ElephantRider said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

ElephantRider said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

ElephantRider said:

---

You dodged my question.

---

Which question?

---

Would your opinion of this whole thing be the same if it were a black man that wasn't a cop in a white woman's apartment and the outcome was the same? Same DA brought the same charges, same arguments, same jury outcome.

---

Black man vs woman makes it harder bc it's hard to argue a woman is as much of a physical threat to a man to cause the fear of death or serious bodily injury. Better question is black female cop vs white man. Or black female cop vs black man. With a black female cop we would not have anywhere near the media circus. If it was just a black female vs white man or black man, this is NEVER a murder charge.

I don't care about the skin color involved here. My issue is the district attorney's office not prosecuting criminals with the same vigor as this particular officer.

---

The last two sentences of the first paragraph make it sound like you do care about the skin color involved.

Let's say Dallas County has a good DA that you don't have an issue with, and the same charges are brought. Would you feel differently?

I guess what I'm getting at is that your biases that are fueling your strong opinions here.

---

Bocephus said:

---

ElephantRider said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

ElephantRider said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

ElephantRider said:

---

You dodged my question.

---

Which question?

---

Would your opinion of this whole thing be the same if it were a black man that wasn't a cop in a white woman's apartment and the outcome was the same? Same DA brought the same charges, same arguments, same jury outcome.

---

Black man vs woman makes it harder bc it's hard to argue a woman is as much of a physical threat to a man to cause the fear of death or serious bodily injury. Better question is black female cop vs white man. Or black female cop vs black man. With a black female cop we would not have anywhere near the media circus. If it was just a black female vs white man or black man, this is NEVER a murder charge.

I don't care about the skin color involved here. My issue is the district attorney's office not prosecuting criminals with the same vigor as this particular officer.

---

The last two sentences of the first paragraph make it sound like you do care about the skin color involved.

Let's say Dallas County has a good DA that you don't have an issue with, and the same charges are brought. Would you feel differently?

I guess what I'm getting at is that your biases that are fueling your strong opinions here.

---

If the city has a good DA who filed the appropriate charges against all criminals, then I don't give a damn about this case.

---

nai06 said:

---

hypeiv said:

---

I Am Mine said:

---

Here's the thing. If she's not a badass cop with a gum and she thinks that someone broke into her apartment she calls 911.

And a police officer should be able to determine what is and is not a threat to their lives.

A stoned accountant eating ice cream is not a threat to her.

She was ill trained, panicked, and killed a man.

As a police officer, she had a higher accountability to not make this mistake, panic, and kill someone.

Honestly, the failure is with the DPD for giving her a badge and gun.

---

If anything the fact she was a cop helped her case... i.e. some argue the victim should have shown his hands and not moved when he saw a uniformed officer.

As pointed out above, if she was just a LTC holder and made the same mistake it would have clearly been murder. Or worse... if the male was a LTC holder and he went into an off duty police officer's apartment by mistake and killed her, they would have been seeking the death penalty.

---

I'm no Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer, but I dont think the death penalty would be on the table in that scenario. It only applies if you kill a cop while they are in the course of performing their duties right?

---

Dan 07 said:

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

uneedastraw said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

uneedastraw said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

uneedastraw said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

uneedastraw said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

I Am Mine said:

---

Totally disagree. If anything, her training should've prevented this from happening.

She panicked.

---

So she never has the right to be a human and make a mistake?

---

Removing the law, how many mistakes are you allowed when it results in the death of an innocent person?

She went to the wrong floor
She went to the wrong door
She didn't notice a bright red rug...only one on that floor
She was sexting a married man on that day and the day after
She entered an apartment knowing there was an intruder
She shot the man in the chest when she had an opportunity to retreat
She did not administer CPR
While he was dying, she was worried about her job status.

Let's face it, it was a horrible mistake but there were a lot of mistakes that happened in the totality of events. This wasn't just an oops one time. A lot happened that led up to her panic moment and a lot happened after that doesn't paint her in the greatest of light. Yet people want to give her a complete pass because they put themselves in only one or two of those scenarios and understand it could have happened to them. But there are numerous situations to where you start to question whether it was reasonable to assume the average person would respond the same way.

