@melvin123 I’m not sure, but I guess that would be up to the prosecution to prove. I’m neither a police officer nor a 5’2” female.
@busdriver11 Maybe waiting until you are “dead sure” you were going to die is waiting too long and would ensure your death. Or maybe you “thought” you were dead sure, but after you killed the potential attacker you have to defend your decision to the rest of the world. How is that so different from what might have happened here? Other than the fact that you’ve decided it’s different?
@RandyErika actually SHE is the one who has to prove that it was reasonable to be afraid for her life. She isn’t disputing that she killed him (this is what would have been the prosecutor ‘s proof) instead she is asserting a defense that she was justified in killing him.
Actually she doesn’t have to do a thing. Aren’t we still presumed innocent until proven guilty in this country, even in Texas? Please tell me I’m not wrong.
Innocent until proven guilty? LOL. That doesn’t apply here.
We know she killed him; that is not in dispute. We don’t assume that every killing is self-defense until proven otherwise. It’s up to her to offer some kind of affirmative defense that the killing was justifiable. If she killed him (spoiler alert: she did) and she is unable to prove that the killing was justifiable, she will be convicted.
Here’s the law in Texas:
A person is justified in using deadly force if he has a reasonable belief that it is immediately necessary to protect himself from another’s use of deadly force and a reasonable person in his place would not retreat. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 9.31(a), 9.32(a) (Vernon 2003). [ ] A defendant has the burden of producing some evidence to support a claim of self-defense. Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589, 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (citing Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910, 913-14 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)). Once a defendant presents evidence of self-defense, the State has the burden of persuasion in disproving the evidence of self-defense. Id. The State is not required to produce evidence refuting the self-defense claim; the State need only prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. A jury verdict of guilty is an implicit finding rejecting a defendant’s self-defense theory. Id.
Barnes v. Stephens, 2016 WL 592841 (S.D.Tex.), 6 (S.D.Tex., 2016)
We can go round and round forever.
There will be real evidence at the trial. Much of it may already be known to police investigators and prosecutors.
Most important will be the coroner’s and ballistics reports. From the body and the nature of the wound, and of course any blood trail evidence, we will get a clearer picture of exactly where he was standing when he was shot. Any conclusion will likely be informed by trajectory and ballistics evidence with respect both to the bullet that killed him as well as the one that missed and presumably lodged in a wall or floor.
It is not necessary for a defendant to be armed with any weapon in order to support that an officer is in reasonable fear for her life. Police will say that any potential suspect within 30 or so feet (varies by department) is in fact armed. The suspect is armed with the officer’s weapon, because a person can close distance literally within two seconds and disarm an officer. Especially a small female facing a larger male, as appears to be the case from the photos here. For that reason, officers are trained to draw their weapons within that span and you will often note on arrest videos officers seeming to back up and circle, maintaining fixed distance with a suspect as the suspect moves around.
Now, here, there is no allegation that Jean closed distance. A sudden rushing at the doorway in theory could potentially justify a “reasonable fear,” assuming that any trier of fact could get past that the officer was not in her own home. Say, for supposition, that the officer is telling the truth that the door was not fully closed (which is possible, after all) and opened upon her pressing it with the key (and then presumably with her hand). If the figure in the dark apartment suddenly rushed the officer, perhaps even after being told to “freeze” or similar, well then perhaps that might create a reasonably justified fear, especially in the dark. But the officer did not allege that happened in the statement recorded on the arrest warrant, and that would have been the place to do it. She, in essence, admitted shooting him from a distance without any apparent reason other than he failed to comply with her verbal orders.
I’ll reiterate my beliefs that this whole thing likely went down as she said it, and that she is certainly going to be found guilty of, or plead to, at least manslaughter.
She does not contest that she killed him. What she is contesting is whether she had a justifiable excuse to kill him - self defense. She is the one that has to prove that. This is called an affirmative defense. Another example of an affirmative defense is when someone kills another person but claims they are not guilty because they were insane at the time.
Yes, true, @melvin123, but at least the facts as she herself provided do not support the finding of any reasonable fear that justifies self defense. She could have at least alleged that he charged her or that she thought she saw a weapon. Perhaps the story will change at trial but based on what we know now there is no showing that any fear she may have had could have been objectively reasonable.
