TexasCHLforum.com

jason812 wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:15 pm I have caught bits and pieces of the trial. Mainly reporting on the AM radio. Why did the jury not get to hear the Texas Ranger say she acted reasonably? I haven't seen an explanation why that statement was not in front of the jury.

WildBill wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:26 pm

jason812 wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:15 pm I have caught bits and pieces of the trial. Mainly reporting on the AM radio. Why did the jury not get to hear the Texas Ranger say she acted reasonably? I haven't seen an explanation why that statement was not in front of the jury.

Did the Ranger witness the shooting? If not, that it's his opinion, not evidence.

jason812 wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:15 pm I have caught bits and pieces of the trial. Mainly reporting on the AM radio. Why did the jury not get to hear the Texas Ranger say she acted reasonably? I haven't seen an explanation why that statement was not in front of the jury.

thatguyoverthere wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2019 4:43 pm

jason812 wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:15 pm I have caught bits and pieces of the trial. Mainly reporting on the AM radio. Why did the jury not get to hear the Texas Ranger say she acted reasonably? I haven't seen an explanation why that statement was not in front of the jury.

I, too, have only heard bits and pieces. But I did hear that quote from the Texas Ranger. IIRC, he not only said that she acted reasonably, but also that no crime was committed (in his opinion).

Don't know why the judge did not allow it, but also not sure why the Ranger thinks that would not be a crime of some kind, to kill someone minding their own business in their own home by someone else who had no reason or right to be there at all. So how does the Ranger think it's supposed to work then? You just say "oops, sorry. My bad." Then everybody goes home at the end of the day (well, except for the innocent dead guy, of course)?

C-dub wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2019 2:19 pm It's been a couple days since I heard this on the news and can't remember who said the following. I think it was a defense lawyer, a woman, that was talking about the circumstances the she, Guyger, knew them to be at the time she fired her shots. The lawyer was talking about her options and I thought she mentioned something about whether or not running away was an option if she feared for her life. That part bothered me because we do not have that obligation here in Texas before using deadly force.

I watch Fox4 news in the mornings. Did anyone else see that segment?

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

Mike S wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:25 pm

C-dub wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2019 2:19 pm It's been a couple days since I heard this on the news and can't remember who said the following. I think it was a defense lawyer, a woman, that was talking about the circumstances the she, Guyger, knew them to be at the time she fired her shots. The lawyer was talking about her options and I thought she mentioned something about whether or not running away was an option if she feared for her life. That part bothered me because we do not have that obligation here in Texas before using deadly force.

I watch Fox4 news in the mornings. Did anyone else see that segment?

You are correct that in Texas we don't have a duty to retreat, as long as these elements of TPC 9.32 are met:

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

And, if this applies, then the next section prohibits it from being posed to the jury:

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

I haven't been listening to the trial, but if failure to retreat was mentioned in front of the jury, I'd guess it was decided that either she "wasn't lawfully present", or being in the wrong apartment constituted another crime such as trespassing.

Grayling813 wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:21 pm

thatguyoverthere wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2019 4:43 pm

jason812 wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:15 pm I have caught bits and pieces of the trial. Mainly reporting on the AM radio. Why did the jury not get to hear the Texas Ranger say she acted reasonably? I haven't seen an explanation why that statement was not in front of the jury.

I, too, have only heard bits and pieces. But I did hear that quote from the Texas Ranger. IIRC, he not only said that she acted reasonably, but also that no crime was committed (in his opinion).

Don't know why the judge did not allow it, but also not sure why the Ranger thinks that would not be a crime of some kind, to kill someone minding their own business in their own home by someone else who had no reason or right to be there at all. So how does the Ranger think it's supposed to work then? You just say "oops, sorry. My bad." Then everybody goes home at the end of the day (well, except for the innocent dead guy, of course)?

If the Ranger said that, he is helping destroy the reputation of the Texas Rangers as a fair and impartial investigative force.

Grayling813 wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:21 pm

thatguyoverthere wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2019 4:43 pm

jason812 wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:15 pm I have caught bits and pieces of the trial. Mainly reporting on the AM radio. Why did the jury not get to hear the Texas Ranger say she acted reasonably? I haven't seen an explanation why that statement was not in front of the jury.

