Guyger could argue that she reasonably believed a burglary was taking place in her apartment. Actually, I agree with this: she reasonably believed the guy was in her apartment stealing things. So we need to look at whether her response was reasonable, given that belief. It wasn’t. She is not the judge, jury and executioner. She didn’t need to use deadly force, even assuming an intruder was in her apartment.
15 hour shifts are a feature not a bug. Cops love “differential pay” (that’s distinct from overtime) and sunshine laws require the publishing of base salaries. This is not going to change, just like the 4/3 workweek for cops is not going to change.
@“Cardinal Fang” I’m not arguing but trying to understand. If an intruder is in your house, don’t you have the right to use deadly force? Or does the intruder have to be threatening your life?
I feel like she had the right to shoot because she legitimately thought someone was committing a burglary. Her error was that she was at the wrong apartment so she needs to pay for that huge error and negligence . For some reason I feel like the defense is going to blame the building construct because all the floors look exactly the same. :-w
Let’s look at the Texas laws @ucbalumnus cited, 9.41 and 9.42. I’m not an expert in how these laws are interpreted, but let’s just look at the plain text.
9.41 is about when it is allowable to use force:
quote A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property. [my bold]
[/quote]
9.42 says deadly force is allowable in some cases where force is allowable:
So we see that in Texas it is allowable to shoot someone if force is immediately necessary to stop the person. But if force is not necessary, because there is some other way that would reasonably work, then you aren’t allowed to shoot them. If your neighbor is trespassing in your back yard to retrieve a basketball, you’re not allowed to shoot them. Force is not necessary. Just ask them to leave and they’ll leave.
Assuming that Guyger reasonably believed Jean was burglarizing her apartment, she nevertheless could not reasonably believe that shooting him was the only way to stop him. She could not be in reasonable fear of her life; all she had to do was step out the door. As they were on an upper floor, the guy had no way out but the door.
She walked past furniture, pictures, and probably a bunch of other items that were not recognizable to her. Not once did these provide a clue that she was in the wrong apartment. If she wasn’t a cop, this would have an open and shut case with a woman in handcuffs and jail within minutes of the police arriving. It is ridiculous to think that she had the opportunity to freely walk around for 3 days while the police conducted an “investigation”. What was there to investigate? This story stinks from the onset because of the preferential treatment she received. If the homeowner shot her, castle doctrine or not, he would go to jail and would have a very hard time fighting the charges of murder.
Texas Penal Code 9.32 (not 9.42) is the section that includes the “castle doctrine” (9.32(b)(1)(A)).
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm
However, just because something may be legal does not necessarily mean that it is the best course of action.
In other words, the pay structure creates incentives for police officers to risk fatigue and become lower quality police officers.
Why is it inconceivable to change the pay structure to encourage police officers to choose lower fatigue schedules? If the same police officers paid the same amount in aggregate are less fatigued, then it should be a win for everyone except for criminals, compared to the present situation.
Take another look at 9.31 and 9.32, @ucbalumnus. You are allowed to use force against an intruder if the the intruder used force to enter your house while you were already there: “unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment…”
If you return home to find a burglar burglarizing your house, and you can reasonably retreat, 9.31 and 9.32 do not justify shooting. Walk right back out the door and call the police. Code 9.32 explicitly states that the force has to be necessary to protect the actor from another person using force.
In this case, nothing is reasonable once she entered someone else’s apartment without permission or right. Especially when there was a distinguishing red carpet at the foot of the door.
To further confuse the matter, it is reasonable to assume that one intended to inflict great bodily harm when discharging a weapon at another. This is why it should have been charged as second degree murder (“murder” in Texas) and not as manslaughter.
If the officer doesn’t plead guilty to manslaughter, then the charge should be upgraded to murder. (Which is the more appropriate charge based on the alleged facts known to the public at this time.)
P.S. There is a significant difference between a burglary that occurs when one is inside his or her home versus walking in on a burglary with a clear opportunity to safely turn around and avoid confrontation. Whether or not this is legally significant under Texas law I do not know. What I suspect is true under Texas law, ironically, is that the deceased could have legally shot & killed the officer under these facts.
The fact is that there would be few to zero juries in Texas who would convict someone for walking in on a burglary in their own home and shooting the perpetrator. It would take a unanimous verdict, and I just don’t believe that happens in Texas.
That I believe this does not mean I would behave in similar fashion. I don’t own guns, so if I walked in on a home invasion, I wouldn’t have the option of shooting anyway.
What I think will be open to interpretation is whether or not it was “reasonable” for someone on the wrong floor and at the wrong apartment, with a red rug outside the door not present at her own unit, and with a key that wasn’t opening the door, to assume that Botham Jean was in her home robbing the place.
@Nrdsb4: It would be “reasonable” if the court instructs the jury that under Texas law the definition of “reasonable” is “unreasonable”.
@Publisher, I don’t get your meaning. Sorry.
My meaning is that entering another’s home & shooting & killing the homeowner under these circumstances is unreasonable. This is & was murder.
@Publisher, I agree with you that it was not reasonable for her to assume she was in her own apartment. Do I believe that she intentionally went to this man’s apartment to shoot him? Of course not. But her actions were not reasonable in my opinion.
Unfortunately, a defense attorney could make the argument that it was reasonable to assume that she was in her own apartment because after she placed her key in the lock, the door opened. And it was dark. And she was exhausted after working a stressful 15 hour shift. And she was a new tenant in this apartment complex & unfamiliar with the vagaries of the door locks.
But, in reality, this was not reasonable. This was murder. The officer has already caught an enormous break–based on the alleged facts known to the public–by only being charged with manslaughter. The above argument would & could be used if charged with “murder” in order to convince a jury that it was really the lesser included offense of “manslaughter”.
There’s really no question whether her actions were reasonable here. They weren’t.
The only question is whether her surprise was so great - in light of her previous experience of being overpowered by a male suspect and needing to shoot - that she was not able to form the specific intent, the instantaneous mens rea, to satisfy the requirements of murder. Perhaps a real Texas lawyer could chime in here.
I suspect that part of the delay in arresting her was working out the outlines of a guilty plea. Texas has an interest in this not getting out of hand due to potential for protests (this doesn’t seem racial to me, but Crump is already involved), and obviously she would need to mount a no holds barred defense to any murder charge, so maybe a plea to the lesser included offense of manslaughter is the optimal result. That we have heard that the lights were off and that she thought he was a burglar might be clues that she has already talked, and that the outlines of a plea deal have already been sketched.
I think there is a better chance of her being found guilty of manslaughter over murder.
The only relevant intent under these “facts” is that the officer intended to fire her weapon while aiming it at another. That is “murder” in Texas. Whether or not it was a legally justified murder is another issue. But her actions constitute murder under Texas law.
I’m a “real” Texas lawyer and I know better than to opine much about this since we only know what we are reading in the news and I’m not about to give a legal opinion based on that. It’s just a sad situation and a needless death. My personal, non-lawyer opinion is that she was either drunk or drugged out of her mind.