@JustaMom5465, I don’t think it has been established that those were accurate reports yet.
“I think part of the purpose going to jail serves is for society to feel better about it.”
Indeed. That’s why I found the argument to let this killer walk so strange.
If it is proven that this woman did indeed believe she was in her own apartment and killed this man as a result of that misunderstanding, she should not walk away unscathed, but should be convicted of the appropriate crime. It seems highly inappropriate that she should have killed this poor guy even considering that belief. Whether that is murder or manslaughter is for the courts to decide. However, it was proposed earlier in the thread that it would not be unreasonable to charge her with capital murder, with the accompanying possibility of the death penalty, for this crime. If she truly believed she was in her own home, that is a preposterous suggestion imo.
The post in question was a perfect example of the reasoning that so often results in a police officer walking when they kill someone in a situation where it was clearly unjustified.
If more of them had to pay for their crime with jail time, perhaps there would be fewer unnecessary shootings. Perhaps there would be more emphasis and serious, ongoing training in deescalation techniques and less encouragement to automatically over react out of fear when the situation hasn’t even been assessed. The guy who murdered Tamir Rice shot him within seconds of arriving at the playground, while the car was actually still moving. Of course it was later revealed that he resigned from his prior police job when he was about to be let go for being emotionally unstable. And there was a cascade of errors that resulted in the boy having a toy that wasn’t marked as a toy, and the dispatcher failing to convey that the 911 caller said several times that it might be a toy. But deescalation on the part of the police officers would have clarified the situation and averted a death.
If a surgeon, exhausted by a long and stressful shift, walks into a cop’s house, thinking it is her own, and instantly uses her scalpel to stab to death a shadowy figure moving in the darkness, she is not going to get much of a break from the legal system (or from the court of CC opinion).
I’m not sure why this shooter being a policeman matters at all. Her occupation should be taken right out of the story. It doesn’t matter. She was OFF DUTY. She was not acting as a police officer. At the time of the shooting, she was a regular person…just like most of us here.
It is relevant because the officer was in full uniform in transit to her home after a long shift. If the judge at a trial, or the prosecution prior to & during trial, decide that the officer was acting in the role of an officer her defenses become much greater & her burden at trial of establishing justification for her actions becomes much lighter.
In my opinion, this was an unjustified killing of an innocent man in his own apartment. But, as I wrote earlier in this thread, if the officer apprehended a mugger in the parking lot, no one would assert that she was not acting as a police officer even though her shift had ended. Even the US Supreme Court has difficulty with the issues presented in these types of cases–no matter how horrific the resulting tragedy.
Amber Guyger has been fired.
This type of “subsequent remedial action” is not admissible in court, but it should quell public demonstrations against the Dallas PD.
P.S. If the toxicology tests revealed intoxication or the presence of illegal substances in her blood, then that would be admissible in court for the charge of manslaughter or murder. But the firing itself would not be admissible even if done as the result of the toxicology test, in my opinion, because it would still be classified as a “subsequent remedial action”.
Is it me nitpicking or is this description of the reason for her firing confusing?
As written it seems to be saying that did something innappropriate while being arrested. But I think they meant that the conduct leading to the manslaughter charge (i.e. the shooting) was the reason for the firing.
They may be using some claim about how she behaved when she was arrested as an excuse to get rid of her.
The statement should not have been made. Could taint the jury pool. Should have stated simply that the officer was fired without giving any reason. Her firing should not be admissible in court on the manslaughter or murder charge.
A group of us…all attorneys several former ADA’s ( assistant district attorneys) were discussing this morning. Consensus was she will not be considered to have been on duty. It woukd have been different the thinking goes if she’d been coming to the aid of another person. But since this was her acting only for herself she will not be allowed to claim she was on duty.
Of course this judge can make his own decision but this thought was unanimous among our group
I agree that the prosecution will want to take the position that the officer was off duty, but, as you know, it is up to the judge. Also, to a certain extent, the jury can engage in “jury nullification” if they are sympathetic to the officer.
I agree about the “coming to the aid of another” analysis (such as stopping a mugging in the parking lot) but I also think that the defense can assert that she was acting in the role of an officer so long as in full uniform & in transit to or from work. (But I have no Texas case law & have not researched this point.)
Also, her defense has not yet been established. May present several defenses although best to work off of one theme. But the officer will allege that she was stopping a burglary & that that act aids others even though she thought that it was her own apartment. (Dangerous thief in the building.)
A good defense lawyer can raise multiple defenses & present them all in closing argument.
Now, if the officer had meth in her system, then any reasonableness defense will be lost. Waiting on toxicology results, but they are probably clean.
Announcement of her firing suggests that she may have possibly engaged in destruction of evidence–although unclear at this time.
After a few minutes of thought, I think that the strength of the evidence might have an effect on how vigorously the prosecution fights the defense position that she was acting in the role of a police officer.
Why ? Because not to allow it under these circumstances (in full uniform in transit from work), could be reversible error.
If the prosecution thinks that the evidence is too strong for a rational jury to find her actions “reasonable”, then the prosecutors might allow (not object) such a defense in order to protect police officer actions in future situations when in full uniform. (After all, prosecutors need police officers as witnesses in most criminal cases.)
Also, it is difficult to define “coming to the aid of another person” or “in aid of another” or “in protection of others”. A police officer often only has a split second in which to act. The easiest analysis is : “A crime is a crime is a crime” whether against an officer or a civilian.
Nevertheless, even if acting in the role of a police officer, this appears to be a murder–not just manslaughter–based on the publicly available information. Hard to imagine any reasonable reasonableness defense at this point.
The idea of the 'coming of the aid of another" analysis is: in that case the officer is making a decision to become involved in something he or she doesn’t have to. Putting oneself at risk when one didn’t have to is very different than the situation here and deserves special treatment that this situation does not.
Then your argument fails if the officer reasonably thought that she was at her apartment as I believe that there is no duty to retreat in Texas. (Castle law.)
Interesting to consider whether a plea bargain is likely.
If facing a murder charge & the judge denies the officer the defense of acting in the role of a police officer, then a plea down to the lesser included offense of manslaughter with the right to appeal not only the officer’s sentence, but also the right to appeal disallowance by the trial court judge of the defense of acting in the role of a police officer would be interesting & legally significant.
Such a defense denial by the trial judge could impact all police officers if upheld on appeal. I wonder if there is any case law on this point in Texas.
@maya54: Okay, I have spent a few more minutes in thought on the issue of whether the officer will be allowed to present a defense of acting in the role of an officer.
I think that the trial court judge will allow this defense because both are issues of fact & this is a jury trial (the jury is the fact finder).
I do not think that this defense is a matter of law (although I do believe that it would be reversible error to deny such defense to an officer in full uniform in transit from work).
Therefore, the jury will likely decide as issues of fact:
Whether the officer in full uniform in transit from work as a full time police officer was acting in the role of a police officer when confronting another in an apartment burglary.
And whether her belief that this was her apartment was reasonable.
And whether her stated belief that the deceased was a burglar in her apartment was reasonable.
And whether, in light of Texas’ castle law, her actions in pointing a gun at the deceased & pulling the trigger were reasonable under Texas law.
P.S. If the jury determines that the officer was acting in the role of a police officer at the time of the shooting, then the only issue left may be whether or not the act of shooting was legally allowed under Texas law.
I think the issue for the jury more precisely is:
“Whether the officer in full uniform in transit from work as a full time police officer was acting in the role of a police officer when she entered an apartment she claims she believed to be her own and found someone else in the apartment”