carlson1 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:36 pm
LaBRat she is not on duty. She is at her home (she thinks) and there is NO duty to retreat in Texas. She didn’t have to back out to cover and wait.
^^^^^^
I suppose the trouble I have with this revolves around her being LEO. Typically, LEO (in their jurisdiction) retain their police 'powers' 24/7. It matters not if they are on duty or not. They still have the power to arrest and use force, etc.
With that in mind...I would think off-duty LEO are also charged with following their departments policies and procedural orders. Though civil liabilities might be different.
In this case...her department had a specific standing 'order' in circumstances such as this one to retreat to a safe position (if possible) and call for back-up.
This was brought out in the trial. One of the unfortunate realities of being LEO is that in many circumstances, you are not allowed to 'choose' under which authority you will act (citizen or Law Enforcement Officer).
carlson1 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:36 pm
LaBRat she is not on duty. She is at her home (she thinks) and there is NO duty to retreat in Texas. She didn’t have to back out to cover and wait.
^^^^^^
I suppose the trouble I have with this revolves around her being LEO. Typically, LEO (in their jurisdiction) retain their police 'powers' 24/7. It matters not if they are on duty or not. They still have the power to arrest and use force, etc.
With that in mind...I would think off-duty LEO are also charged with following their departments policies and procedural orders. Though civil liabilities might be different.
In this case...her department had a specific standing 'order' in circumstances such as this one to retreat to a safe position (if possible) and call for back-up.
This was brought out in the trial. One of the unfortunate realities of being LEO is that in many circumstances, you are not allowed to 'choose' under which authority you will act (citizen or Law Enforcement Officer).
This is a critical point. I think that, her admission that she intended to kill Jean instead of "stop the threat", her decision to send texts instead of rendering aid, and her testimony that she couldn't remember anything from the 8 hour deescalation training she had taken a few months before the incident and had changed nothing as a result of it all combined to drive the jury's verdict.
Excaliber
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Jeff Cooper
I am not a lawyer. Nothing in any of my posts should be construed as legal or professional advice.
Excaliber wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 7:41 am
This is a critical point. I think that, her admission that she intended to kill Jean instead of "stop the threat", her decision to send texts instead of rendering aid, and her testimony that she couldn't remember anything from the 8 hour deescalation training she had taken a few months before the incident and had changed nothing as a result of it all combined to drive the jury's verdict.
Why Guyger’s attorneys failed to prepare her to answer a critical question like that correctly is a mystery. Perhaps they did and she just blew it.
Since her texting/sexting has come out in the open, I wonder what she was concentrating on during that deescalation class if she remembered none of it?
Excaliber wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 7:41 am
This is a critical point. I think that, her admission that she intended to kill Jean instead of "stop the threat", her decision to send texts instead of rendering aid, and her testimony that she couldn't remember anything from the 8 hour deescalation training she had taken a few months before the incident and had changed nothing as a result of it all combined to drive the jury's verdict.
Why Guyger’s attorneys failed to prepare her to answer a critical question like that correctly is a mystery. Perhaps they did and she just blew it.
Since her texting/sexting has come out in the open, I wonder what she was concentrating on during that deescalation class if she remembered none of it?
I almost posted that earlier but had she not answered the way she did, she would have been lying. I am not sure an attorney is suppose to tell their client to lie on the stand. She was shooting to kill and admitted it. The alternative would have been to not have her testify, which may have been even a longer sentence for her.
Grayling813 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 7:54 amWhy Guyger’s attorneys failed to prepare her to answer a critical question like that correctly is a mystery. Perhaps they did and she just blew it.
Since her texting/sexting has come out in the open, I wonder what she was concentrating on during that deescalation class if she remembered none of it?
A) Does anyone know whether she had an incompetent public defender attorney or a good well-paid one? I am really surprised she said such stupid stuff on the stand.
B) She does not strike me as a smart or even competent person, she might not have been fit for duty to begin with but might have been "pushed through" all the exams and psych evals for the sake of "improving" meaningless statistical numbers (diversity etc). Wouldn't be the first time. Warning, this is merely a speculation on my part.
Was she suppose to lie about her intentions? I am not trying to be difficult but if her intentions were shoot to kill, should she have said it was only to shoot to stop? This is a question any of us could be asked. In 1996 I was involved in a self defense shooting. That question for me was easy. I honestly never had any desire to kill at all. I honestly was only trying to stop the attack. Never once did I have any desire to take human life. I was actually very relieved when I found I did not. My answer to that question resulted in a no-bill by the grand jury for self defense. To this day i never want to kill anyone and never have. Never once have I ever claimed anywhere or posted anything saying I wanted to "shoot to kill". She has. She answered the question honestly.
I just have a hard time with her not understanding she was on the wrong floor and wrong apartment.
Other aspects of the case notwithstanding, this is completely understandable. I've made this mistake myself in the past, in apartments and hotels where all the floors, hallways, doors, etc. are identical. After 5,000 times, walking to your door just becomes automatic, especially when you're exhausted from a 14 hour shift. The elevator door opens, you step out, turn left, walk to the third door and go in. You could do it blindfolded. If the elevator HAPPENS to open on the next floor, it's very easy to not notice.
