Dallas PO enters wrong apartment, kills occupant

BUMP 12/1/18

Amber Guyger, Dallas officer who shot man in his own apartment, indicted for murder

A police officer who claimed she killed a Dallas man in his own apartment in the mistaken belief that he was in her home was indicted Friday on a murder charge, authorities said.

The indictment of Amber Guyger comes more than two months after she was arrested in the shooting death of Botham Shem Jean at the Dallas apartment complex where both lived -- a killing that sparked days of protests.

When asked why the grand jury indicted Guyger on the more serious offense of murder, Johnson replied, "We presented the evidence and we explained the law."

Johnson said murder constitutes someone "intentionally and knowingly" committing a crime, whereas manslaughter involves "recklessly doing something."

Amber Guyger, Dallas officer who shot man in his own apartment, indicted for murder
 
I’m wondering if the overcharge is a game to get her a not guilty. If the jury can only consider a murder charge and they can’t make out that she even knew him - that’s a hard road to travel.
That was my first thought. I ran it past a good friend who is a retired Texas cop, and he agreed that proving murder would be difficult -- but that it would be a good plea bargain pressure to accept the lesser included charge of manslaughter.

He predicted that she would accept manslaughter, with something like 20 years, 15 suspended, and 5 years in prison.
 
That was my first thought. I ran it past a good friend who is a retired Texas cop, and he agreed that proving murder would be difficult -- but that it would be a good plea bargain pressure to accept the lesser included charge of manslaughter.

He predicted that she would accept manslaughter, with something like 20 years, 15 suspended, and 5 years in prison.
The prosecutor gave her a gift.

Don’t accept a plea.

She’ll never be found guilty of murder.

She will go free and the riots will commence.

More dead blacks. Maybe that’s the plan.
 
She’ll never be found guilty of murder.
True, but sometimes juries are given the option of a lesser included charge. This is particularly useful to the prosecution in those cases where a jury cannot be sure of guilt, as this allows a compromise verdict.
 
True, but sometimes juries are given the option of a lesser included charge. This is particularly useful to the prosecution in those cases where a jury cannot be sure of guilt, as this allows a compromise verdict.

Yes, but then she's no worse off than if she plead to manslaughter in the first place and it's not impossible the judge or jury could toss that along with Murder 1.
 
Her murder trial is set for August. Not a whole lot of info about this case because there’s been a gag order. There is still some interesting information however.

Police almost immediately searched the victims apartment. The killers apartment however was never searched. She quickly moved out.

She was charged a couple days after the shooting, and released on bond in just hours.

After her arrest she allegedly took a Caribbean cruise, possibly in violation of her bond.

Her story changed from her key fob didn’t work when she tried to get in to the door being already ajar.


It sounds like they are going with the “She was really tired after working a long day and made a mistake” defense.

If it works, it raises an interesting point. If working overtime can cause officers to be so tired that it causes them to and excuses killing innocent people, why should cops even be allowed to work overtime?
 
Her murder trial is set for August. Not a whole lot of info about this case because there’s been a gag order. There is still some interesting information however.

Police almost immediately searched the victims apartment. The killers apartment however was never searched. She quickly moved out.

She was charged a couple days after the shooting, and released on bond in just hours.

After her arrest she allegedly took a Caribbean cruise, possibly in violation of her bond.

Her story changed from her key fob didn’t work when she tried to get in to the door being already ajar.


It sounds like they are going with the “She was really tired after working a long day and made a mistake” defense.

If it works, it raises an interesting point. If working overtime can cause officers to be so tired that it causes them to and excuses killing innocent people, why should cops even be allowed to work overtime?


Wasn't there some possible collusion on the part of the DA too maybe overcharging her to get it thrown out? Like they went for a premeditated murder or something knowing they couldn't meet that standard?
 
Wasn't there some possible collusion on the part of the DA too maybe overcharging her to get it thrown out? Like they went for a premeditated murder or something knowing they couldn't meet that standard?

Just unfounded speculation. She was originally charged with manslaughter. It was later upgraded to murder. The case is under a gag order so we don’t know how much the state has against her. It’s been set for trial so it’s already gone through the process of the court agreeing the state has probable cause to support the murder charge.

It’s still extremely unlikely she’ll be convicted of murder. There has only been something like 25-30 convictions of manslaughter or higher for an on-duty and/or uniformed officer shooting in the past decade plus. That’s about .25% of police killings that result in conviction. So the odds are in her favor. Then again, less than 1% are ever even charged, so shes in select company.
 