---

What does texting a married man have to do with anything? Is that a crime?

There is no duty to retreat in Texas.

Doing CPR would have been pointless but I agree that is a bad look if she did not do any. I try not to judge people for what they do after traumatic events like shooting another person.

NO ONE has said she deserves a free pass even though in this case that is what the law says with the way it is written with re: to mistake of fact. Everyone thinks she deserves to be punished.

The issue that a lot of people are having is that the evidence presented by the state does not prove that this was not a mistake.

The issue I am having is that they will convict an officer for murder for this mistake, yet you kill a child and you get pled out to a lesser charge than murder.

---

If my son is dead, and I knew a woman went to the wrong floor, went to the wrong door that had a bright red rug in front of it and I knew the person who made the mistake of recognizing that was distracted due to potential unethical behavior, in going to have a problem with that.

Look, obviously people went to the wrong apartment. But did they do so based on a simple mistake or did they do so when there were several indicators leading up to the event that a reasonable person wouldn't do it.

The red rug is the key.

The fact that she was "tired" but sexting a married man shows you she wasn't reasonable in her actions that day (in my opinion).

It's my opinion that If you kill an innocent man and you want to use some vague subsection of law that is never used, then you better be squeaky clean. She wasn't.

---

So you have never texted anyone when you were tired? I don't think her sex life has anything to do with the crime. The fact that she didn't turn around is why she deserves to be punished. The content of the texts have nothing to do with her guilt or innocence. That those were entered as evidence were just an attempt to bias the jury and public sentiment against her and it worked

---

You're focusing on one section of my statement. I'm saying look at the totality of the events.

It has more to do with the red rug and would a reasonable person have made those mistakes. I'm not sure they would. Add that to all the other unreasonable things she did before during and after, and it's hard for me to say a reasonable person would have a mistake of fact with those circumstances . The other stuff, sexting and other statements of hers shows me she wasn't the most reasonable...so why give her a pass on the direct events that's led to his death?

Just because someone says "oops my mistake" does not make it a mistake of fact.

---

If it was not a mistake, then she intentionally parked on the wrong floor and carried all her stuff to the wrong apartment in order to kill a complete stranger. Why did she do that?!!

---

Nobody is arguing iif she made mistakes that put herself in that position. The question is was the mistake reasonable. I say "No" and some say "Yes". You are leaving out was the mistake "honest and reasonable".

That's where the gray area is. It was obviously a mistake but one that I think only she makes because she was not being reasonable in her actions.

---

But here is the issue: the prosecution had to PROVE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that her mistake was NOT reasonable. You yourself say it is a gray area. By definition, that is not beyond reasonable doubt, correct?

---

I don't think that's correct (but welcome any correction from a criminal lawyer, which I am not). I believe the defense had the initial burden of proving (by a preponderance of the evidence a/k/a more likely than not) that a mistake of fact occurred, and that the mistake was reasonable.

Upon the defense meeting this initial burden, the burden of proof then shifted to the state to disprove the mistake of fact beyond a reasonable doubt.

---

Dan 07 said:

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

uneedastraw said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

uneedastraw said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

uneedastraw said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

uneedastraw said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

I Am Mine said:

---

Totally disagree. If anything, her training should've prevented this from happening.

She panicked.

---

So she never has the right to be a human and make a mistake?

---

Removing the law, how many mistakes are you allowed when it results in the death of an innocent person?

She went to the wrong floor
She went to the wrong door
She didn't notice a bright red rug...only one on that floor
She was sexting a married man on that day and the day after
She entered an apartment knowing there was an intruder
She shot the man in the chest when she had an opportunity to retreat
She did not administer CPR
While he was dying, she was worried about her job status.

Let's face it, it was a horrible mistake but there were a lot of mistakes that happened in the totality of events. This wasn't just an oops one time. A lot happened that led up to her panic moment and a lot happened after that doesn't paint her in the greatest of light. Yet people want to give her a complete pass because they put themselves in only one or two of those scenarios and understand it could have happened to them. But there are numerous situations to where you start to question whether it was reasonable to assume the average person would respond the same way.

