If the police officer is tried as one acting in the role of a police officer, the prosecution will try to establish that it was unreasonable for the officer to think that she was at, entering or in her own apartment because her apartment did not have a red carpet at the door as a doormat–as did the deceased victim’s apartment door.
If tried as a regular citizen, the police officer will not have a reasonableness defense available to her.
Also, as a regular citizen she had no right to be in his apartment, therefore no stand your ground defense will be available to her, if I understand correctly.
I am troubled by a newspaper article that stated that it looks as though the shooter was allowed to write her own police report about the shooting incident. Even if signed by another officer (presumably as a witness to the writing), this could be argued that she was an officer on duty acting as a police officer during the entire incident if allowed or required to write an official report about the matter.
Otherwise, if she had been arrested immediately, she would not have had the right, duty or authority to compose, write or dictate an official police version of the event in a police report.
Also troubling is that the Dallas PD or Texas Rangers did not interview neighbors as potential witnesses until defense attorneys talked with two sisters who “came forward” as witnesses who allegedly heard banging on the deceased’s door, followed by shouts of “open up, let me in, open, up, let me in” before hearing gunshots followed by “Oh my God, why did you do that?”. The two sisters live in an apartment adjacent to or across from the deceased victim’s apartment.
Some people are saying that because there was a red carpet in front of Jean’s door, whereas Guyger had no red carpet in front of her door, Guyger must have seen the red carpet and known that the apartment was not hers. Or, alternatively, Guyger negligently didn’t notice the red carpet.
This flies in the face of what we know about human perception, but there it is, that’s the argument.
@Publisher: I’m never driving, because I don’t drive, but I stop at red lights when I’m on my bike, because I’m looking at the light, because I expect stoplights and know I should pay attention to them. That is in no way analogous to a red carpet. In our lives, we don’t go up to doors and look at carpets: “Oh, green, I can go in this door. Red? Nope, turn back.” Your analogy is not analogous. It’s a matter of perceptual salience.
What about “human perception” when the police officer allegedly put down whatever she was holding or carrying before attempting to enter the apartment ? When you place a bag on or near a red doormat, does “human perception” see the red carpet doormat ?
But the police officer could see in total darkness of the apartment that the deceased victim never raised his hands upon an alleged command made by the officer (and which was not heard by anyone else).
Yet, in the same complete darkness of the victim’s apartment, the police officer could not tell she was in the wrong apartment until after shooting twice at a silhouette of a figure & until putting on the lights ?
Should we as a society be arming people with deadly weapons who have such poor “human perception” ?
I recently was staying in a hotel with a key card. I fumbled with it on various occasions and got red blinks. Then I kept trying and eventually the door opened. If I had accidentally gone to the wrong door, I could easily have inserted my keycard into the wrong door, got blinking red lights, had the door push open (because it was ajar) and entered someone else’s room unintentionally. I find that scenario completely plausible.
And for goodness sake, if I’m putting down packages so I can open a door, I don’t notice what is on the floor. I’m paying attention to the door, not the floor.
You seem to believe that people concentrate and apply rational thought to daily tasks like going home. We do not do this. We’re on autopilot. We automatically do act 1, act 2, act 3 without thinking about them. Otherwise, life would be far too complicated.
I honestly don’t understand some of this and would appreciate if someone could explain it to me.
1. I don't see how this is a police shooting. Once she was off duty, isn't she a regular citizen at that point? As an aside, the one exception to this is that I can see that her fellow co-workers would want to protect her so there is a legitimate fear of proper procedures not being followed, so the utmost care must be taken to ensure she is not given different treatment than any other citizen (and it sounds like that didn't happen).
2, even if she were on duty, aren't cops not allowed to use deadly force in an arrest except when there is a significant threat of serious bodily injury or death to themselves or others? And that the cop has to be reasonable in thinking that the significant threat of serious bodily injury or death exists? Didn't the Affidavit only say that she fired because "the intruder" didn't listen to her verbal commands? Unless she says she thought she saw a gun or a knife in his hands, how can failure to listen to a verbal command be sufficient justification for her to shoot?
@melvin123: The police officer will make an issue out of whether on duty or off. Especially because she was in uniform.
Some police depts. maintain that officers are on duty 24 hours a day.
As to your second point, the police officer will fight to be judged on a reasonableness standard as I detailed in an above post.
The police officer will state, most likely, that she felt threatened by the lack of co-operation from the deceased victim, and that her presence in the apartment thinking it was her apartment was a reasonable mistake thereby alleviating any duty to retreat. Also, in this instance, the police officer might use a stand your ground defense.
I am not defending Guyger for the shooting. She should go to prison for manslaughter, for shooting when she should not have shot. She would be equally culpable if she had been in her own apartment, shooting someone who was not a threat.
@CardinalFang: It is unlikely that she “would be equally culpable if she had been in her own apartment” because any intruder in one’s home can be reasonably deemed a threat plus Texas has a stand your ground defense law.
There is a WaPo article about how the officer might not be able to avail herself of the defense that she was acting as a police officer. Police officers are usually accorded some leeway and deference in the conduct of their official duties. That probably makes sense in terms of overall societal happiness, as we need to balance a desire to have a supremely qualified force with the enormous costs that would be required to get us there (including the disbanding of police unions, intelligence screening with meaningful thresholds, significantly more expensive training, much higher pay, etc.).
Question: if she is deemed to be “off duty” for purposes of her own actions (even though she was in full uniform as apparently allowed by the department), should the victim’s family be able to sue the police department for the actions of a “civilian” at the time of the shooting?
@Publisher, I’m still confused. You said she could assert that “she felt threatened by the lack of co-operation from the deceased victim, and that her presence in the apartment thinking it was her apartment was a reasonable mistake thereby alleviating any duty to retreat. Also, in this instance, the police officer might use a stand your ground defense.”
OK. In order to assert a stand your ground defense, don’t you have to be right?
Are you saying that a stand your ground defense as used by a police officer is only that he/she was reasonable in assuming the apartment was hers?
Are you saying that the defense could be that a lack of cooperation could reasonably be deemed by a cop to be equivalent to a fear of serious bodily harm?
I don’t understand what the reasonable standard would apply to.
Reasonable as to her shooting an innocent man whom she reasonably thought was an intruder/burglar in an apartment which she reasonably thought was hers after he refused to obey her alleged commands which she reasonably made before sending the completely innocent man off to Heaven.
@Publisher, do you believe the officer saw the red carpet and knew she was not at her apartment? Do you believe she went to the victim’s apartment with malevolent intent? And that she killed him purposefully and made up the rest? Or do you think she was simply extremely negligent, killed an innocent person by virtue of said negligence, and proceeded to attempt to cover her negligence after the fact by making it seem as though the victim played some part in his demise?