Price Waterhouse analyst murdered in his home by police

[Loren Pechtel]

Eh, I would think this fits 2nd degree murder - it’s a reckless disregard for human life to fire a gun in someone else’s apartment. Manslaughter usually involves crimes of passion or negligence.

But she thought she was in her own apartment. That is negligent homicide, i.e. manslaughter.

We live in a crazy world. A few years ago Mary Winkler murdered her husband with a shotgun while he slept. Clearly premeditated murder (even though people on here defended her because the perp was a woman and her victim a white man, so obviously lower on the progressive stack), but she was only convicted of manslaughter and had to serve mere 60 days. How is that manslaughter but this is murder?

Improper self defense is normally manslaughter.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Are we able as a society to talk about a white cop killing a black man without turning the white cop into a victim? ...this latest time due to criminal consequences...

Amber Guyger showed depraved indifference to the value of human life. Her thought process, based on false premises or not, show a person who saw someone whom she thought she could freely, legally kill but knew it was unecessary. She did it anyway. [She may have thought he could be a future danger but there were other options.]

She should get an appeal if there are grounds for it, but she is a dangerous person to society. Not a victim.

 

[laughing dog]

Eh, I would think this fits 2nd degree murder - it’s a reckless disregard for human life to fire a gun in someone else’s apartment. Manslaughter usually involves crimes of passion or negligence.

But she thought she was in her own apartment. That is negligent homicide, i.e. manslaughter.

We live in a crazy world. A few years ago Mary Winkler murdered her husband with a shotgun while he slept. Clearly premeditated murder (even though people on here defended her because the perp was a woman and her victim a white man, so obviously lower on the progressive stack), but she was only convicted of manslaughter and had to serve mere 60 days. How is that manslaughter but this is murder?

Improper self defense is normally manslaughter.

There was no self defense.

 

[Axulus]

Improper self defense is normally manslaughter.

There was no self defense.

She stupidly believed he was a threat, hence _improper_ self defense. Are you claiming she wanted to murder the guy knowing he wasn't a threat? What motive? Why call 911 instead of hiding your deed? A murder motive does not fit the facts.

A couple years in prison and never being allowed to own a gun again, plus monetary restitution to the extent she is able, seems like a just sentence, not 10 years to life or whatever she is facing.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

She stupidly believed he was a threat, hence _improper_ self defense.

Her defense lawyer claimed that but a jury didn't believe it even with a high burden in her favor.

Basically, it is unreasonable to think when she was thinking about her decision, that she had no choice but to shoot him. She had a choice and chose to be very preemptive. Now that might be legal under castle doctrine but it's also a mindset of depraved indifference to a person's life. And further, like I wrote, it is a choice.

She could have, for example, told him to put his hands up and insisted that he obey instructions.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Improper self defense is normally manslaughter.

There was no self defense.

She stupidly believed he was a threat, hence _improper_ self defense. Are you claiming she wanted to murder the guy knowing he wasn't a threat? What motive? Why call 911 instead of hiding your deed? A murder motive does not fit the facts.

A couple years in prison and never being allowed to own a gun again, plus monetary restitution to the extent she is able, seems like a just sentence, not 10 years to life or whatever she is facing.

Well, I'm glad the argument from the right has graduated from trying to demonize the victim who was killed in his own house.

10 years indeed does seem long. Honestly, 2 years doesn't even seem right. As long as her intent was not inflict harm to someone who didn't pose a threat, prison time is problematic. But how exactly do we provide justice for such gross (actually need a new word for how large it was) negligent action?

 

[southernhybrid]

I think the reason she was found guilty of second degree murder is because she honestly answered the question, "Did you intend to kill him". She answered "Yes". It's a tragedy for the victim, his family and for the woman who acted irrationally. She obviously should never have worked in law enforcement, considering how she over reacted when she thought a stranger was in what she thought was her own apartment.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

She could have, for example, told him to put his hands up and insisted that he obey instructions.

Yeah, some person comes into my house, barking orders at me, while pointing a gun at me? I'm thinking being able to rationally digest what is happening will be very hard. Based on how quickly this went down, and her state of mind, he probably never had a chance.

I suppose the biggest crime committed is when she makes up her mind that she is entitled to kill the man because he is in her house. There are options such as retreating, stepping back. This is her home after all, she should feel comfortable in the confines. But she makes a willful decision that this person's death is easily justified because his ass is in her house.

I remember when I busted in on a guy trying to rob my apartment. My one and only goal was to get that person out of my apartment. I likely could have subdued him, I was younger, more in shape, bigger. But my intent was to 'get him out'. Nothing to me in the moment mattered more than my well being, and I knew he couldn't take anything now. Raising the stakes didn't improve my chances of being okay. And he got out, because he knew he was fucked, and I reported it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think the reason she was found guilty of second degree murder is because she honestly answered the question, "Did you intend to kill him". She answered "Yes". It's a tragedy for the victim, his family and for the woman who acted irrationally. She obviously should never have worked in law enforcement, considering how she over reacted when she thought a stranger was in what she thought was her own apartment.

Listening to a boob sitting in for Prager on AM Radio, and he wanted to sell this as a two way tragedy. I'm thinking, there is a guy that committed zero actions and bled out to death in his own house. THAT is the tragedy. Yes, the shooter should feel this mistake for the rest of their life, but she has the life. Considering her guilt as part of the tragedy is ridiculous, her guilt is part of the justice. It isn't like some kid came from unseen from behind a parked car, ran into the path of moving vehicle and was killed. That is when both sides of the story are tragedies.

 

[laughing dog]

Improper self defense is normally manslaughter.

There was no self defense.