---

What does texting a married man have to do with anything? Is that a crime?

There is no duty to retreat in Texas.

Doing CPR would have been pointless but I agree that is a bad look if she did not do any. I try not to judge people for what they do after traumatic events like shooting another person.

NO ONE has said she deserves a free pass even though in this case that is what the law says with the way it is written with re: to mistake of fact. Everyone thinks she deserves to be punished.

The issue that a lot of people are having is that the evidence presented by the state does not prove that this was not a mistake.

The issue I am having is that they will convict an officer for murder for this mistake, yet you kill a child and you get pled out to a lesser charge than murder.

---

If my son is dead, and I knew a woman went to the wrong floor, went to the wrong door that had a bright red rug in front of it and I knew the person who made the mistake of recognizing that was distracted due to potential unethical behavior, in going to have a problem with that.

Look, obviously people went to the wrong apartment. But did they do so based on a simple mistake or did they do so when there were several indicators leading up to the event that a reasonable person wouldn't do it.

The red rug is the key.

The fact that she was "tired" but sexting a married man shows you she wasn't reasonable in her actions that day (in my opinion).

It's my opinion that If you kill an innocent man and you want to use some vague subsection of law that is never used, then you better be squeaky clean. She wasn't.

---

So you have never texted anyone when you were tired? I don't think her sex life has anything to do with the crime. The fact that she didn't turn around is why she deserves to be punished. The content of the texts have nothing to do with her guilt or innocence. That those were entered as evidence were just an attempt to bias the jury and public sentiment against her and it worked

---

You're focusing on one section of my statement. I'm saying look at the totality of the events.

It has more to do with the red rug and would a reasonable person have made those mistakes. I'm not sure they would. Add that to all the other unreasonable things she did before during and after, and it's hard for me to say a reasonable person would have a mistake of fact with those circumstances . The other stuff, sexting and other statements of hers shows me she wasn't the most reasonable...so why give her a pass on the direct events that's led to his death?

Just because someone says "oops my mistake" does not make it a mistake of fact.

---

If it was not a mistake, then she intentionally parked on the wrong floor and carried all her stuff to the wrong apartment in order to kill a complete stranger. Why did she do that?!!

---

Nobody is arguing iif she made mistakes that put herself in that position. The question is was the mistake reasonable. I say "No" and some say "Yes". You are leaving out was the mistake "honest and reasonable".

That's where the gray area is. It was obviously a mistake but one that I think only she makes because she was not being reasonable in her actions.

---

But here is the issue: the prosecution had to PROVE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that her mistake was NOT reasonable. You yourself say it is a gray area. By definition, that is not beyond reasonable doubt, correct?

---

I don't think that's correct (but welcome any correction from a criminal lawyer, which I am not). I believe the defense had the initial burden of proving (by a preponderance of the evidence a/k/a more likely than not) that a mistake of fact occurred, and that the mistake was reasonable.

Upon the defense meeting this initial burden, the burden of proof then shifted to the state to disprove the mistake of fact beyond a reasonable doubt.

---

MW03 said:

---

Enviroag02 said:

---

Reasonable or unreasonable shouldn't even matter in this case, because an unreasonable mistake can still be a mistake of fact because it negates the intent of the crime of murder.

It was the prosecution's duty to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she acted with criminal intent, and I think we can all agree they did not.

Am I wrong?

---

I think you are conflating having a plan to commit a homicide with the intent the law requires when the homicide is done.

---

ElephantRider said:

---

Creuzot is the worst, we can agree on that.

---

uneedastraw said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

ElephantRider said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

ElephantRider said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

ElephantRider said:

---

You dodged my question.

---

Which question?

---

Would your opinion of this whole thing be the same if it were a black man that wasn't a cop in a white woman's apartment and the outcome was the same? Same DA brought the same charges, same arguments, same jury outcome.

---

Black man vs woman makes it harder bc it's hard to argue a woman is as much of a physical threat to a man to cause the fear of death or serious bodily injury. Better question is black female cop vs white man. Or black female cop vs black man. With a black female cop we would not have anywhere near the media circus. If it was just a black female vs white man or black man, this is NEVER a murder charge.