I, too, have only heard bits and pieces. But I did hear that quote from the Texas Ranger. IIRC, he not only said that she acted reasonably, but also that no crime was committed (in his opinion).

Don't know why the judge did not allow it, but also not sure why the Ranger thinks that would not be a crime of some kind, to kill someone minding their own business in their own home by someone else who had no reason or right to be there at all. So how does the Ranger think it's supposed to work then? You just say "oops, sorry. My bad." Then everybody goes home at the end of the day (well, except for the innocent dead guy, of course)?

If the Ranger said that, he is helping destroy the reputation of the Texas Rangers as a fair and impartial investigative force.

Trooper David Armstrong also said that he doesn’t believe the former Dallas officer committed a crime when she shot and killed Botham Jean inside his apartment after thinking it was her unit and that he was an intruder. However, this was said outside the presence of the jury. Judge Tammy Kemp ruled the jury would not be allowed to hear it.

jason812 wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2019 7:39 pm

Grayling813 wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:21 pm

thatguyoverthere wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2019 4:43 pm

jason812 wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:15 pm I have caught bits and pieces of the trial. Mainly reporting on the AM radio. Why did the jury not get to hear the Texas Ranger say she acted reasonably? I haven't seen an explanation why that statement was not in front of the jury.

I, too, have only heard bits and pieces. But I did hear that quote from the Texas Ranger. IIRC, he not only said that she acted reasonably, but also that no crime was committed (in his opinion).

Don't know why the judge did not allow it, but also not sure why the Ranger thinks that would not be a crime of some kind, to kill someone minding their own business in their own home by someone else who had no reason or right to be there at all. So how does the Ranger think it's supposed to work then? You just say "oops, sorry. My bad." Then everybody goes home at the end of the day (well, except for the innocent dead guy, of course)?

If the Ranger said that, he is helping destroy the reputation of the Texas Rangers as a fair and impartial investigative force.

I think it would have destroyed the prosecution's case. I don't think 1st degree murder is an appropriate charge and from what I heard of the opening statement, the prosecutor sounds like a slime ball. Sad thing is if she walks or even convicted of a lesser crime, I bet there will be riots stoked by outside agitators.

C-dub wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2019 8:14 pm

jason812 wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2019 7:39 pm

Grayling813 wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:21 pm

thatguyoverthere wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2019 4:43 pm

jason812 wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:15 pm I have caught bits and pieces of the trial. Mainly reporting on the AM radio. Why did the jury not get to hear the Texas Ranger say she acted reasonably? I haven't seen an explanation why that statement was not in front of the jury.

I, too, have only heard bits and pieces. But I did hear that quote from the Texas Ranger. IIRC, he not only said that she acted reasonably, but also that no crime was committed (in his opinion).

Don't know why the judge did not allow it, but also not sure why the Ranger thinks that would not be a crime of some kind, to kill someone minding their own business in their own home by someone else who had no reason or right to be there at all. So how does the Ranger think it's supposed to work then? You just say "oops, sorry. My bad." Then everybody goes home at the end of the day (well, except for the innocent dead guy, of course)?

If the Ranger said that, he is helping destroy the reputation of the Texas Rangers as a fair and impartial investigative force.

I think it would have destroyed the prosecution's case. I don't think 1st degree murder is an appropriate charge and from what I heard of the opening statement, the prosecutor sounds like a slime ball. Sad thing is if she walks or even convicted of a lesser crime, I bet there will be riots stoked by outside agitators.

If that happens I don't want to be anywhere near Dallas for a few days after that verdict. I'm about 15-20 miles from downtown and that might even be too close on that day.

C-dub wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:59 pm

WildBill wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:26 pm

jason812 wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:15 pm I have caught bits and pieces of the trial. Mainly reporting on the AM radio. Why did the jury not get to hear the Texas Ranger say she acted reasonably? I haven't seen an explanation why that statement was not in front of the jury.

Did the Ranger witness the shooting? If not, that it's his opinion, not evidence.

If that were the precedent, then wouldn't Guyger be the only one the jury should be allowed to hear from?