• 👋Hello, please SIGN-UP FOR A FREE account and become a member of our community!
    You will then be able to start threads, post comments and send messages to other members. Thanks!
  • 💪Check Out IronMag Labs Andro Hard® Powered by R-Andro & Epi-Andro! 💊

You're watching tv on the couch with a bowl of vanilla ice cream when someone barges in...

I suppose the question is open as to whether the apartment could have been considered her "occupied" apartment, as she was just entering it, and he was already there.

The jury will undoubtedly receive an instruction on that law.
 
Milford King said:
No dude... she doesn’t get off on this bro..
Click to expand...
While I would agree it seems to be an injustice, I offer my prediction nevertheless. The jury does not get to convict just because it wants to. It will receive instructions on the law.

was the door unlocked?
Click to expand...
From my understanding, the door was ajar. Why?

Did she have her gun holstered or in her hand as she opened the door? How many times was he shot?
Click to expand...
Her attorney said in opening statements that she would take the stand, so you can watch her testify live if you want.

She is the only one who knows the answers to these questions. Nobody else was there.

I mean, who walks into there house to find some one sitting (not charging toward them) and without saying a word unloads on the person? if I did that, my kids would have no friends.....
Click to expand...
Do you really think that is the testimony she will offer? You are naive. All there is is forensic evidence and her testimony. She is a police officer. Her attorneys are not going to let her talk herself into prison.

you cannot possibly think, in today’s society, that a jury will find her innocent of at least criminal negligence, negligent homicide, or what I would call 2nd degree murder.
Click to expand...
. I am not an expert in, nor have I even reviewed, all of the potential charges they laid out before the jury. Perhaps you are correct. They did, however, charge her with murder, and there is no way she is getting convicted on that charge.

You'd think a sane person would be like “hey, what are you doing here?”
Click to expand...
. Maybe she did? We'll have to wait and see what she testifies happened.

how was she afraid for her life? He gonna spoon her to death ?
Click to expand...
. She will articulate a fear of attack and facts to back it up. They have had a long time to prepare and make sure her testimony is consistent with all of the physical evidence . . .
 
So read what she had to say.

The jury has everything they need to find her not guilty.

Basically, none of the facts are in dispute. The prosecution is not offering a different set of facts - they are arguing about nuances like whether she was mistaken about the apartment because she was tired (her story) or distracted by sexual text messages from another police officer. Does that really matter? Neighbors have testified to making the same mistake, going to the wrong apartment on the wrong floor, so the mistake is not an unreasonable one.

What is the alternative for the jury to consider? That she is a psychopath who wanted to kill this man that she has never met, so she went to his door, luckily discovered it open, and killed him? That does not even make sense.

This case is not as sure of a conviction as some of you seem to think. The fact that the prosecutors are even arguing about the text messages mean that the best they think they can hope for is some kind of recklessness or negligence charge. As I said, I haven't looked at the charges to see what is the lowest one they can hope to pin on her.

So she is walking. Maybe some low level charge, but murder? No way.
 
chocolatemalt said:
It's interesting to see some respondents in this thread unable to put themselves in his place tho. Wonder why that is.
Click to expand...
I can, and it sucks, but the jury is not going to be asked to do that. Instead, they are going to be asked to put themselves in her place. She is the accused. There is no dispute that he did not deserve what happened to him. The question for the jury is whether she acted in accordance with Texas law on self defense. They have to put themselves in her place, not in his.
 
I'd be interested in hearing about the lesser charges in this case, if anybody knows. I can't find a good or reliable source for anything other than the murder charge.
 
malfeasance said:
I'd be interested in hearing about the lesser charges in this case, if anybody knows. I can't find a good or reliable source for anything other than the murder charge.
Click to expand...

All I can get my hands on bro...

