The officer didn’t need to submit to a blood test. So it was voluntary. I doubt she was drunk or on drugs.
I guess I did hear that a couple of neighbors claimed that they heard her pounding on the door demanding to be let in, then also heard someone, presumably the victim, calling out “why did you do that” or something along those lines. Whether or not those witnesses turn out to be reliable remains to be seen. But the officer certainly hasn’t admitted to knocking on the door, and doing so would make her version of the story incredulous.
Incredible. Her version of the story leaves me incredulous. 
Why would she not have to submit to a blood test? And how would it look if she refused?
@RandyErika said:
@Consolation said:
Bold is mine.
From an anonymous “law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the case”:
It is now alleged that three witnesses heard a woman knocking on the door yelling “Open up, let me in, open up, let me in”.
@Nrdsb4 Thank you. Is anyone surprised that a victim’s attorney would offer up uncorroborated witness testimony? This is just another instance where a case is tried in public by those in no position to differentiate between what is real and what is fantasy - from all sides.
The police & Texas Rangers never attempted to find or interview any witnesses until the defense attorneys shared information on neighbors who came forward. So both sides have now interviewed the same witnesses–all neighbors–who were earwitnesses as best that we know at this time.
What makes their statement “uncorroborated” if all three match on the key elements ?
The only uncorroborated statements are those of the police officer who shot & killed an innocent man in his underwear in his living room.
So let’s go back to what the law is, so we know how to insert the facts and why each fact is relevant.
Back in a prior post I set out what I thought the test would be, and I’m going to clean it up a little based on further input, so here are my thoughts. If I am leaving something out or am incorrect, please correct me but please specify what the correct analysis is.
- 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 that you have the legal right to be there. As a civilian she had no right to be in his apartment. (b) Relevant if she engaged as a cop. Goes to the "fact" that she thought there was a break-in in progress.
- 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, she would have to objectively show that, based on her subjective KNOWLEDGE and PERCEPTION, that she shot him because she reasonably perceived a significant threat of serious bodily harm or injury
So let’s first look at whether she can objectively show that based on her subjective KNOWLEDGE that she shot him because she reasonably perceived a significant threat of serious bodily harm or injury. In other words, would the average police officer, with the specific knowledge that she had, think that there was a significant threat of serious bodily harm or injury. In an earlier thread I pointed out that an example of specific knowledge is if she reasonably thought he was a drug dealer (for example, she could have previously observed people coming in and out of the apartment in a manner consistent with a drug dealer, or a neighbor could have previously told her he was a drug dealer - whatever that basis for her belief, it has to be reasonable), she could reasonably believe that there was a greater danger to herself than if he were a regular citizen. As @busdriver11 pointed out, this example does not work in this particular case because this would undo her theory that she thought she was in her own apartment and therefore thought he was a burglar and acted in her capacity as a cop. I can’t think of anything that she could claim as subjective knowledge that would be helpful to her, given her claims that she thought she was in her apartment and that she didn’t know him.
Now let’s look at whether she can objectively show that based on her subjective PERCEPTION that she shot him because she reasonably perceived a significant threat of serious bodily harm or injury. In other words, would the average police officer, with the specific circumstances that she had, think that there was a significant threat of serious bodily harm or injury. This is where the fact that she just came off of a 15 hour shift and that she might have PTSD comes in. So, would the average officer who just came off a 15 hour shift and suffers from PTSD have reasonably believed that she was in her own apartment? And would she have reasonably believed that he was a significant threat of serious bodily harm or injury?
As I’m typing this out, I think that prior case law relating to subjective perception really needs to be dug into and I’d love to see the cases where the subjective perception was different from the objective standard. Because as you make get into the nitty gritty of subjective perception, the line between subjective and objective begins to disappear… an average female 5’2" officer coming off a 15 hour shift and suffering from PTSD who previously had an arrestee struggle against her etc etc. And, as I’m typing this, I can see how the fact that she previously shot someone when there was a struggle over her taser could actually work in her favor in asserting a defense. And, from a public policy standpoint, I think this is exactly what we wouldn’t want, so I’m very interested in finding out just how detailed a court will allow a defendant to go in making perception subjective.
The article linked in Post#403 is well worth reading.
The physical evidence seems to support the officer’s version.
Two shell casings were found just inside the doorway, meaning that is where the officer was standing when she fired. Meanwhile, the blood evidence is way into the apartment, meaning that is where Jean was hit. The door had to be ajar. Nothing else really makes sense.
