Dallas cop mistakenly thinks she is home and kills a man

Parent Cafe
301

When I look at the letter of the law, I don’t see how she could use the stand your ground defense if she had been in her own apartment. She is allowed to use deadly force if the intruder came into her occupied apartment; if she is lying in bed and someone comes in the window, she can legally shoot them.

But this hypothetical intruder would not have come into her occupied apartment; he would have come into her empty apartment. I’m not sure why there is a difference in the law, but there is. Perhaps it’s because if you come home to discover someone unexpected in your home, there could easily be innocent explanations. For example, maybe the super sent someone up to fix your sink, he knocked on the door and shouted Hello, but no one was home, so he used his key to get into the kitchen. In any case, if you walk in and discover an intruder, you can walk right out again and call the police (or in her case, call for backup).

302

I speculate that the officer knew she was at the wrong apartment, exhausted & angry about repeated unresolved noise complaints she had made–including that day–about noise coming from the upstairs apartment.

Yes, I think that it is unreasonable not to notice a red carpet doormat which the other units do not have & I think that it is unreasonable to not notice the blinking red light after inserting her key in someone else’s door lock.

And I think that it is unreasonable to bang on a door shouting “open up, let me in” twice & alleging that she thought it was her apartment.

And I think that it is unreasonable to bang on a door demanding “open up, let me in” when that door was allegedly open according to the shooter.

And I believe that it was unreasonable to force a key into a lock of a partially open door when allegedly seeking entry.

BUT, anything is possible–may not be reasonable, yet possible.

I think that the Dallas authorities would not be issuing public statements asserting that the charge of manslaughter might be upgraded after being presented to a grand jury if the officer’s version had any realistic chance of being interpreted by an impartial jury as being reasonable.

NEVERTHELESS, I DO NOT KNOW any more than what has been released to the public so this is just my best guess opinion based on publicly available information.

What I do know is that an innocent man has been killed without any possible justification–or we would have heard it repeatedly by now.

The police officer is grasping at legal loopholes to EXCUSE her actions of killing a completely innocent human being.

And I believe that the shooting officer was not arrested immediately so that she had time to confer with counsel how to write a police report about this killing that would work in her favor. And I believe that protecting the police officer was the primary concern of Dallas PD & that is why they did not seek out & interview possible witnesses.

P.S. In short, I am NOT anti-police, I am anti-unjustified killing of innocent people.

303

@Publisher
We have heard the justification: the officer made a tragic mistake.

If this is not pleaded out, she will want a trier of fact to cut her a break in light of her demanding job and the stress that she was under as a result.

She has made no allegation from what we know that the victim threatened her or went for her weapon, which would have been much easier to make if she banged on the door and the victim opened it.

She shot at a fairly distant and shadowy figure who posed no immediate danger, based upon her own admissions, at least as recorded by the arrest warrant that detailed her statements.

All the rest of this debate is noise and represents people trying to milk this incident for political purposes. She will go to jail, probably on manslaughter given the apparent mistake of fact regarding the apartment. To think she marched up there to settle a noise complaint with a gun is fanciful.

304

@SatchelSF: You could be right. But so could I. We just do not know enough facts at this point.

305

I didn’t think they could apply reasonableness as an overall umbrella, but instead would have to apply it to each step.
So the analysis would go:

  1. Did she have a reasonable belief that she was in her own apartment?

    (a) Irrelevant if she is a civilian. Stand your own ground is only a good defense if you are actually correct.
    (b) Relevant if Dallas provides that you are on duty 24/7 and she engaged as a cop. Goes to the “fact” that she thought there was a break-in in progress.
  1. Was she reasonable to shoot?
    (a) If she acted as a civilian, then no because she doesn't qualify for stand your ground, and since she was standing in or near the door she could have run away.
    (b) If she acted as a cop, and therefore had a right to engage the deceased, doesn't she still have to show that there was a significant threat of serious bodily harm or injury? What facts make up that belief? The refusal to obey her commands is only relevant if she can show that the refusal created a reasonable belief that she was under a significant threat of serious bodily harm or injury.

Is this right?

306

@Publisher “ the Washington Post is neither a Texas judge nor a Texas prosecutor”

But their reporting was based on statements by the local Texas DA as well as by Texas law professors who also practice criminal law in Texas. The WaPo wasn’t giving its own opinion on the matter.

307

I just read the arrest warrant. It is clearly written to favor the police officer’s version of events. Totally one sided.

In my posts above, I forgot to mention one troubling fact. The officer maintains that the door opened as soon as she put her key in. But these doors are designed to close without any additional pressure being applied. And there was no allegation in the arrest warrant that the victim’s door was somehow propped open as would be required in order for the door to have been partially open.

What about apartment numbers ? He lived in 1478 & she a floor below in 1378.

After shooting the deceased victim, the officer turned on the apartment lights, realized that she was in the wrong apartment & allegedly went outside the unit to see the posted address. Why didn’t she notice this going in or when approaching the unit ?

Also with respect to parking on the wrong level in the parking lot. Wouldn’t this parking garage have clear markings as to the floor that one is one. Didn’t the officer see the large number 4 & understand that she should have parked on floor #3 ?

