Jump to content
SC Tiger

Former Dallas LEO Amber Guyer found guilty of Murder

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Former Dallas LEO Amber Guyer has been found guilty of murder. 

https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/live-trials-current/amber-guyger/amber-guyger-found-guilty-of-murdering-botham-jean/

https://www.foxnews.com/us/amber-guyger-guilty-in-botham-jean-shooting-jury-finds

This one was odd.  She claimed that she got home after a long shift, went to the apartment she thought was hers, found it unlocked, and confronted the individual inside.  When he did not comply she shot him.  Then she realized she went to the wrong apartment.

Prosecution argued she had other options, including using her radio to call for backup

Defense argued that it was a mistake, and tried to invoke Castle Doctrine.  Probably going for a manslaughter vs premeditated or whatever it is.

Overall a very strange case - it comes down to does the fact she believed she was in the right apartment mean she can defend it as if it were her apartment?

Edited by SC Tiger
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manslaughter i can see.  Murder...no...she did not intend to do it.

She was sadly ill equipped for the nature of the job.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Historian said:

Manslaughter i can see.  Murder...no...she did not intend to do it.

She was sadly ill equipped for the nature of the job.

I checked to see if the article was using "murder" in place of "manslaughter" and in fact the Foxnews.com one does state murder, as opposed to manslaughter.

One issue was that it appeared he was not approaching her when she shot him.  There were also credibility issues.

Outside of that - I can see how it might have happened I suppose.  Were I that apartment building I'd be putting the entire apartment number on each door now.  I'm guessing each door was just the number of the apartment on the floor.  So apartment 6F would be apartment F on floor 6, but it only had an F on the door.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I checked to see if the article was using "murder" in place of "manslaughter" and in fact the Foxnews.com one does state murder, as opposed to manslaughter.
One issue was that it appeared he was not approaching her when she shot him.  There were also credibility issues.
Outside of that - I can see how it might have happened I suppose.  Were I that apartment building I'd be putting the entire apartment number on each door now.  I'm guessing each door was just the number of the apartment on the floor.  So apartment 6F would be apartment F on floor 6, but it only had an F on the door.


Anyone with so little presence of mind, and apparently no situational awareness, should never have considered law enforcement as a career.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Historian said:

Manslaughter i can see.  Murder...no...she did not intend to do it.

She was sadly ill equipped for the nature of the job.

My understanding, which may be flawed, is that manslaughter wasn’t really an option under Texas law. The basic reason is that she made a conscious, pre-meditated decision to shoot him. She intended to kill him. Thus, her defense basically same down to a mistake of fact, i.e., that she was in her apartment and that the deceased was an intruder. In essence, it was likely murder or nothing criminal. 
 

I will see if I can find the analysis I read because I found it fairly interesting. Regardless, it is a very odd case. 
 

ETA: here is the analysis that I was referencing. It’s far from complete but makes some interesting points. https://blog.simplejustice.us/2019/09/21/will-mistake-of-fact-save-guyger/#more-41571

Edited by SigMan
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Home after a 14 hour shift, had her cop cam working. Only "but" I see is her age. As I got older 12 hour shifts were leaving me brain dead.

 

What was her "Motive" is my biggest problem with murder vs manslaughter.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had some long shifts and shift work over my career.  Never did that happen.  I think the longest one I put in was 48 hours straight.  I still could find where I lived and collapsed until the next phone call.  So, this oops, seems suspicious to me.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, C_Hallbert said:

 

 


Anyone with so little presence of mind, and apparently no situational awareness, should never have considered law enforcement as a career.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I have seen some "special ones," like the one that managed to break off the nozzle off our gas pump at the Station not once, but twice.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Historian said:

Manslaughter i can see.  Murder...no...she did not intend to do it.

She was sadly ill equipped for the nature of the job.

Or thinking of a way to get away with shooting the annoying neighbor, perhaps?  Apartment complexes are prone to that sort of thing.  I am living in the second home I have ever owned.  Life before that was a series of apartment complexes.  I think the worst thing I did to one, was help a New Mexico State Police Officer tackle a guy just going to work.  We got him handcuffed, and he wished me a nice day, as I did him and went to work.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My father had two apartment houses while I was growing up.

Considering the crap flying both ways, I swore I would never put my self in the position of being an owner of rental property.  It's the old story of too many rats in a cage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Moshe said:

Or thinking of a way to get away with shooting the annoying neighbor, perhaps?  Apartment complexes are prone to that sort of thing.  I am living in the second home I have ever owned.  Life before that was a series of apartment complexes.  I think the worst thing I did to one, was help a New Mexico State Police Officer tackle a guy just going to work.  We got him handcuffed, and he wished me a nice day, as I did him and went to work.

As annoying as apartment life was...i never wanted to kill anyone over it.  There were always more reasonable ways to dealing with matters.

Funny story:   I had a couple of buddies that had the apartment right above mine and one over.   One (jason) was a deputy, his future wife was a trooper, and guy that rented the spare room was a local PD officer.   We pretty much owned that unit.   At anytime we had four LEO vehicles parked in front of my window.  Talk about the ultimate in home security.

Anyway. Jason's apartment overlooked the pool.   And...we lived in a college town.  And drank a lot of beer looking out that window.  The view...was priceless.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SigMan said:

My understanding, which may be flawed, is that manslaughter wasn’t really an option under Texas law. The basic reason is that she made a conscious, pre-meditated decision to shoot him. She intended to kill him. Thus, her defense basically same down to a mistake of fact, i.e., that she was in her apartment and that the deceased was an intruder. In essence, it was likely murder or nothing criminal.

