It’s hard to convict a police officer when there are no other witnesses or videotape.
I wonder, based on this sentence, if there will be any appeal as a conviction for manslaughter carries a sentence of up to 20 years (as she was convicted of murder and faced a possible sentence of up to 99 years).
The Defendant, former police officer Amber Guyger, is 31 years old. Likely will be released at age 36 or 37.
She’ll probably serve about five years. That sounds like the right amount to me.
What does prison look like for an ex cop that murdered a black man, will she got to some club fed? To a state with less black inmates? Will this all be made more comfortable for her? Will she always be in protective custody?
The prosecutors made a mistake if they requested a sentence of 28 years based on how old the victim would have been if still alive. This trivialized the sentencing rationale, in my opinion.
The news broadcasts in Dallas indicated she would be held in the same prison as anyone convicted of murder. If she is in danger, she would be held in protective custody which is a more grueling not a more comfortable situation in TX. They also reported there would be an appeal and there is also a civil case being filed.
Since this was not a case tried in federal court, no, she will not go to a “club fed.” She will be in a Texas state prison.
Of course she won’t go to another state “with less black inmates.” She will be in Texas, where the crime was committed. This is MURDER, not a Martha Stewart federal insider trading offense.
I think one would be hard put to find a prison anywhere that did not house a high proportion of African Americans in comparison to the population, alas.
CNN has a segment on this case which shows the 18 year old brother of the victim on the stand during the sentencing phase forgiving Amber Guyger and twice asking the Trial Court Judge if he could hug Amber Guyger.
The Trial Court Judge, an African American female, was weeping and gave Amber Guyger her bible.
This gesture of forgiveness by the very mature 18 year old brother of the victim probably had a significant impact on the sentence and it may be “the hug that was heard around the world” for its impact on race relations.
This act of forgiveness may make Amber Guyger’s prison stay much safer than if anger had been displayed during the sentencing hearing.
The 18 year old brother of the victim would make a great UN Ambassador as well as a great leader. He singlehandidly turned a horrible tragedy into a positive lesson for all.
The 26 year old victim was Botham Jean, an accountant at PwC (PriceWaterhouseCoopers).
The victim’s 18 year old brother is Brandt Jean.
I believe that the family lives in St. Lucia.
Amber Guyger received her sentence before Brandt Jean made his victim impact statement. It was a remarkable moment in which 18-year-old Jean honored the spirit of his murdered brother and opened the door to peace for himself, Guyger, and everyone watching.
Interesting, if accurate, that victim impact statements were made after sentencing.
Assuming that the post above is correct, then the jury may have viewed this as a manslaughter case rather than as a murder, in my opinion.
A sentence range of 5 years to 99 years is too broad, in my view, without specific guidelines. Could raise due process issues / equal treatment under the law if sentences vary greatly under similiar circumstances. This is why the federal government, decades ago, enacted sentencing guidelines.
Yes, Texas is different.
@agreatstory: In light of what I have learned from you & others in this thread about the state of Texas’ criminal justice system, and that we are in agreement that “Texas is different”, I have to ask: Which side of the road do they drive on in Texas ?
@Publisher I don’t understand your question.
Texas is actually known to be a very punitive state in general.
I think the sentence is pretty strong evidence that the jury DID believe Amber thought she was in her own apartment. While not enough to excuse her from serious consequences, it most certainly played into their thought process with regard to the punishment they felt she deserved.
Despite the strong assertions from some that her story was not remotely believable, it’s the story she maintained from minute 1. No one has proposed any other credible motive.
I live in this city, and this case has been discussed and discussed and discussed in the news, at work, at dinners and get togethers, etc. I have never heard anyone dispute that she thought she was at her own apartment. It’s the “and so that means…” that differs from person to person. Some say “so what? She should fry!” to “she didn’t intend to go kill someone that night, so she should get probation,” to all answers in between.
So many people maintain there is no way they would have mistaken another floor for their own, no matter how tired or distracted might be. Well, I could very well have done that. I don’t notice details when I’m tired or engaged in thought. I could totally see myself not taking in the red rug or noting the floor number in my haze. But I don’t carry a gun, so I wouldn’t have harmed Mr. Jean. I would have run the other way and called 911, only to be very embarrassed later. In my opinion, she was guilty of extreme negligence in this case. There were several other ways she could have handled it rather than just shooting.
Three years ago, our police department was ambushed by a sniper while supervising a peaceful protest. Five officers were assassinated and 9 others were shot but survived. I wonder if this has made more than a few of our officers jumpy and prone to overreaction. That needs to be addressed if it hasn’t already. I think given her history, Amber may have assumed the worst of Mr. Jean because he was black. Maybe not, but there’s really no way to know for sure after the fact. But even recent history has shown that many people are afraid of or overly suspicious of people of color, assuming ill intent that they would not assume if the person were white. I feel that this may have played a part in this tragedy. DPD training needs to address this subconscious (or in some cases, conscious) bias.
Texas’ statutes aren’t that weird, really. Their crime of “Murder” is intentionally and knowingly killing someone or killing someone in the course of a dangerous action that was likely to kill them. That encompasses what in other jurisdictions would be First Degree Murder, premeditated murder, and Second Degree Murder, killing someone in a fit of passion.
But in Texas, Murder, normally a felony of the first degree, can be reduced at sentencing to a felony of the second degree if, by a preponderance of the evidence, the defendant demonstrates they murdered in a fit of passion arising from an adequate cause.
So it’s not that different. Most jurisdictions distinguish between premeditated murder and killing in a fit of passion at the time of charging, whereas Texas makes the distinction at the time of sentencing.
Guyger admitted she killed Jean intentionally, so her only hope was the jury believing she was acting in self defense or stopping what she perceived to be a violent felony in her own house. And the jury didn’t believe she was doing either of those things.
But the guy was sitting on the couch with the TV on and eating ice cream. He wasn’t threatening her in any way. Even if she thought she was in the wrong apartment, she had time to process that someone was in there (she heard noise before she even opened the door which was the TV) but then shot to kill, not giving the guy time to surrender even if he was an intruder in her own home. That is why this goes beyond negligence to murder.
I didn’t follow the trial, but I thought I heard that one of the investigators (or coroner?) testified that he was standing when shot.
Standing up when someone enters your home uninvited would be a logical thing to do.
In Texas, there is no duty to retreat or give an intruder “time to surrender” if you feel threatened. There is no duty to shoot to injure rather than to kill. The reason she was convicted of murder is that the Castle Doctrine doesn’t apply when you aren’t in your “castle,” but in someone else’s castle. The jury obviously decided that what she believed was irrelevant to the charge of murder. It seems it was a mitigating factor in sentencing, though.
Me too. And the people in charge of the apartment building testified that there have been multiple other cases of people in that apartment building mistaking another apartment for their own. It happens.
I didn’t follow all the trial testimony; was it clear whether Guyger would have been able to see Jean’s race? Racism may have played a part in that Guyger assumed intruders wouldn’t be white, and she had racist views, which may have made her more likely to shoot an unidentified intruder, but could she see Jean well enough to know he was black?