I’m assuming that story will change at trial. She will say she thought she saw something shiny in his hand.
She absolutely has that right to say this, of course, and the jury will be able to judge her credibility after impeachment witnesses are called. That is the system we have, and we don’t overthrow it just because we like the victim.
In reality, of course, she will say nothing at trial. The chance that she takes the stand is infinitesimally small.
Have any of you ever lived in an apartment building? I lived in a NYC apartment building for half of my childhood and then again for 15 years after college. When you get off the elevator on the wrong floor you KNOW immediately. You just do. Even when the layout of every floor is exactly the same, you still know it. There’s just a different feel. It may be a wreath on a door or an umbrella stand. It could be something as small as a cracked floor tile on your floor that you don’t see on the wrong floor. Or the shape of someone’s doorbell, the smell of the food cooking – something. When you are not on your own floor, it just feels different.
I thought he didn’t die at the scene?
^ Yeah, @brantly, I hear you. I grew up in an apartment in NYC (Bronx) and lived in a number of them for about 5 years in Manhattan. NYC buildings generally have character, they are “lived in.”
Check out the videos of this place. It’s pretty sterile and was just built a few years ago (google maps overhead still shows it as brownfield).
Also, importantly, you drive to your floor in the parking structure and walk across to your hallway (all identical) sort of like a mall. It’s probably not too hard to miss driving up the third identical ramp and winding up on the wrong parking level. People do go on autopilot, sometimes.
I do wonder if there is some sort of assigned parking, though, or some special configuration on the parking level that should have tipped her off that she was on the wrong level and therefore in the wrong place? I believe I read somewhere that either she or Jean had fairly recently moved into the apartment, could anyone confirm?
She’s been charged with manslaughter, and a grand jury will decide if a more serious charge is warranted. She hasn’t plead anything yet, nor has she claimed she shot him in self defense. All she’s done is give a statement upon which the arrest affidavit was based. I’m guessing that she would be happy to strike a deal that results in a manslaughter conviction and a minimal required sentence. I also assume there will be enough public pressure for the grand jury to call for a murder charge, which may or may not force a trial.
@SatchelSF She was the one who moved in recently (about a month ago).
I have not read the beginning of this thread, but in case it has not already been mentioned, she also shot a man last year, according to the NY Times:
Officer Guyger, a member of the Dallas Police Department for four years and assigned to the patrol division, was involved in a shooting last year. She shot a man in the stomach who had grabbed her police Taser during a confrontation. The man survived, and she was not indicted in that episode, The Dallas Morning News reported.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/10/us/dallas-police-shooting-guyger-jean.html
@RandyErika - that she moved in recently would support the idea that this was a mistake. Her routine was not quite so established and it’s at least possible that she wouldn’t have noticed she was on the wrong floor in the parking structure.
@“Cardinal Fang” Although Jean did not die at the scene, there will still be evidence that is relevant. For instance, spatter, any pooling, any trail of blood, and of course the presence of any powder residue. It’s also possible that a trajectory could be calculated from the positioning of the bullet that missed as well as a rough estimate based on the actual wound site. All of this would help establish the relative positioning of the two of them. Last, although we haven’t heard anything yet, I would be surprised if there weren’t video of the parking structure and the common areas including hallways. Surveillance is dirt cheap these days, this is a brand new building, and I would have to imagine insurers recommend it (although I am not an expert here on this question).
Presumably the investigators know whether her car was parked on her floor or his floor. If it was parked on his floor, that would be evidence suggesting she accidentally went to the wrong floor (although she could of course have moved the car or intentionally parked on his floor to murder him).
Well then you may as well just shoot everyone within gunshot range that you see, because that way you won’t have waited too long. Nobody can kill you that way, they won’t have the chance…and you never know who might want to attack you, right?
If you can’t see the person, if you can’t determine what or if there is a threat, most of us would back away, not kill. She wasn’t cornered and hasn’t said she was actually threatened. Yet. I’m sure the story will evolve. However, a jury will hopefully have access to all the different versions.