I don't care about the skin color involved here. My issue is the district attorney's office not prosecuting criminals with the same vigor as this particular officer.

---

The last two sentences of the first paragraph make it sound like you do care about the skin color involved.

Let's say Dallas County has a good DA that you don't have an issue with, and the same charges are brought. Would you feel differently?

I guess what I'm getting at is that your biases that are fueling your strong opinions here.

---

If the city has a good DA who filed the appropriate charges against all criminals, then I don't give a damn about this case.

---

Ridiculous statement. The DA didn't distract himself so much that he shot an innocent man in his own apartment.

If he is a bad DA, it's a separate story from this.

---

Enviroag02 said:

---

MW03 said:

---

Enviroag02 said:

---

Reasonable or unreasonable shouldn't even matter in this case, because an unreasonable mistake can still be a mistake of fact because it negates the intent of the crime of murder.

It was the prosecution's duty to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she acted with criminal intent, and I think we can all agree they did not.

Am I wrong?

---

I think you are conflating having a plan to commit a homicide with the intent the law requires when the homicide is done.

---

" An individual that takes or withholds action with the knowledge that such behavior will lead to the commission of a crime can be said to possess criminal intent"

In Guyger's case, the prosecution should have had the burden of proof to prove that she took action with the knowledge that her behavior was a crime. There is no way they did that.

---

Enviroag02 said:

---

MW03 said:

---

Enviroag02 said:

---

Reasonable or unreasonable shouldn't even matter in this case, because an unreasonable mistake can still be a mistake of fact because it negates the intent of the crime of murder.

It was the prosecution's duty to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she acted with criminal intent, and I think we can all agree they did not.

Am I wrong?

---

I think you are conflating having a plan to commit a homicide with the intent the law requires when the homicide is done.

---

" An individual that takes or withholds action with the knowledge that such behavior will lead to the commission of a crime can be said to possess criminal intent"

In Guyger's case, the prosecution should have had the burden of proof to prove that she took action with the knowledge that her behavior was a crime. There is no way they did that.

---

Quote:

---

Sec. 19.02. MURDER.
(a) In this section:
(1) "Adequate cause" means cause that would commonly produce a degree of anger, rage, resentment, or terror in a person of ordinary temper, sufficient to render the mind incapable of cool reflection.
(2) "Sudden passion" means passion directly caused by and arising out of provocation by the individual killed or another acting with the person killed which passion arises at the time of the offense and is not solely the result of former provocation.

(b) A person commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;
(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual; or
(3) commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.

(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.

(d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he caused the death under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree.

---

Quote:

---

Sec. 6.01. REQUIREMENT OF VOLUNTARY ACT OR OMISSION.
(a) A person commits an offense only if he voluntarily engages in conduct, including an act, an omission, or possession.

(b) Possession is a voluntary act if the possessor knowingly obtains or receives the thing possessed or is aware of his control of the thing for a sufficient time to permit him to terminate his control.

(c) A person who omits to perform an act does not commit an offense unless a law as defined by Section 1.07 provides that the omission is an offense or otherwise provides that he has a duty to perform the act.

---

Quote:

---

Sec. 6.02. REQUIREMENT OF CULPABILITY.
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person does not commit an offense unless he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence engages in conduct as the definition of the offense requires.

(b) If the definition of an offense does not prescribe a culpable mental state, a culpable mental state is nevertheless required unless the definition plainly dispenses with any mental element.
(c) If the definition of an offense does not prescribe a culpable mental state, but one is nevertheless required under Subsection (b), intent, knowledge, or recklessness suffices to establish criminal responsibility.

(d) Culpable mental states are classified according to relative degrees, from highest to lowest, as follows:
(1) intentional;
(2) knowing;
(3) reckless;
(4) criminal negligence.

(e) Proof of a higher degree of culpability than that charged constitutes proof of the culpability charged.

(f) An offense defined by municipal ordinance or by order of a county commissioners court may not dispense with the requirement of a culpable mental state if the offense is punishable by a fine exceeding the amount authorized by Section 12.23.

