Man killed carrying inside his own house

[TexHill]

It is in the best interests of both the State and the defense that a criminal trial be conducted in a fair manner. The Dallas D. A., and the presiding judge used this circus to create more political collateral for themselves. This trial was not conducted fairly for the following reasons:

A) a change of venue should have been granted because of the overwhelming amount of television coverage regarding this incident. It got so bad that the judge issued a gag order, which was violated by the prosecutor's office more than once.

B) a mistrial should have been declared on day one because the Dallas D. A. gave an interview specifically about the trial with Fox4 the day before the trial started. This interview was a blatant violation of the gag order, and occurred before the jury was sworn in and thus under the obligation to not watch the news.

C) the jury was prevented from hearing key testimony from the lead investigator, who happens to be a black Texas Ranger.

For the above reasons I would be surprised if this decision is not overturned on appeal.

[TexHill]

Double post.

[jsbhike]

It is in the best interests of both the State and the defense that a criminal trial be conducted in a fair manner. The Dallas D. A., and the presiding judge used this circus to create more political collateral for themselves. This trial was not conducted fairly for the following reasons:

A) a change of venue should have been granted because of the overwhelming amount of television coverage regarding this incident. It got so bad that the judge issued a gag order, which was violated by the prosecutor's office more than once.

B) a mistrial should have been declared on day one because the Dallas D. A. gave an interview specifically about the trial with Fox4 the day before the trial started. This interview was a blatant violation of the gag order, and occurred before the jury was sworn in and thus under the obligation to not watch the news.

C) the jury was prevented from hearing key testimony from the lead investigator, who happens to be a black Texas Ranger.

For the above reasons I would be surprised if this decision is not overturned on appeal.

I still think she will be set free and either end up back on Dallas PD or another agency.

As far as the ranger goes, from what I have read (again, not an attorney) quashing his statement was legit because it was his opinion. That being said, he stated "Based on the totality of the circumstances, based on the complete investigation, no sir." in saying she was reasonable to have her belief of what was going on.

And that is belief, singular, because confronting an intruder was the only thing that came to mind when she heard Jean inside his apartment. That would have have been an interesting enough sole thought considering her landlord/their representatives have right of entry at any time for emergencies, but on top of that she had been notified to expect maintenance personnel in her apartment during the time frame of the shooting.

[WillBrink]

It is in the best interests of both the State and the defense that a criminal trial be conducted in a fair manner. The Dallas D. A., and the presiding judge used this circus to create more political collateral for themselves. This trial was not conducted fairly for the following reasons:

A) a change of venue should have been granted because of the overwhelming amount of television coverage regarding this incident. It got so bad that the judge issued a gag order, which was violated by the prosecutor's office more than once.

B) a mistrial should have been declared on day one because the Dallas D. A. gave an interview specifically about the trial with Fox4 the day before the trial started. This interview was a blatant violation of the gag order, and occurred before the jury was sworn in and thus under the obligation to not watch the news.

C) the jury was prevented from hearing key testimony from the lead investigator, who happens to be a black Texas Ranger.

For the above reasons I would be surprised if this decision is not overturned on appeal.

Did the defense ever request one? I'm doubting the results will be different, but there does seem little chance of her getting a fair trial in Dallas.

[TexHill]

Did the defense ever request one? I'm doubting the results will be different, but there does seem little chance of her getting a fair trial in Dallas.

Yes they did. The request was made before jury selection began.

I can promise you that if the roles were reversed, with Mr. Jean being the off duty officer and Ms. Guyger being the victim, that there would have been a lot of people in Dallas County questioning the fairness of the trial, and rightfully so.

[Artos]

10 years...i reckon we may see some riots for only a decade.

[Whiskey_Bravo]

Murder or not it was a pretty big "mistake". Should she be punished for it and if so how long? If I make the mistake of drinking 6 beers instead of 2 and then driving and I kill a guy eating ice cream on a park bench should I be punished? I didn't mean to kill him. How long should my punishment be?

I realize that the above scenario isn't the same but both are large mistakes that result in an innocent person losing their life. Killing someone in their own apartment and saying oops isn't any different than drinking an extra couple of drinks and saying you didn't mean too.





As someone mentioned above. She was told to expect maintenance. Why was her first reaction to hearing noise and the door being ajar(we will ignore her not noticing she was on the wrong floor, different door mat, decorations, etc) to draw her gun and enter the apartment and shoot the first thing she saw? Why did she ignore protocol to call for backup? Why did she text her boyfriend first after she shot someone she didn't know in an apartment that wasn't hers. Why was she allowed to hang out at the crime scene after the fact? Too much of this doesn't add up to just being a mistake. Drugs or alcohol would seem to help put the puzzle together.

[jpmuscle]

Really? Was the shooting premeditated? Did she open the door with the intent to shoot the guy on the couch?

I would say the same thing about similar situations if the shooter wasn't an LEO. She simply did not open the door with evil intent.

Did she operate with the same standard of care we should expect from a police officer? No. IMO she breached the standard of care for a rudimentarily trained civilian.

I think that a 'limp dick 5 year sentence' is probably overkill. She needs to spend some time since she's been convicted, and the family needs some degree of monetary compensation, although I'm not sure how much is appropriate, as he was a single guy, apparently with no kids.

I would say the same thing if she had been a bus driver or steel worker coming home after a long shift. Difference is, the family might get a finding against a bus driver or mechanic in a civil suit, but probably not collect much. In this case, the citizens of Dallas will be footing that bill.

I was shocked when she said she shot to kill him, who the heck prepped her? Police use force to stop threats. Unfortunately, immediately incapacitating shots are often fatal, but stopping the subject is the goal.

Agreed.


Murder is a bullshit outcome.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jpmuscle]

She walked into someone else’s apartment with a gun drawn and shot a man eating ice cream on his couch. That’s murder here in Texas.

For as much as folks croak about the virtues of Texas it has some stupid laws on the books.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Whiskey_Bravo]

[QUOTE=jsbhike;2772801]I still think she will be set free and either end up back on Dallas PD or another agency.


Being set free with zero time would be bad enough. Ending up back on the DPD or any other for that matter would be a travesty. Even if you don't believe she committed a crime and shouldn't serve any time she has shown very poor judgement and reasoning skills.