The crime of second degree murder, simply called "murder" in Texas, is a serious crime with harsh penalties. Second degree murder is a crime involving a death that resulted from the accused's wrongful acts. These include deaths that occur during the commission of a crime, or on account of the accused's recklessness. The following chart includes information about the Texas crime of second degree murder, including potential defenses and penalties.
StatuteTexas Murder Statute (Penal Code, Title 5, Chapter 19)
Elements of Second Degree MurderTexas does not officially use the term "second degree murder" which can sometimes be a little bit confusing. Instead, the equivalent in Texas is known as just "murder," which is a first degree felony. To convict a defendant of murder, prosecutors must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that:

  • The defendant intentionally and knowingly caused the death of another person;
  • The defendant intended to cause serious bodily injury and committed an act that was clearly dangerous to human life and this act caused the death of an individual; or
  • The defendant committed or attempted to commit a felony (other than manslaughter) and in performing that felony, committed an act that was clearly dangerous to human life and this act caused the death of an individual.
Defenses Against Second Degree Murder Charges
  • Lack of intent
  • Lack of knowledge
  • Insanity
  • Intoxication
  • Self-defense
  • "Heat of passion" defense (i.e. The defendant was provoked to commit the crime by fear, rage, terror or some other extreme emotion.)
NOTE: If none of the criteria are met, the defendant may still be found guilty of a lesser homicide charge.
See Second Degree Murder Defenses for more information.
Penalties and SentencesMurder in Texas is a first degree felony. This charge will typically carry a sentence of between five and 99 years in a state prison and/or a fine of no more than $10,000. At the sentencing stage of the defendant's trial, the defendant can raise the issue of having committed the crime in the "heat of passion" arising from an adequate cause. If the defendant is found to have been in the heat of passion at the time of the homicide, then the charge will be reduced to second degree felony. A second degree felony carries a sentence of between two and twenty years in a state prison and a fine of no more than $10,000.
See Second Degree Murder Penalties and Sentencing to learn more.
 
Nothing specific about her specific options as it relates to her case if the charges are lowered but a snapshot of how Texas looks at this type of charge along with some of the defenses used. I saw a bit of the live stream and she stated in court that she did notice the door ajar, heard "shuffling" in the apartment and shouted "let me see your hands twice"... Case is ongoing and not sure what else is going on as it unfolds...
 
Last edited:
Her testimony this morning was that he charged right at her after she said show me your hands, and she yelled hey, hey, hey, and then shot him twice. She said what she needs to say. Whether the jury believes her is up to the jury that got to watch her testify in person.
 
Can Texas convict of a lesser charge if it finds not guilty of murder? Florida cannot and Zimmerman walked when I felt like he probably should've been convicted of a lesser charge for pursuing Martin while armed and not being LE.
 
Get Shredded!
malfeasance said:
Her testimony this morning was that he charged right at her after she said show me your hands, and she yelled hey, hey, hey, and then shot him twice. She said what she needs to say. Whether the jury believes her is up to the jury that got to watch her testify in person.
Click to expand...

yup..true
 
A good question, zwhit, to which I do not know the answer. The George Zimmerman case had the attention of the entire nation and even the President commenting on it. Legal experts were giving all sorts of analysis all over the news (but side note, here, there is no crime of "pursuing while armed and not LEO," LOL!). This case is much more difficult to get any detailed information - every news story has to squeeze the racial angle in, and that is going to be just about the least important thing in this case, at least from the perspective of her guilt or innocence. It's not even clear from the evidence so far that she knew he was black when she pulled the trigger, so the relevance drops to about zero.

I wish the reporting was better, but it is what it is.

We should know the outcome soon.
 
Last edited:
chocolatemalt said:
Sometimes these sorts of articles do push that interpretation and it's unhelpful, I agree. But re-reading the WaPo article, we have a single paragraph that reads:

The killing of the Saint Lucia-born accountant and church worship leader — who was among 992 people fatally shot by police officers in 2018, according to a Washington Post database — came amid national scrutiny of police use of force, especially against people of color. That a white police officer had shot a black man in his own apartment stoked outrage and drew protesters to Dallas.

So they mention the existence of "national scrutiny" that we've had over the last several years on the issue. It's a statement of fact, relevant for context. You think it should've been ignored? Then there's a sentence about protesters converging on Dallas for that reason. Another statement of fact, a direct consequence of this shooting. You believe this should've been ignored as well?
Click to expand...
I'd like to see more stories about Jean Botham. He was a remarkable young man with a bright future. Christian (no reports of hypocrisy or double life), he was the song leader at Dallas West Church ion Christ when he was killed, super intelligent, with a great professional job with promising prospects . . . and no blame here at all sits on his shoulders. I literally have not heard a bad thing about him from a single person.

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/s...icer/287-85bb2e3e-8bf8-4932-931a-6ef63a483f4f

Well worth a read if you want some insight into who this man was.
 
