Yes, I edited my post, I was not talking about the verdict. The early reports were that it maybe it was closed but didn't latch right? Just a total goat rope either way, she coulda been justifiably shot.Originally Posted by Zincwarrior
Yes, I edited my post, I was not talking about the verdict. The early reports were that it maybe it was closed but didn't latch right? Just a total goat rope either way, she coulda been justifiably shot.
From the Texas Penal Code:
Doesn’t seem like a hard stretch to get a conviction based on the facts of the case. Hard to argue she didn’t intend to kill him when she says as much in the stand. All of her affirmative defenses weren’t bought by the jury.
Ohio has a Murder statute that is similar. No underlying intent necessary beyond they wanted to kill them.
Last edited by Lon; 10-01-2019 at 01:50 PM.
Formerly known as xpd54.
The opinions expressed in this post are my own and do not reflect the opinions or policies of my employer.
www.gunsnobbery.wordpress.com
In Texas, murder has simple elements - did a person knowingly kill another person:
Manslaughter, on the other hand, is the reckless killing of another person: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.
Here, Ms. Guyger intentionally shot the victim. Given her training, she knew that shooting someone is lethal force. In other words, she knowingly caused the death of the victim.Sec. 19.04. MANSLAUGHTER. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.
Part of the issue:Well, at least it wasn't political
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crim...ecutor-argues/
In these sorts of discussions, it's often helpful to remember that laws aren't the same state to state and terminology changes. Texas has murder, capital murder, manslaughter, and criminally negligent homicide. I'm no expert on TX law, but just reading the statute:
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.
Looks to me like, given the facts of the case, "felony of the second degree" is still on the table. That argument is made at sentencing, not at trial.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
I watched the discussion of inattentional blindness by Craig Miller. I know selective attention effects fairly well and while he presented it competently, I didn't find it convincing as to excusing the shoot. The judge was strict on not letting him and Armstrong say what they thought happened. There was a point that Miller was describing phenomena from a magazine article and not a peer reviewed article. His expertise was second hand from Force Science presentations. It might have been better to have a PhD level cognitive psychologist if they wanted someone to testify, who wasn't a direct police advocate. I note that there are some police psychologists that are known for never having a negative evaluation of a police shooting. They might be a bad choice also.
In any case, I don't think it was compelling. If anything, knowing about such effects would argue for an officer to be more cautious in a shoot. Just curious, are such effects discussed in police training.
I know I had a slide of attentional effects that I presented to LEOs, civilians and lawyers when I was invited to give a talk.
Ah, no. There's a point where the degree of recklessness involved crosses from manslaughter to what was, in the old days, called depraved-heart murder. I believe in Texas, that's now murder-2.
Walk into the wrong apartment. Shoot the guy who's place it was. Not make any move to then try to save his life. Compound that with her lawyer arguing that because she said she thought it was her place, that she had the legal right to cap the guy? Nah. The lack of validity in her defense shows from the fact that the jury wasn't out for very long.
Wrongfully shoot the guy and then try to keep him alive-- manslaughter. Wrongfully shoot the guy and then let him bleed out-- murder.
I'm guessing that's how the jury saw it.
If we have to march off into the next world, let us walk there on the bodies of our enemies.
Is inattentional blindness the same thing as "outrunning your headlights" due to cognitive overload? If so, then yes, particularly exposed to us during room clearing and building searches, both in my agency training, during FLETC basic, and at the FLETC Active Shooter Instructor Course (of note, at which course the 4 FAMS excelled and were able to move faster/process more than everyone else).
If not the same thing, then not to us AFAIK.
"Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer
If I as a concealed carrier had three weeks of back to back double shifts, came into the wrong apt and shot who I found there thinking it was my house, I would be held to certain standards. Fear for my life comes to the fore. imminent threat, second, etc etc. If past history here is any indication, many here would automatically assume the ccw holder screwed up and should be charged with killing the guy. Murder, manslaughter,murder 2... who cares. She is going to jail and rightfully so. Simple as that.
Mostly, but with the realization we're always 'overloaded'. Our brains lack the power to process all of the information our eyes are capable of taking in. As such it uses a lot of cheats and doesn't actually process the entire reality in front of your eyes. It gives priority to whatever the object of your attention is and sort of wings the rest. "The Invisible Gorilla" is a good place to start if you're unaware of it.
The 'cheats' our brain uses to preserve processing power causes us to often not "see" something in plain view and also to "see" things that don't exist. Ever see a bird then realize it's just a leaf? See a person slumped over and it's just a bag of trash? That's the brain cheating, then our attention shifting, then actually processing the object.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
Reply With Quote