308

@maya54: Good to know as some media outlets (such as Fox & CNN & NBC & ABC & CBS) often use their own legal experts.

Nevertheless, a Texas judge will make the ultimate decision as to what can & cannot be used by the defense–whether or not the DA objects as the defense attorneys for the defendant shooter will try to assert this line of defense (i.e. that she was acting as a police officer at the time of the shooting).

I will read the article, but my first impression is that this is not as clear cut of an issue as suggested above.

P.S. The reason I pointed out that the Wash. Post is neither a judge nor prosecutor is that the judge will make the decision only if the prosecutors object. If the prosecutors do not object to the defense’s assertion that the shooter was acting as a police officer, then the defense will be allowed. And it could still be allowed even if the prosecutor’s object if the judge decides to allow it as a defense.

(I do not know Texas law, but I imagine that the defendant asserting that she is acting as a police officer when in uniform & in transit to & from a shift, that she is still acting as an officer, For example, what if she saw a mugging in the parking lot & arrested the mugger. Would anyone assert that she was not acting as a police officer even though her shift had ended ?)

309

@maya54: I read the Washington Post article. It is very poorly done because it fails to distinguish what defenses will be presented to a grand jury versus what defenses CAN or MAY be presented during the actual trial.

My opinion is that the officer will be allowed to present the defense that she was acting as a law enforcement officer at the time of the shooting. I suspect that the judge will step away from a LEGAL ruling on that issue and allow it to remain as an issue of FACT for the jury to decide.

As far as what prosecutors (DAs & Assistant DAs) assert at a grand jury hearing does not bind the trial court.

Grand jury proceedings are usually closed hearings. Even the defense does not have a right to attend.

My best guess is that the DA & the law professor spoke in broad terms (never differentiating between trial & grand jury proceedings) in an effort to keep the public calm by stating that this was not the action of a police officer, but actions of a private citizen. Good for now, but probably not true at a jury trial.

P.S. In my post directly above this post, I wrote that the judge will ultimately decide on whether the defense can use the “acting as a police officer” defense. This is still correct as the judge will decide this either as a matter of law (his decision) or as a factual matter for the jury (does the jury buy this line of argument by defense counsel).

Of course, if there is existing case law that clearly decides this issue, then that case law would control unless successfully distinguished by either defense counsel or the prosecutors.

310

@Publisher I really don’t know what to believe, because there’s so much unreliable misinformation out there (and here) on this case. But I really don’t understand why you keep bringing up all these things you’ve decided were not reasonably unobserved by the officer. @“Cardinal Fang” said it very well earlier. People park in the wrong place all the time, people open car doors that aren’t theirs regularly, people push doors that say pull, sometimes repeatedly before it sinks in. When we’re in our routine, we just aren’t that aware, moving about based on muscle memory. Add to that a long day at an incredibly stressful job, and it’s not surprising that a person “could have” been oblivious to their surroundings.

None of that means that this wasn’t a premeditated crime - it just doesn’t feel like that to me. Why wouldn’t a police officer come up with a much better plan that almost assuredly will land her in prison for a very long time?

311

In short, this matter is just getting started. I think the Washington Post mindlessly reported what it was told. A bit of intelligent questioning of the assistant DA & of the law professor would have yielded a much more complex story.

312

@RandyErika: The simplest explanations, while easy to digest, are not always correct.

No one has used the term “premeditated”. In order for premeditation to be relevant, the officer would have to be facing a charge of “capital murder” in Texas. Charges of “manslaughter” & of “murder” (essentially second degree murder) do not require any showing of premeditation (i.e. premeditation is not an element of either the crime of “murder” or “manslaughter” in Texas).

As far coming up with a better plan, no one has alleged a plan or premeditation.

As for parking in an incorrect space, attempting to open car doors that are not ours or other “routine” mishaps, we do not shoot & kill innocent people. And if one does so, these mistakes do not amount to legal justification or excuse of a homicide.

Having a stressful day does not allow anyone–even police officers–to shoot & kill innocent people in their apartment or homes. But stress & exhaustion can cause one to make unreasonable decisions. And that is relevant in this case & it does NOT justify the shooting & killing of an innocent person in his or her home.

As for discussion of “reasonableness”, it may help you to read the Washington Post article & other articles dealing with this topic as I have explained its significance repeatedly. You need to read it from another source.

P.S. Remember that these are the same people downplaying the relevance of the red carpet doormat.

313

I really don’t want to get into a debate regarding semantics. And I’m too tired to search through 300+ posts, but I’m pretty sure there were multiple explicit references to premeditation here (not necessarily by you). In any case, suggesting that the officer intentionally parked on a floor that wasn’t hers, then forced or demanded entry to an apartment that wasn’t hers, then gave (or didn’t give) a verbal warning and immediately fired upon the victim with deadly force, is tantamount to a premeditated act.

314

@RandyErika : Your assertion that those actions constitute premeditation are incorrect as it relates to the charges of either “murder” or “manslaughter” in this case. Could be evidence of premeditation, however, if we were dealing with a charge of “capital murder” (essentially first degree murder)–but we are not so the focus is not on :premeditation but, rather, on “reasonableness”.