Last edited:
chocolatemalt said:
Sometimes these sorts of articles do push that interpretation and it's unhelpful, I agree. But re-reading the WaPo article, we have a single paragraph that reads:

The killing of the Saint Lucia-born accountant and church worship leader — who was among 992 people fatally shot by police officers in 2018, according to a Washington Post database — came amid national scrutiny of police use of force, especially against people of color. That a white police officer had shot a black man in his own apartment stoked outrage and drew protesters to Dallas.

So they mention the existence of "national scrutiny" that we've had over the last several years on the issue. It's a statement of fact, relevant for context. You think it should've been ignored? Then there's a sentence about protesters converging on Dallas for that reason. Another statement of fact, a direct consequence of this shooting. You believe this should've been ignored as well?
Click to expand...

This wasn’t a case of criminal gets caught red handed then tries to run or attack the police, this isn’t the typical “excessive force” case like we’ve seen in the past years so yes I think it should not have even been thought of, they’re stirring the pot and they know it

I believe she honestly mistook that apartment for hers, there could’ve been anyone of any color in there so then what?? Would wapo still have included that paragraph?? How many of those protesters even knew what really happened?? All they saw was white cop shoots black man and went nuts, all it does is make things worse than it needs to be
 
She will be convicted of felony murder and get a 5 year sentence ... mark my words.

If im wrong and malf is right I will sent malf a bottle of test or buy him a beer
 
IronRage said:
I believe she honestly mistook that apartment for hers
Click to expand...
I honestly cannot think of another reason why she would shoot him . . . It's the only plausible explanation for why this incident occurred.
 
From today:

3:25 p.m.
Former tenants of a Dallas apartment building where an off-duty police officer shot and killed a neighbor in his own home last year say they, too, got confused by how similar the floors looked.
The former building residents testified Friday after the now-former officer, Amber Guyger, took the stand in her own defense.


https://wkow.com/news/national-news...icer-cries-recalling-night-she-shot-neighbor/

 
malfeasance said:
I honestly cannot think of another reason why she would shoot him . . . It's the only plausible explanation for why this incident occurred.
Click to expand...

If it’s the unit right above hers chance are the layout is exactly the same which only helps her confusion defense, add in other residents have made the same mistake and that makes her guilty of a much lesser charge, at least that’s how I think it will go
 
Still...I mean so what. You killed a man because you got confused? Next time I drive drunk I’m just gonna say “hey occifer, like o my god I was like totally confused about driving tonight but like o my god I had to go get more beer and the truck was just sitting there eating ice cream and so like i was totally confused and shit.”

This bitch is a moron and make cops look even worse.... punish her for being stupid a least, eh?
 
Chick walks in "her" apartment and does not notice the ENTIRELY different decor???

Murder
 
malfeasance said:
Oops! We missed it.

She testified this morning!

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...as-murder-trial-neighbor-botham-jean-n1059511
Click to expand...


Hermus asked Guyger if when she shot Jean, did she intend to kill him.

She responded: "I did."

Prosecutors have raised questions as to how Guyger could have missed sensory cues before entering Jean's apartment, including a red doormat that the outside of Guyger's unit didn't have.


There's the red doormat again, though it's just one item of many things out of place that a "reasonable person" should've noticed.

I agree with you and others here that she had no evident malice and there's no indication of any sinister motive -- racism, vendetta, drugged rage, etc.

But, she did use deadly force and intended to kill him. She said so on the stand. That sounds like Second Degree Murder to me. Can't be manslaughter because that requires absence of intent.

I'll be surprised if she's exonerated simply because of the message it sends that you can screw up to this extreme degree, kill someone (with intent), and suffer no consequence for your actions.
 
heavyiron said:
Chick walks in "her" apartment and does not notice the ENTIRELY different decor???

Murder
Click to expand...
Her testimony is that it was dark, and the first thing she noticed is this man (silhouette) get up and come toward her. She drew her gun and ordered him to show his hands. He did not and sped up toward her, she yelled, Hey! Hey! Hey! and then shot him twice.

It was only after this that she noticed it was not her apartment (I don't know if she turned the light on or what, I have not been able to find a transcript of video of her actual testimony and did not watch it live streamed).

So how do you convict her of murder if you are on the jury and that is the evidence with which you are presented.

The prosecutors aren't really questioning whether she thought it was her apartment, but why (they were making a big deal out of the fact that she was apparently "Sexting" at the time and so maybe was not as tired as she claimed). I do not think that is particularly compelling to a jury.