Eh, sorta? Two floors are rarely identical. At least in the apartment complexes I’ve lived in or been to, once people have been inhabiting it long enough, there are typically clues like different welcome mats, door decorations, or maybe someone has a potted plant out front or something. And if the stair case/elevator is near a window, the view can be drastically different depending on the height/appearance of neighboring buildings.
How aware you need to be to notice such things obviously depends on the details. Coming off a 14-hour shift would certainly not help.
I am not a lawyer, nor have I played one on TV, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, nor should anything I say be taken as legal advice. If it is important that any information be accurate, do not use me as the only source.
Grayling813 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 7:54 amWhy Guyger’s attorneys failed to prepare her to answer a critical question like that correctly is a mystery. Perhaps they did and she just blew it.
Since her texting/sexting has come out in the open, I wonder what she was concentrating on during that deescalation class if she remembered none of it?
A) Does anyone know whether she had an incompetent public defender attorney or a good well-paid one? I am really surprised she said such stupid stuff on the stand.
B) She does not strike me as a smart or even competent person, she might not have been fit for duty to begin with but might have been "pushed through" all the exams and psych evals for the sake of "improving" meaningless statistical numbers (diversity etc). Wouldn't be the first time. Warning, this is merely a speculation on my part.
Was she suppose to lie about her intentions? I am not trying to be difficult but if her intentions were shoot to kill, should she have said it was only to shoot to stop? This is a question any of us could be asked. In 1996 I was involved in a self defense shooting. That question for me was easy. I honestly never had any desire to kill at all. I honestly was only trying to stop the attack. Never once did I have any desire to take human life. I was actually very relieved when I found I did not. My answer to that question resulted in a no-bill by the grand jury for self defense. To this day i never want to kill anyone and never have. Never once have I ever claimed anywhere or posted anything saying I wanted to "shoot to kill". She has. She answered the question honestly.
Do we know what she previously told investigators? I did not watch the trial so do not know. Maybe ( I am speculating--I don't know) she previously told investigating officers what she said on the stand--that she intended to kill. If so, then the prosecuting attorney could impeach her with her prior inconsistent statement if she testified on the stand she did not intend to kill...
One of these days I will get around to ordering a copy of the court's charge. Am very interested in how the trial judge instructed the jury, if at all, on a mistake of fact defense.
Please know and follow the rules of firearms safety.
Grayling813 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 7:54 amWhy Guyger’s attorneys failed to prepare her to answer a critical question like that correctly is a mystery. Perhaps they did and she just blew it.
Since her texting/sexting has come out in the open, I wonder what she was concentrating on during that deescalation class if she remembered none of it?
A) Does anyone know whether she had an incompetent public defender attorney or a good well-paid one? I am really surprised she said such stupid stuff on the stand.
B) She does not strike me as a smart or even competent person, she might not have been fit for duty to begin with but might have been "pushed through" all the exams and psych evals for the sake of "improving" meaningless statistical numbers (diversity etc). Wouldn't be the first time. Warning, this is merely a speculation on my part.
Was she suppose to lie about her intentions? I am not trying to be difficult but if her intentions were shoot to kill, should she have said it was only to shoot to stop? This is a question any of us could be asked. In 1996 I was involved in a self defense shooting. That question for me was easy. I honestly never had any desire to kill at all. I honestly was only trying to stop the attack. Never once did I have any desire to take human life. I was actually very relieved when I found I did not. My answer to that question resulted in a no-bill by the grand jury for self defense. To this day i never want to kill anyone and never have. Never once have I ever claimed anywhere or posted anything saying I wanted to "shoot to kill". She has. She answered the question honestly.
Do we know what she previously told investigators? I did not watch the trial so do not know. Maybe ( I am speculating--I don't know) she previously told investigating officers what she said on the stand--that she intended to kill. If so, then the prosecuting attorney could impeach her with her prior inconsistent statement if she testified on the stand she did not intend to kill...
One of these days I will get around to ordering a copy of the court's charge. Am very interested in how the trial judge instructed the jury, if at all, on a mistake of fact defense.
Good point. Maybe she had already admitted to trying to kill him in her statements. One thing I just cannot get over is that she had made several social media posts implying a shoot to kill mentality. She had even attempted to delete them. There is a link in the thread here detailing a few of her choice meme posts.
This is not mine I borrowed it from the bottom of a letter I received. It may help save someone from repeating what the officer did here if we would just think about it. When I read the statement I immediately thought of this mess here.
Please be alert, safe out there and remember assess every situation asking yourself, “If I didn’t have a weapon on me at this time what would I do?” That one question could keep you from being launched into a traumatic incident that will change your life.
One of the attorney’s for Jean family has been asked to investigate. As the old preacher said, “gag a maggot off a gut wagon.”
If someone was doing this to effect the trial they were late. His testimony wasn’t what sealed the deal. I did hear him testify to meeting Botham that day and he said, “ I met him and we smoked weed and sang gospel songs.” All he said about the shooting was he never heard Guyger give commands. Not much in my opinion.