She stupidly believed he was a threat, hence _improper_ self defense. Are you claiming she wanted to murder the guy knowing he wasn't a threat? What motive? Why call 911 instead of hiding your deed? A murder motive does not fit the facts.

She was in no danger. The victim posed no threat. Being stupid and a coward is not a defense. She shot to kill. This was not negligence.

A couple years in prison and never being allowed to own a gun again, plus monetary restitution to the extent she is able, seems like a just sentence, not 10 years to life or whatever she is facing.

I happen to think the price of life ought to be higher.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Are people who are sympathetic to the harshness of Texas Law who want Amber Guyger's sentence to be reduced also sympathetic to freeing many of the prisoners in the state of Texas who also received harsh judgments of murder instead of manslaughter? I mean, I am suddenly hearing right-wingers complain about harsh legal definitions of Texas justice. Why is this so sudden?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I suppose the biggest crime committed is when she makes up her mind that she is entitled to kill the man because he is in her house. There are options such as retreating, stepping back. This is her home after all, she should feel comfortable in the confines. But she makes a willful decision that this person's death is easily justified because his ass is in her house.

Exactly.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I suppose the biggest crime committed is when she makes up her mind that she is entitled to kill the man because he is in her house. There are options such as retreating, stepping back.

All the training i ever had, the application of deadly force was the LAST resort.
When lesser means (such as pointing the gun at him without firing, asking where he got the ice cream, suggesting he might want to lay face down on the floor, just until we finish this conversation) have failed or cannot reasonably be employed.

If she jumped straight to 'He's in my home, i have the drop on him, i'm going to kill him,' she should not have had a gun in the first place.

 

[PyramidHead]

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

There are options such as retreating, stepping back.

Which is exactly what she was trained to do as a police officer. You don't enter that space alone; you back out, call for backup, and wait.

WRT her sentence, this and other texts aren't going to help:

During a 2018 parade on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Guyger texted another officer about their lengthy shift as attendees celebrated the black civil rights activist’s legacy.

“When does this end lol,” read a text sent to Guyger. She replied: “When MLK is dead … oh wait …”

 

[Gospel]

A medical examiner reported that the bullet had a downward trajectory suggesting Jean was either getting up from a seated position or was in a cowering position when he was shot. This Trained Police officer failed to notice the door mat was not hers, failed to radio the police station 2 minutes away , failed to turn on any light as she entered the apartment, failed to notice none of the furniture matched hers, failed to notice the apartment smelled different, but succeeded to shoot a man on the couch so fast his adrenaline rush from her abrupt appearance in his apartment didn't launch him to his feet fast enough to get a different trajectory.

 

[Gun Nut]

What motive did the prosecution establish? If she had no reasonable grounds to fear for her life, which I accept, how does that translate into murder?

Seems like a case of unreasonable paranoia that she was in danger in an apartment she thought was hers. In other words, some sort of manslaughter conviction would be more appropriate. Why is the murder conviction reasonable here?

I can accept the murder charge if she knew it wasn't her apartment and had an established motive to kill her neighbor.

You should also accept the established thresholds of murder, in that extreme recklessness elevates manslaughter to murder. Being in someone else's house while thinkiing you are in your own, and then acting on that by killing the rightful occupant is, without any question in my mind, the height of recklessness.
That is why it is, and should be, murder.

 

[Gun Nut]

I suppose the biggest crime committed is when she makes up her mind that she is entitled to kill the man because he is in her house. There are options such as retreating, stepping back.

All the training i ever had, the application of deadly force was the LAST resort.
When lesser means (such as pointing the gun at him without firing, asking where he got the ice cream, suggesting he might want to lay face down on the floor, just until we finish this conversation) have failed or cannot reasonably be employed.

If she jumped straight to 'He's in my home, i have the drop on him, i'm going to kill him,' she should not have had a gun in the first place.

During my training, a student phrased a question to the instructor that came off that way... something like "can I shoot a person who is...."
The instructor paused for a moment. He then said, "While you have technically legal grounds to employ deadly force in such a situation, if you are willing to kill someone over your TV set then I think you are a piece of shit and I invite you to get the fuck out of my classroom."

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

What motive did the prosecution establish? If she had no reasonable grounds to fear for her life, which I accept, how does that translate into murder?

Seems like a case of unreasonable paranoia that she was in danger in an apartment she thought was hers. In other words, some sort of manslaughter conviction would be more appropriate. Why is the murder conviction reasonable here?

I can accept the murder charge if she knew it wasn't her apartment and had an established motive to kill her neighbor.

You should also accept the established thresholds of murder, in that extreme recklessness elevates manslaughter to murder. Being in someone else's house while thinkiing you are in your own, and then acting on that by killing the rightful occupant is, without any question in my mind, the height of recklessness.
That is why it is, and should be, murder.

There were many elements of extreme recklessness, but the actual shooting itself came down to a choice she made and indifference to his life at that moment. This wasn/t an attempt to maim him that resulted in death or an attempt to stop him from moving or an accidental stray bullet. All of those things might be recklessness. Instead, this was a successful attempt to kill him dead via a choice.

 

[Gun Nut]

In refreshing my own memory on the laws in my particular state, the thought occurred to me that it can be argued that cops cannot commit manslaughter.. only murder. One of the circumstances that elevates manslaughter to murder is the status of the victim. If the victim is "especially vulnerable" to the attack that results in their death, then manslaughter is elevated to murder. It can be argued that all civilians are "especially vulnerable" to police officers because of their equipment, training, support, and the requisite assumption that police are acting in the population's best interest. All of these elements contribute to anyone being "especially vulnerable" to police in particular.
So anytime a cop kills a person it is murder... first degree, felony, second degree, or justified... it's all still murder by legal definition... now that I am thinking more about it.