Remember how a criminal trial works. The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. There is not burden on her to prove anything.

If the jury has any doubt whatsoever (and it's reasonable), then they find not guilty.

The prosecution is going to have a very hard time proving beyond a doubt that she went into a strange man's apartment, knew it, and shot him anyway.

The more I hear about the evidence, the less I think a trial was brought for any other reason than public outcry. I am starting to think the Ranger (lead investigator who thinks no crime was committed) was right.

This does not mean I do not think what happened was tragic, horrifying, and wrong. But that does not necessarily make it illegal under Texas law.
 
chocolatemalt said:

Hermus asked Guyger if when she shot Jean, did she intend to kill him.

She responded: "I did."

Prosecutors have raised questions as to how Guyger could have missed sensory cues before entering Jean's apartment, including a red doormat that the outside of Guyger's unit didn't have.


There's the red doormat again, though it's just one item of many things out of place that a "reasonable person" should've noticed.

I agree with you and others here that she had no evident malice and there's no indication of any sinister motive -- racism, vendetta, drugged rage, etc.

But, she did use deadly force and intended to kill him. She said so on the stand. That sounds like Second Degree Murder to me. Can't be manslaughter because that requires absence of intent.

I'll be surprised if she's exonerated simply because of the message it sends that you can screw up to this extreme degree, kill someone (with intent), and suffer no consequence for your actions.
Click to expand...
chocolatemalt, no doubt this was intentional, but so is every justified homicide (and I am using "justified" only in the sense that the law does, I think this was a travesty, and I am angry at this stupid bitch, but I still predict a not guilty verdict).

I would predict that even if YOU were on the jury, you would vote to acquit. You wouldn't like it. You would feel like something is wrong here, but after hearing the evidence at trial and listening to the judge's instructions, you would end up feeling like the law in Texas left you with no choice.
 
Last edited:
I don't think Texas has "degrees" of murder. It has Capital Murder, which does not apply here, and murder.

Here are the elements:

(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.


- - - Updated - - -

But those same elements can be committed and be justified by self defense or defense of habitation, which is what she is arguing.
 
malfeasance said:
Her testimony is that it was dark, and the first thing she noticed is this man (silhouette) get up and come toward her. She drew her gun and ordered him to show his hands. He did not and sped up toward her, she yelled, Hey! Hey! Hey! and then shot him twice.

It was only after this that she noticed it was not her apartment (I don't know if she turned the light on or what, I have not been able to find a transcript of video of her actual testimony and did not watch it live streamed).

So how do you convict her of murder if you are on the jury and that is the evidence with which you are presented.

The prosecutors aren't really questioning whether she thought it was her apartment, but why (they were making a big deal out of the fact that she was apparently "Sexting" at the time and so maybe was not as tired as she claimed). I do not think that is particularly compelling to a jury.

Remember how a criminal trial works. The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. There is not burden on her to prove anything.

If the jury has any doubt whatsoever (and it's reasonable), then they find not guilty.

The prosecution is going to have a very hard time proving beyond a doubt that she went into a strange man's apartment, knew it, and shot him anyway.

The more I hear about the evidence, the less I think a trial was brought for any other reason than public outcry. I am starting to think the Ranger (lead investigator who thinks no crime was committed) was right.

This does not mean I do not think what happened was tragic, horrifying, and wrong. But that does not necessarily make it illegal under Texas law.
Click to expand...
lol, no she is toast. You cant "mistakenly" walk in someones house and murder them and get off.
She's a trained cop. They know they cant pull that trigger under these circumstances and I think her training is going to be part of what convicts her. They are trained to notice everything.
 
Let's just think about those two defenses abstractly for a moment.

There is no doubt whatsoever that had she come home to her own apartment and shot a burglar that this would not even be a case, and, if it was, the jury would be forced to acquit her.

The only difference here is that it was not her apartment. So, the jury has to decide whether her belief that it was her apartment and that Jean Botham, admittedly innocent, was an intruder.

That is it.

Does anybody know who bears the burden in Texas of proving those affirmative defenses? In most states, her obligation is just to raise them by placing evidence into the record, and then the prosecution must disprove them.

Is Texas different?

If not, then the prosecutors must disprove her defense beyond a reasonable doubt. That is one tall order and why the Ranger thought no case should have been brought (and he testified to that, but the judge kept that from the jury, and I think rightly so, as his opinion is not evidence).
 
Back
Top