It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judge Allows Cop to Use ‘Castle Doctrine’ Defense in Trial for Mistaken Apartment Killing

page: 1
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 07:42 AM
link   

The jury in the trial of Amber Guyger, a former Dallas police officer who is charged with murdering her neighbor in his apartment, can consider the “Castle Doctrine” as part of Guyger’s defense, Judge Tammy Kemp ruled Monday, hours before final deliberations in the murder trial.

The Castle Doctrine, which was passed by the Texas Legislature in 2007, “presumes that the use of force is reasonable and necessary when someone is unlawfully and with force entering or attempting to enter your occupied home, car, or place of business, or when someone is committing or trying to commit a crime against you.”

Guyger, who shot and killed Jean in his own apartment on Sept. 6, 2018, was initially charged with manslaughter, but the district attorney’s office subsequently reviewed the case and indicted her on murder charges, with the implication that the shooting could not be considered manslaughter because Guyger admitted it was intentional.

Source

I'm sure most of us remember this case, but I'll summarize it just in case. A police officer entered an apartment following her shift, saw a man in the apartment, and shot him dead. The only problem is that the apartment belonged to the man that was killed.

The officer was eventually indicted on a murder charge. As part of her defense it was argued that she is innocent due the Castle Doctrine. Now that we enter into deliberations the judge has told the jury that they should consider the Castle Doctrine defense.

Can we talk about how ridiculous that is? I feel like there's no way this defense would be allowed if she wasn't a cop. There's no way the common man would be able to break in to someone's house, shoot the homeowner, and then claim it was self-defense.

Hopefully the jury still comes back with a jury verdict. Otherwise this completely defeats the entire purpose of the Castle Doctrine.
edit on 10/1/2019 by Xcalibur254 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

I’m pretty sure she was coming home to her building and got off the elevator on the 5th floor instead of the 6th floor and shot and killed the guy that lived in the apartment directly beneath her own.

She should still get charged with manslaughter but not murder.



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254
I guess they could "use" that defense but,


your occupied home, car, or place of business

it wasn't her home.

I doubt the jury is that stupid.
She went into someone elses home and shot them dead.



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

This is ludicrous. How are you going to trespass on someone else's property and kill the person living there. And then claim Castle Doctrine.

That's just messed up.



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 07:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Xcalibur254

I’m pretty sure she was coming home to her building and got off the elevator on the 5th floor instead of the 6th floor and shot and killed the guy that lived in the apartment directly beneath her own.

She should still get charged with manslaughter but not murder.


Is your avatar the freaky guy from Twin Peaks? Scary.

I agree. If you are going to take someone's life you better be sure of their intentions.



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

They screwed up by charging her with murder. They always overcharge cops to make it harder for a jury to convict.



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom

The reason she was charged with murder is because she admitted the killing was intentional. There's a gray area there though.

A charge of murder means there was intent to kill. A charge of manslaughter means the death is accidental.

There's not really a charge for someone that intentionally kills someone because of an accident.

The prosecutor was definitely put in a tough position. Based on the letter of the law, and the defendants own words, a murder charge probably was the correct move.



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 07:57 AM
link   
From the link



The judge also announced in the meeting with lawyers on both sides that the jury would be allowed to consider manslaughter in any potential sentencing of Guyger.

she is not going to get away with it imo
the jury can consider manslaughter



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

I read this yesterday.
It says consider the castle defense.

This is so the jury can determine the cops state of mind at the time of the shooting.
She will be found guilty of a crime but this will no doubt lessen the severity of her punishment.



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

It's really a no-win situation for the prosecutor. Based on the law, what she committed is murder. So if he goes for a manslaughter charge it will be argued that he's undercharging because she's a cop. If the murder charge doesn't stick though then the argument will be that they overcharged because she's a cop.



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 08:03 AM
link   
That Judge is bias to allow her to use Castle Doctrine. It wasn't her home, she shouldn't be allowed to use that for an excuse for murdering someone. A red door mat, key failed to turn the lock, different furniture inside the apartment. So much for being a trained observer.



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 08:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

I can't say for sure what would or would not have been allowed by a judge if this had been done by a person that wasn't a cop.
But it is ridiculous that she is allowed to use the Castle Doctrine as a defense when it was NOT HER HOME!
She entered another persons home and shot and killed them.

Maybe she was confused and entered the wrong apartment by mistake, but I think there is something fishy here. The apartment that she entered was on a different floor of the building than where her apartment is located, iirc. If she was not under the influence of some mind altering substance, I don't understand how this could have happened.
edit on b000000312019-10-01T08:21:50-05:0008America/ChicagoTue, 01 Oct 2019 08:21:50 -0500800000019 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 08:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Xcalibur254

I’m pretty sure she was coming home to her building and got off the elevator on the 5th floor instead of the 6th floor and shot and killed the guy that lived in the apartment directly beneath her own.

She should still get charged with manslaughter but not murder.

So I take it the guy below her had the exact same furniture and decorations and junk scattered about as she did in her apartment? Even if the apartment layouts were exactly the same, you'd probably know the second you opened the door that it was someone else's living space.



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Since castle doctrine and “mistake of fact” are key elements of Guyger’s defense strategy, if the judge had not included that in her jury instructions then it would have practically guaranteed an appeal on those grounds.

She charged the jury with considering whether its a reasonable defense. The jury is entirely capable of determining that no, it’s not reasonable.



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Yeah, that will go well.

Is someone else's home your castle?

I hope they fry the bacon out of this pig.



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

I can't begin to explain away the shooting aspect of this, but getting off on the wrong floor and going to the wrong door, that does happen. I've lived in my building for 7 years and have had it happen twice, both times was my upstairs neighbor. Younger woman who clearly was not paying attention to the floor she stopped on, the halls all look the same so it's reasonably understandable.

Now going inside and shooting the person there...yeah that doesn't add up.



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Question I have is how drunk or drugged up was this asshole when she got home from work that she failed to notice she wasn't in her own apartment and murdered a guy intentionally by accidental invocation of castle doctrine defense?
The Lamar Avenue neighborhood houses many apartments, bars, honky tonks, homeless street refugees and Dallas Police HQ.
So there's quite a bit of opportunity to get inebriated between HQ and home. Just sayin. What else explains it?


ganjoa



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

See what happens when you play ur music too loud under a cops house!



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: trollz

I am inclined to think someone else's scent would be enough. Maybe before opening the door.



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: trollz
So I take it the guy below her had the exact same furniture and decorations and junk scattered about as she did in her apartment? Even if the apartment layouts were exactly the same, you'd probably know the second you opened the door that it was someone else's living space.


I just remember reading about it when it happened a while back. She said she went to go put her key in the keyhole and right before she could turn it and open the door a man that she did not recognize (the occupant) opened the door and in the moment she reacted and fired her weapon.

I can’t remember how many shots. Still pretty reckless, though, which is why she should be charged with nothing less than manslaughter.




top topics



 
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join