right here in your own link: "The bill provides that an actor who has a right to be present at the location where the force or deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at that time is not required to retreat before using force or deadly force."

It in no way allows you to shoot someone who is not posing a physical threat to your life or of causing you bodily harm and claim self-defense.

I'm done debating this with you.
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,538
759
146
It's right here in your own link: "The bill provides that an actor who has a right to be present at the location where the force or deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at that time is not required to retreat before using force or deadly force."

It in no way allows you to shoot someone who is not posing a physical threat to your life or of causing you bodily harm and claim self-defense.

I'm done debating this with you.

I was referring to this italicized part. You omitted this. There is a presumption that the shooting is reasonable if the conditions are met. Look how incredibly protective it is. All three simple to meet. Homeowners generally only get nailed if they do something absurd or fuck up majorly with mistaken identity (and even then not necessarily charged).

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;
 
Last edited:

dawp

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
11,347
2,709
136
Unreasonable. OK. I make mistakes every day. EVERY DAY.

Question and for everyone here. Do you think she lied when she said she thought she was in her own apartment and that the person she saw there and killed was an intruder?
only if she was impaired and MAYBE after a long 12hr shift. I know when I'm exhausted I am less likely to notice minor details, like parking on the wong floor or a different welcome mat in front of door.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
If you are right then her conviction will be overturned. I don’t believe it will be.

No it wouldn't be. If the jury decided they didn't buy into a particular defense, it isn't good grounds for an appeal. A better ground would be if the judge didn't instruct the jury about those defenses.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
[/QUOTE]
Unreasonable. OK. I make mistakes every day. EVERY DAY.

Question and for everyone here. Do you think she lied when she said she thought she was in her own apartment and that the person she saw there and killed was an intruder?

I personally believe that she was indeed confused and believed she was in her apartment, but it was because she was impaired, probably both exhausted and drunk, so it was not reasonable for her to use deadly force.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
I'll ask you the same question I posted earlier. If Jean was armed and had killed her first think the sentence would be the same?
Let me answer, since I feel that is was appropriate as well.
No, I don't think the sentence would be the same, but I think that would have been the miscarriage of justice not this one. Two wrongs do not make a right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vic

desy

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2000
5,442
211
106
That wasn't the situation not interested in hypotheticals. To me it wasn't murder it was manslaughter, the people in the courtroom and judge hear all the evidence
I'd like to think the justice system gets it right more often than not and I'm not blind to racist bias in the system. In this one case I feel the punishment suited the crime.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,409
8,700
136
I personally believe that she was indeed confused and believed she was in her apartment, but it was because she was impaired, probably both exhausted and drunk, so it was not reasonable for her to use deadly force.
OK, but people under stress aren't in the best position to make good judgments. In fact, "the first sign of stress if bad decision making." She'd just finished a 15 hour shift, is what I heard. She was also involved with some other officer that night, they say. I'm not saying she should be acquitted. But 10 years strikes me as outrageous for her sentence. I'm wondering if she were a man, would she be likewise punished.
only if she was impaired and MAYBE after a long 12hr shift. I know when I'm exhausted I am less likely to notice minor details, like parking on the wong floor or a different welcome mat in front of door.
I heard it was a 15 hour shift.
 
Last edited:

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
I'll ask you the same question I posted earlier. If Jean was armed and had killed her first think the sentence would be the same?

You'd have to define the circumstances first. Has AG entered his apartment or not? Is AG armed with weapon drawn when he shoots her? Depending on the circumstances, he could have gotten off totally based on the castle doctrine or gotten a sentence worse than she did. I know what you're getting at, that you think he would have have gotten a worse outcome because he would have been a black guy shooting a white cop, and maybe that's the case, but facts do matter to juries, not just race.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
OK, but people under stress aren't in the best position to make good judgments. In fact, "the first sign of stress if bad decision making." She'd just finished a 15 hour shift, is what I heard. She was also involved with some other officer that night, they say. I'm not saying she should be acquitted. But 10 years strikes me as outrageous for her sentence. I'm wondering if she were a man, would she be likewise punished.
It was 13 hour shift, which really is not that long. I work 10 hour shifts as my normal shift so I regularly end up with 13 hours on the job. My GF is a nurse that has a normal shift of 12 hours. If 13 hours was too long she should not have worked it, or at the very minimum decided that it was not a good idea to use deadly force when she could not be sure of her decision making. Would you say the same if she was drunk? Oh, she was drunk so it is not really her fault? Both are things she did that caused her to be impaired and not have good judgement. You would probably not feel the same if she had killed him in a car accident while her judgement was impaired by alcohol.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,409
8,700
136
It was 13 hour shift, which really is not that long. I work 10 hour shifts as my normal shift so I regularly end up with 13 hours on the job. My GF is a nurse that has a normal shift of 12 hours. If 13 hours was too long she should not have worked it, or at the very minimum decided that it was not a good idea to use deadly force when she could not be sure of her decision making. Would you say the same if she was drunk? Oh, she was drunk so it is not really her fault? Both are things she did that caused her to be impaired and not have good judgement. You would probably not feel the same if she had killed him in a car accident while her judgement was impaired by alcohol.
I just don't like it. She thought an intruder was coming at her in her own apartment. She had a gun on her and she was trained to kill when she used it. Cops kill people every day when they have no business even pulling their gun. Nothing to do with them being in personal danger. She thought she was. Huge difference. And 99+% of those cops walk. They get on administrative leave, there's an investigation by the DA's office and the great majority of the time the homicide is decided as "justifiable." Those are for situations when more than anything the cop was angry, not threatened. This Dallas cop THOUGHT she was threatened, she freaks out understandably and she gets 10 years. NOT FAIR! If I had been on that jury I doubt she'd have been convicted. I can't say for sure, I didn't see and hear all the evidence, but from what I know about it I think I would have been the guy they couldn't convince to convict.
 

Viper1j

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2018
4,264
3,840
136
My own mother spent 30 years as a cop, working as a Corrections Officer at CIW. The California Women's prison. her first 6 years, she worked exclusively with Susan Anton, Leslie Van Houten, and Patty Kernwinkle aka the "Manson Girls" She was LT of the SERT team. She never once ever even drew her weapon. I know Riverside PD guys that have gone their entire careers without ever drawing the weapon outside of the range.

Cops cared about life then, they don't now.

Today it's "kill them all, and let God sort them out."
 
Dec 10, 2005
25,056
8,336
136
I just don't like it. She thought an intruder was coming at her in her own apartment. She had a gun on her and she was trained to kill when she used it. Cops kill people every day when they have no business even pulling their gun. Nothing to do with them being in personal danger. She thought she was. Huge difference. And 99+% of those cops walk. They get on administrative leave, there's an investigation by the DA's office and the great majority of the time the homicide is decided as "justifiable." Those are for situations when more than anything the cop was angry, not threatened. This Dallas cop THOUGHT she was threatened, she freaks out understandably and she gets 10 years. NOT FAIR! If I had been on that jury I doubt she'd have been convicted. I can't say for sure, I didn't see and hear all the evidence, but from what I know about it I think I would have been the guy they couldn't convince to convict.
So because we let cops get away with all sorts of misdeeds, we should let this one also slide?