Oh sure, @ Publisher, but your qualification of the intent required just pushes the question back a level. Was her going for the gun and pulling the trigger automatic based on her training and experience being overpowered, considered in light of the startling nature of the encounter, or did it evidence the intent needed under the statute and case law? (Remember all those law school hypotheticals with drunks, mentally challenged, involuntarily versus voluntarily drugged, etc…)
Like I said, a real Texas lawyer could chime in, I’m just offering some ideas for discussion.
Just reading the Texas statutes. That is what charges are based on with the facts presented.
Based on the alleged facts as presented to the public, the officer was neither “drunk or drugged out of her mind” or, if she was, she should have been arrested & taken into custody immediately.
I’m puzzled about people who don’t think it’s “reasonable” for Guyger to believe the apartment was hers. Have you never absent-mindedly entered or tried to enter the wrong place? The wrong hotel room, the wrong new apartment or dorm room, the wrong car, the wrong gender restroom? People make these mistakes all the time. It’s not “unreasonable” to make that mistake.
No, no, my belief is the entry was reasonable. The shooting is the problem here. She didn’t have the right to shoot him even if he was in her own apartment.
Local news reports that she has been tested for drugs/alcohol. Results have not been made public.
Local news also stated that her shift was a 12 hour shift.
ETA: different news sources are saying her shift was 12 hours and 15 hours; not sure that the difference is particularly relevant, but wanted to be accurate.
Entry into the apartment was not reasonable–especially because of the red doormat–under these circumstances.
This will be upgraded to a murder (second degree murder in most jurisdictions) charge due in large part to the distinguishing red doormat. Everything else fits the definition of the offense of “murder” under Texas law.
Best guess: She takes a plea deal recommending 15 years, maybe 12 years. Anything less than 10 years could endanger the safety of other officers & would make a mockery out of Texas law.
Even after entering the wrong apartment, all she had to do was flip the light switch (rather than firing two shots in the dark at a figure) to alert her that she was in the wrong apartment facing an unarmed person who posed no threat whatsoever to her.
Also, I question whether or not the officer shot before turning on the lights. Regardless, the officer is culpable–but maybe not of a federal charge with a hate crime enhancement.
@frugaldoctor, where have you read that she walked past these items? The only report about it I have seen said the apartment was dark inside. Another stated that in this complex, the very first room in the apartment is a kitchen to the side of the front door, not a living room that would presumably have distinguishing items such as you have described.
Red doormat, schmed doormat. There was a male icon on the men’s room right in front of my eyes the time I accidentally wandered in. People don’t see things right in front of their eyes. This is normal. It’s normal to make mistakes.
Nobody is saying she walked into another person’s apartment knowing it was not her own.
The back of my car has stickers and magnets, plus I have a fashionable large rusted dent on the driver’s side…nevertheless earlier this year, I absentmindedly tugged and pulled and tugged again on the driver’s door of a car that was the same model & color as mine, but had NONE of the other distinguishing markers of my own car.
I can totally imagine her walking into the apartment thinking it was hers, despite all the other “obvious” markers that it was not.
I agree the sticking point is firing the gun as a (alleged) first response versus backing out of there.
It’s unclear to me if the shooter and the victim exchanged words. I thought I read a report that a neighbor heard shouting? I tried to find the article again, but I cannot find it.
I couldn’t shoot the men in the men’s room if I absent-mindedly wandered in thinking it was the women’s room. I also couldn’t shoot men in the women’s room if I walked in and saw men there. My shooting has to be based on a legitimate need to defend myself from force. I can walk right back out again to defend myself from men in the women’s room (who are probably there with their little daughters, or I’m wrong and they’re actually women not men, or the men’s room is shut and they need to pee).
If you are in your own house and someone breaks in, shoot her. Or don’t shoot her and ask her to leave. It should be totally up to the occupant. No one should second guess the decision. The burglar forfeited her right to the benefit of any doubt when she broke in.
This Dallas case is very different. The officer was not in her house, and could have backed out into the hallway, and therefore is not entitled to the presumption that she shouldn’t be second guessed.
This is a highly unusual situation, and shouldn’t really be used to consider the general question whether a rightful occupant can shoot an intruder. If in an alternate universe the victim pulled out a gun and shot the officer who entered the apartment I would support a finding of not guilty for him. Or even a determination not to bring any charges.