She’ll be acquitted. At least of murder. Maybe a hung jury on manslaughter. I’m not hopeful. It’s very clearly (at least) manslaughter.
 
She’ll be acquitted. At least of murder. Maybe a hung jury on manslaughter. I’m not hopeful. It’s very clearly (at least) manslaughter.
DAs love to over-charge people they don't really want to convict, all while making a show of the charges and trial.

That said, Dallas County DAs (both D and R) have indicted four police officers for murder in three years, and two were convicted. Guyger is the fourth of those cases.
 
Remember how the defense tried to block her cell phone records?

Turns out she was doing the nasty with her partner, and was on the phone with him right up until the shooting.

Prosecutors reveal Amber Guyger was on phone with partner before shooting neighbor

There was speculation before the trial that the defense was going to try to push a "severe fatigue from long working hours" defense as a reason for her going to the wrong apartment. Her texts pretty much kill that approach, as she was trying to arrange a booty call with her partner and didn't really seem in a rush to get to sleep.

Watched the opening statements in real time, I can see why they wanted the texts suppressed. She was texting her partner about how she screwed up while Botham was dying alone in his apartment. She didn't even bother to provide first aid, she was already scrambling to save her own ass. Doesn't seem to be legally relevant, but might make the jury less sympathetic.
 
I agree with your first point. But IMHO that doesn't warrant condemning the many innocent/good because of the bad. That's what lumping them together and imposing guilt by association does. Just because someone is a cop doesn't make them a bad person. But you talk of them as such.

On point 2 - they have a lot more to worry about aside from getting shot. They could get poked by a dirty needle searching someone, take a shot to the face from someone resisting arrest, get in an accident while involved in a chase... there's a great risk for harm in performing the job. So I don't agree with you just offhandedly dismissing the dangers of the job.

And.... as evidenced by you, they perform a largely thankless job.

You know what's funny though.... This kind of thing is exactly how the libs look at gun owners. They assign guilt by association as well. Because of the acts of a few, they distrust and assign guilt to all..... in their case it's against gun owners....

Open your mind brother... don't make the same mistake...


"This kind of thing is exactly how the libs look at gun owners."

Do you remember the time the legal gun owners banded together and fabricated a bunch of lies and cover ups to try to exonerate the mass shooter? Yeah, me neither.
 
Last edited:
A few cops aren't fit to serve, but that comment says more about you than them. Show some appreciation for the majority who protect you while you sleep.

The supreme court has repeatedly ruled that the police have no obligation to protect the public and has held that stance for over forty years now. Where have you been, sir? See Warren V DC.

How do those blue balls taste? Do you prefer them with dingle berries or without?
 
The supreme court has repeatedly ruled that the police have no obligation to protect the public and has held that stance for over forty years now. Where have you been, sir? See Warren V DC.
I've had far more positive than negative personal interaction with LEOs. Guess you haven't. Maybe human motivation is complicated, nuanced, and individual. Maybe respect goes both ways. Maybe you think online arguments are a good use of free time. Maybe you're reading this out loud.

How do those blue balls taste? Do you prefer them with dingle berries or without?
Again, some comments say more about you than anyone else. Thanks for elevating the conversation.
 
I've had far more positive than negative personal interaction with LEOs. Guess you haven't. Maybe human motivation is complicated, nuanced, and individual. Maybe respect goes both ways. Maybe you think online arguments are a good use of free time. Maybe you're reading this out loud.


Again, some comments say more about you than anyone else. Thanks for elevating the conversation.


No problem. I'm always happy to elevate the conversation. Online arguments can be a good opportunity to educate the sheeple who think the cops are there to protect them.
 
"This kind of thing is exactly how the libs look at gun owners."

Do you remember the time the legal gun owners banded together and fabricated a bunch of lies and cover ups to try to exonerate the mass shooter? Yeah, me neither.

Your comments aren't even relevant to the conversation dude. Nor do they in any way refute the point that I made or contributer to the conversation. But I noticed in your very next post you resorted to leveling personal insults at people. But that's a common tactic - also adopted by the left- to resort to leveling insults when you have nothing of substance to contribute or you've lost the debate.

Beat on your chest all you want, hurl insults all you want, none of that makes you right.
 
No problem. I'm always happy to elevate the conversation. Online arguments can be a good opportunity to educate the sheeple who think the cops are there to protect them.

Hurling insults and accusing someone of eating blue balls, is not elevating anything dude. You're just making an ass of yourself.
 
Back
Top Bottom