When i've charged manslaughter it was because of a careless disregard for safety.   One could argue she had the intent to kill the man.  That being said her judgement for doing so was very wrong.  But i see your point.  But I would have charged her with manslaughter (such and ugly word).

She had lots of options. 

One of the things that has scared me the most is when someone does not understand English and has dealt with issues different where they came from.  I had a Greek guy jump out of a car on a stop and rush me.  I nearly dropped him until I realized he was the guy that owned the local pizza joint. 

Back home.  He did things differently. 

Nice guy.  Had a lovely daughter.   Wonder whatever happened to her.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Historian said:

When i've charged manslaughter it was because of a careless disregard for safety.   One could argue she had the intent to kill the man.  That being said her judgement for doing so was very wrong.  But i see your point.  But I would have charged her with manslaughter (such and ugly word).

I can definitely see your point too and that was my initial reaction. 

If I get bored later, I may see if I can get the jury instructions and any briefing on the legal issue because it’s interesting and unusual. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SigMan said:

My understanding, which may be flawed, is that manslaughter wasn’t really an option under Texas law. The basic reason is that she made a conscious, pre-meditated decision to shoot him. She intended to kill him. Thus, her defense basically same down to a mistake of fact, i.e., that she was in her apartment and that the deceased was an intruder. In essence, it was likely murder or nothing criminal. 
 

I will see if I can find the analysis I read because I found it fairly interesting. Regardless, it is a very odd case. 
 

ETA: here is the analysis that I was referencing. It’s far from complete but makes some interesting points. https://blog.simplejustice.us/2019/09/21/will-mistake-of-fact-save-guyger/#more-41571

I believe at some point the jury was instructed that they could consider manslaughter as a verdict.  There was also something about Castle Doctrine - I believe the defense wanted to be able to use it in their argument somehow.

IMO the defense was going for manslaughter as they knew she would never get off scott-free.  Sad because I believe it was an honest mistake, but this is why we (as armed citizens) should take the mindset of "shoot if you absolutely HAVE to, not just because you legally can."  It's not the exact same scenario but I believe the lesson could be applied.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Moshe said:

I have had some long shifts and shift work over my career.  Never did that happen.  I think the longest one I put in was 48 hours straight.  I still could find where I lived and collapsed until the next phone call.  So, this oops, seems suspicious to me.

Not saying that there wasn't something suspicious (and there were other suspicious activities that didn't help her character-wise) but I believe the argument was that the building was especially confusing and had an issue with poor locks on the doors.  Not an excuse by any means, but it does present a unique issue.  Other residents had done the same thing she did - minus shooting the occupant of course.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well now she gonna have a long time in the ole gray bar hotel to think about it.   she screwed up someone died , and she screwed up in her trial  .  watching some of it i thought this girl wouldnt even make it on a cheerleading squad what the hell is she doing being a cop .  plus the ole grab your ass social media  postings .  why do people put **** out on the net knowing it can and will be used against you  ?   she seems dumb as a box of hair 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SigMan said:

I can definitely see your point too and that was my initial reaction. 

If I get bored later, I may see if I can get the jury instructions and any briefing on the legal issue because it’s interesting and unusual. 

I am guessing there may be something in there about riots if she was not found guilty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She screwed herself in her testimony when she said to the effect, 'When I shot at him I shot to kill'.

That allowed the jury to convict on murder, not the lesser manslaughter.

Words really do matter, she chose poorly.

Sent from my Jack boot using Copatalk

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's copping 101!  A stupid thing to say.  Even CCW carriers are cautioned to say you shot to stop, never to Kill.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TBO said:

She screwed herself in her testimony when she said to the effect, 'When I shot at him I shot to kill'.

That allowed the jury to convict on murder, not the lesser manslaughter.

Words really do matter, she chose poorly.

Sent from my Jack boot using Copatalk
 

What he said. Trial is the most serious place to choose your words simply and carefully weighing all you think and say.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one time I was involved in a court case, the lawyer was asking me questions and slowly increasing his rate until he was asking a new question before I could answer the last one.

I stopped responding to him.  Finally the judge asked me if there was a problem.  I said yes!  If he won't listen for my answers, I won't listen to his questions.

I was pleasantly surprised when the judge directed the attorney to not ask a following question until I stated I had concluded answering the prior one.

My attorney laughed at the break and said, "It's not like Perry Mason, is it!".  I found I had rights there too!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TBO said:

She screwed herself in her testimony when she said to the effect, 'When I shot at him I shot to kill'.

That allowed the jury to convict on murder, not the lesser manslaughter.

Words really do matter, she chose poorly.

Sent from my Jack boot using Copatalk
 

That is always a legality line you never want to say out loud in court.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are the jury instructions. Start about 1:30. Sound isn't great.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, janice6 said:

That's copping 101!  A stupid thing to say.  Even CCW carriers are cautioned to say you shot to stop, never to Kill.

"I shot to end the threat, not to kill.  Once I felt that I was no longer in danger, I stopped shooting."

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, TBO said:

She screwed herself in her testimony when she said to the effect, 'When I shot at him I shot to kill'.

That allowed the jury to convict on murder, not the lesser manslaughter.

Words really do matter, she chose poorly.

Sent from my Jack boot using Copatalk
 

I'd say when she went into the wrong apartment and shot the guy, she screwed herself.  

There was no way she was gonna get out of this one.

It's an odd case because a simple mistake (if testimony is to be believed) led to her believing she was in the right, when she wasn't.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...