At least one of the earwitness reports that she heard banging appears to be falling apart, and when the attorney first gave the witness stories, he said they were roommates, so if one report falls apart I bet the other one will too.
The article mentions that Jean had a girlfriend, with whom he spoke about the noise complaints. It may be that the door was left ajar so the girlfriend could enter. In the first days of reporting it was reported somewhere that the police were seeking search warrants for Jean’s phone and computer in order to see if there were any texts or emails consistent with the idea that he was expecting someone that evening.
All the evidence, including any exculpatory evidence, will need to be turned over to the defense in advance if any trial. If, as it seems, the evidence comes in consistent with the officer’s story, then based on the SCOTUS standard of reasonableness articulated by @Publisher then I think she might just take the stand.
She would likely say that Jean moved aggressively towards her. The first responders reported that when they arrived Jean was 12-15 feet from where the officer likely was standing. Police are regularly trained to draw their weapons when suspects approach within 30 to 40 feet, and she could point to that training in her testimony.
There is a risk she might walk on a murder charge if taken to trial. Probably a manslaughter plea makes the most sense for both prosecutor and defendant.
Where is this in the referenced article? What I read said something different: that Jean himself was 12 to 15 feet from the door when paramedics arrived, and that a first responder said that’s where he was shot, and that’s where he fell. Almost the same thing though.
This is a news story showing both the original search warrant that offers one account of events and the arrest warrant written 3 days later that offers a different account of events.
According to the orignal search warrant the officer attempted to open the door with her keys, she was confronted at the door by Jean, and a neighbor heard an exchange of words followed by gun shots.
Wouldn’t the original search warrant contain info obtained at the scene on the night of the murder?
I don’t understand the desire to discount the witness accounts or reports that her story has changed dramatically.
Yes, there can be a lot of rumors swirling after an event like this, but according to official documents, there were witnesses who heard the encounter and her story has changed.
@jazzymomof7 : I am in total agreement with your thoughts.
To me, this appears to be a murder. It is horrifying to realize that this wonderful human being was killed for no reason whatsoever while resting in his own apartment.
One article states that the deceased told his girlfriend that two apartment employees came to his place about noise complaints due to music. The downstairs neighbor had complained.
It seems as if there is no place to be safe anymore.
@partyof5 said:
No, they didn’t find the weed in his apartment on the day of the funeral. The search warrant was written and signed by a judge on September 7, not yesterday.
Our local news is just flooded with this story, so it’s really hard to keep up with everything going on and know what happened in which order.
The family has understandably questioned why police would have included a search for narcotics at the scene of their son’s death. They feel it reveals an attempt to look for opportunity to besmirch his character.
WFAA spoke to a well known Dallas attorney, who said that there are legitimate reasons for what was done.
The family found the timing of the release of the information suspicious. However, Thursday was the deadline of the return of the search warrant and results back to the court. At that time, it became public record and many news outlets obtained the copy and published the results. While it might be convenient for the defendant for this information to become public, it’s also true that there was no stopping it.
This thread is so long, I can’t remember where I read it, but I believe someone asked if Guyger’s apartment was also searched.
It’s interesting to note that because Amber consented to the search of her apartment, the results are not currently public record.
In an earlier interview with the victim’s family’s attorney (Merritt), he said he believed it would be one month before anyone knows the results of Guyger’s tox screen. No explanation for that time frame was given.
Thanks again to the Dallas Observer (and also thank you to them for not having a paywall).
Guyger has a pinterest account full of inspirational quotes and not so inspirational quotes like, “no one ever thanks me for having the patience not to kill them”.
Wow. Those memes and her comments beneath them say it all.
@Nrdsb4 I know it wasn’t found the day of the funeral. My point was the story was released on that day, and I’m skeptical, hence the word found in quotations.
@jazzymomof7 Another reminder that what we put on the internet stays on the internet.
New York Times article this morning notes search earlier that day on deceased’s floor for source of strong marijuana smells by apartment complex employees.
The NYT article also notes that other residents had sometimes gone to the wrong apartment.
@TomSrOfBoston : Another newspaper article noted that the officer scrubbed the internet after the shooting to remove references to family members & herself but missed or was unable to delete the Pinterest postings.
If marijuana comes up as a means of attacking Jean, the effect may not be entirely what would be wanted by such attackers: https://www.texastribune.org/2018/06/27/marijuana-democrats-young-adults-texas-poll/