Read the most recent Washington Post article on this case & I think that you will be more clear.

315

Yes, fatigue could be a factor (not an excuse or justification) in any of the scenarios:

  • In the "mistake" scenario, a fatigued person is more likely to miss all of the clues of being on the wrong floor and at the wrong apartment.
  • In both the "mistake" and the "neighbor dispute" scenarios, a fatigued person may be more prone to using poor judgment (especially in what appear to be high risk quick decision situations) and be more irritable and hot tempered (increasing the risk of a violent or combative decision).

There has been some research on fatigue on the performance of police officers. The same officer may be a worse officer at the end of his/her shift (especially an extra-long one or one after short rest) than at the beginning of his/her shift.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.502.5923&rep=rep1&type=pdf
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/184188.pdf
https://phys.org/news/2016-06-police-officers-fatigue-impacts-tactical.html
https://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/stress-fatigue/Pages/impact.aspx
https://inpublicsafety.com/2014/02/the-impact-of-stress-and-fatigue-on-law-enforcement-officers-and-steps-to-control-it/

316

@ucbalumnus: I think that this point has been made repeatedly; and I suspect that the defendant officer will try to use it as an excuse to make multiple mistakes look reasonable.

Doubtful that it will work. It wouldn’t even work for an excuse for a minor traffic accident caused by an exhausted, overworked officer. So it certainly cannot be used to justify the killing of an innocent man in his own apartment.

I do, however, think that it can & will be used against the officer to challenge her credibility–along with a host of other facts indicating that she is untruthful about what occurred here.

317

I just read the WaPo article and it was helpful. I don’t understand, though, why the Professor from So Texas College of Law Houston said “A trial jury would probably find that Guyger was legally justified as a police officer in her use of deadly force, Williams said.” The article also quoted a criminal defense clinic director at Texas A&M as saying, “The reasonable officer standard is broader. It may provide more space for a jury to believe an officer feared for his life and acted in self-defense, Baylor said."

So to me it seems like the only real defense Guyger has is that she was acting as a cop, and that she shot the gun because she “had a reasonable fear for her life and acted in self-defense”. But what facts are there to show that she had a reasonable fear for her life? She doesn’t say she saw a knife or a gun or that he lunged at her. All she says is that he did not comply with her orders.

And I guess that explains to me what this debate is about, and I appreciate the help in walking me through this. It seems like Guyger is guilty of at least manslaughter if not murder 2 unless she can say that she was acting as a police officer, and that by virtue of the deceased refusing to comply with her directions, it created a reasonable fear in her mind that her life was in danger and therefore the shooting was in self-defense.

Now I finally understand why this is national news rather than a straightforward matter of a civilian killing her neighbor by mistake. It is a part of our national debate about when a person does not comply with a police officer’s orders, what level of response can a police officer have? And something that @partyof5 said earlier really stuck with me. The facts of this case are focusing on what a good person the deceased was and how much he was contributing to society. But say I’m in his shoes and I didn’t contribute as much to society, don’t I have the same right to life as him? So the only relevant thing about the victim is whether he/she was actively doing something that justified a reasonable fear, like holding a gun or knife. Or I can even see the relevance of the victim’s history if the shooter knows of the history in advance - so if the shooter knows the victim is a drug lord, I think the shooter is more justified in fearing for his/her life And going back to a standard victim, can’t you just imagine that the victim is a card-carrying NRA member who is sitting in his apartment and is justifiably afraid that someone is breaking into his place? Now you’re pitting Stand Your Ground against a cop’s instructions when the homeowner doesn’t even really know the person is a cop. What a mess. Thanks for letting me work this through.

318

@melvin123: I think that you still need to work through a couple of issues raised in your final paragraph.

There is very little debate over the consequences of failure to comply with a police officer’s orders–although there have been a few recent trials on this.

I have to go now or I would try to work this through with you–but the answer or explanation would be quite long, detailed, extensive and, unfortunately, confusing.

But, to ease your pain, many experienced lawyers, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges & even appellate courts get confused over these type of issues. That is why there are several levels of appeals by right in all cases & an additional discretionary appeal in certain cases.

319

If I understand what I just read on a few Texas law firm websites, to be convicted of manslaughter, a defendant must be proven beyond reasonable doubt to have recklessly caused the death of another person. On the other hand, to be convicted of murder, intent would need to be established and proven.

Intent is obviously a subset of premeditation, but the latter apparently has no bearing on any criminal homicide designation, including capital murder. I admit that I didn’t realize the lack of relevance regarding the term premeditation. That being said, my comments above are still appropriate with regard to the establishment of intent.

This appears to be a clear case of manslaughter. I just don’t see anything yet that would elevate this to a provable case of murder.

320

@RandyErika : Do you understand what type of specific intent is required in this case ?

My instant off the cuff guess is that in order to prove intent in support of a murder charge under these “facts” is that the officer fired her gun with the intent to cause bodily harm.

I do not think that “intent” will be an issue in this case because the officer has already admitted it.