---

Quote:

---

Sec. 6.03. DEFINITIONS OF CULPABLE MENTAL STATES.
(a) A person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.

(b) A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.

(c) A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

(d) A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

---

Quote:

---

Sec. 6.04. CAUSATION: CONDUCT AND RESULTS.
(a) A person is criminally responsible if the result would not have occurred but for his conduct, operating either alone or concurrently with another cause, unless the concurrent cause was clearly sufficient to produce the result and the conduct of the actor clearly insufficient.

(b) A person is nevertheless criminally responsible for causing a result if the only difference between what actually occurred and what he desired, contemplated, or risked is that:
(1) a different offense was committed; or
(2) a different person or property was injured, harmed, or otherwise affected.

---

Bocephus said:

---

Enviroag02 said:

---

MW03 said:

---

Enviroag02 said:

---

Reasonable or unreasonable shouldn't even matter in this case, because an unreasonable mistake can still be a mistake of fact because it negates the intent of the crime of murder.

It was the prosecution's duty to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she acted with criminal intent, and I think we can all agree they did not.

Am I wrong?

---

I think you are conflating having a plan to commit a homicide with the intent the law requires when the homicide is done.

---

" An individual that takes or withholds action with the knowledge that such behavior will lead to the commission of a crime can be said to possess criminal intent"

In Guyger's case, the prosecution should have had the burden of proof to prove that she took action with the knowledge that her behavior was a crime. There is no way they did that.

---

But she had consensual sex with a married man so let's throw her in prison anyways.

---

Quote:

---

Keep mind this is likely not what Guyger's jury got because of the castle doctrine defense that is going to be intertwined with all this

---

Quote:

---

And his criminal reform on lesser offenses.

---

Bones08 said:

---

I'm fairly ignorant on Creuzot. Anyone care to give me a quick crash course on why people here seem to hate him?

I know about him being dumb with the gag order for this trial. And his criminal reform on lesser offenses. But that's about the extent of my knowledge.

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

Keep mind this is likely not what Guyger's jury got because of the castle doctrine defense that is going to be intertwined with all this

---

I think linking Castle Doctrine may have been the problem. Not only did it confuse the mistake of fact defense, the defense tried to extend her 'castle' into someone's home which seems like it goes against the spirit of the law. (For instance, if someone steals something from you, you don't then get to enter the other person's home and 'defend' your stolen property by shooting the thief.)

---

hypeiv said:

---

I searched for old threads from when this lady was fired last year and no one seemed to mind then... Those of you who think she should have been found not guilty, do you think she should sue for wrongful termination? Should she be allowed to return to work as a police officer?

---

500,000ags said:

---

Every major city is following this model of decriminalization. Frankly, it's not surprising since PDs are understaffed and they are often using resources by arresting the same homeless, mentality ill, transient, or drug using people over and over. I say not surprising, but I absolutely don't agree with it.

---

Quote:

---

she'd spend the rest of her career checking in equipment

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Quote:

---

she'd spend the rest of her career checking in equipment

---

sounds like she was pretty experienced at checking in fellow officers' equipment

(serious topic, but I couldn't resist the temptation)

---

hypeiv said:

---

I searched for old threads from when this lady was fired last year and no one seemed to mind then... Those of you who think she should have been found not guilty, do you think she should sue for wrongful termination? Should she be allowed to return to work as a police officer?

---

500,000ags said:

---

Every major city is following this model of decriminalization. Frankly, it's not surprising since PDs are understaffed and they are often using resources by arresting the same homeless, mentality ill, transient, or drug using people over and over. I say not surprising, but I absolutely don't agree with it.

---

Bocephus said:

---

500,000ags said:

---

Every major city is following this model of decriminalization. Frankly, it's not surprising since PDs are understaffed and they are often using resources by arresting the same homeless, mentality ill, transient, or drug using people over and over. I say not surprising, but I absolutely don't agree with it.

---

It's the opposite of the broken windows theory that cleaned up NYC. It's why Seattle, Portland and San Fran are now such dumps.

---