Dallas police officer convicted of murder

bigtenchamps1899

credulous skeptic
Appreciate your long post.

You (and bass) are exactly wrong in what you think intent means. Intent means that she went to the apartment intending to to kill the man. She did no such thing. Just because her she thought she was about to die and reflexively shot the person in the torso does not prove she had intended to kill him that evening.

She should’ve hired me to defend her. I thought this was pretty elementary stuff her, but apparently this concept is quite difficult to grasp for lay people.

No doubt the main (sole?) aim of the prosecution was to conflate and confuse the jury into thinking that because she confirmed a minor detail of her case (how she fired the weapon), it (falsely) proved prior intent.
let me try to explain this to you like i would a 10 year old. if you walked into a 7-11 and the register was open and you decided to take $20 and go to the liquor store next door and grab a handle of sailor jerry and a 12 pack of bud, you would be guilty of theft. doesn't matter if you "walked into the 7-11 with the intent to steal $20."

anyone even vaguely familiar with the law would understand that. the mens rea, the culpable mental state, occurred when the opportunity presented itself. the culpable mental state in the guyger situation occurred when she saw the dude and decided to kill him.

imagine if when you came home and caught your wife in bed with the postman, you became enraged and shot him. THAT IS MURDER. you didn't intend to walk into your bedroom and kill the postman. you formed the culpable mental state when you saw him in the bed with your wife.

edit: i am very familiar with what intent is. it's part of my job. it is a culpable mental state. you seem to think it means making up your mind before you enter a location. this is how my state defines intent: "A person acts “intentionally” or “with intent” when his conscious objective is to cause the specific result proscribed by the statute defining the offense.  It is immaterial to the issue of specific intent whether or not the result actually occurred." I would assume that texas is similar. there is no temporal description in the description.
 
Last edited:

MnplsGopher

Active member
let me try to explain this to you like i would a 10 year old. if you walked into a 7-11 and the register was open and you decided to take $20 and go to the liquor store next store and grab a handle of sailor jerry and a 12 pack of bud, you would be guilty of theft. doesn't matter if you "walked into the 7-11 with the intent to steal $20."

anyone even vaguely familiar with the law would understand that. the mens rea, the culpable mental state, occurred when the opportunity presented itself. the culpable mental state in the guyger situation occurred when she saw the dude and decided to kill him.

imagine if when you came home and caught your wife in bed with the postman, you became enraged and shot him. THAT IS MURDER. you didn't intend to walk into your bedroom and kill the postman. you formed the culpable mental state when you saw him in the bed with your wife.
You’re proposing that she walked into the apartment on accident, saw the guy, and suddenly decided right then and there that this was a great time to murder someone??

You do realize how absurdly ridiculous that is, right?

By the way, your second scenario is specifically referred to in the law as a so-called “crime of passion”, which is voluntary manslaughter.
 

bottlebass

Main Member
You’re proposing that she walked into the apartment on accident, saw the guy, and suddenly decided right then and there that this was a great time to murder someone??

You do realize how absurdly ridiculous that is, right?

By the way, your second scenario is specifically referred to in the law as a so-called “crime of passion”, which is voluntary manslaughter.
That is exactly what happened, stated by her in her own words under oath. Like I've said maybe 5 or more times now to you.

bigtenchamps maybe you should dumb it down like you were explaining it to a 5 year old. Mnpls obviously hasn't reached the mental capacity of a 10 year old yet.
 

bigtenchamps1899

credulous skeptic
You’re proposing that she walked into the apartment on accident, saw the guy, and suddenly decided right then and there that this was a great time to murder someone??

You do realize how absurdly ridiculous that is, right?

By the way, your second scenario is specifically referred to in the law as a so-called “crime of passion”, which is voluntary manslaughter.
i'm saying that one can decide in a split second to murder someone yes. i'm not saying that that is what happened in this case. i was not on the jury and neither were you. unless you have reviewed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony, you need to accept that you may need to admit that you may be wrong.

secondly, you have no idea what manslaughter is either. should we move on to criminally negligent homicide next?

where did you receive your legal training?
 

bigtenchamps1899

credulous skeptic
bigtenchamps maybe you should dumb it down like you were explaining it to a 5 year old. Mnpls obviously hasn't reached the mental capacity of a 10 year old yet.
texas penal code definition of intent:

A person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.
translated: i want to do x thing.

Texas penal code definition of murder:

intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual
translated: i want to cause the death of that person

ELI5: i wanted to kill that person, therefore i have committed murder.

i guess if we could start arguing "knowingly" as texas penal code says "with intent or knowingly." so, in essence, there doesn't even need to be intent for there to be murder.
 
Last edited:

bottlebass

Main Member
texas penal code definition of intent:



translated: i want to do x thing.

Texas penal code definition of murder:



translated: i want to kill that person

ELI5: i wanted to kill that person, therefore i have committed murder.

i guess if we could start arguing "knowingly" as texas penal code says "with intent or knowingly." so, in essence, there doesn't even need to be intent for there to be murder.
It really is simple and obvious....

Mnpls will continue to look like a complete fool though.
 

MnplsGopher

Active member
Figured you’d bump. Glad I can provide you with free entertainment.

I do have further thoughts, that I’ll be addressing to bigten. Will try to get to them later.
 

stocker08

Active member
People seem to be glossing over a few other pieces of the story that put her story in doubt as well.

A) The claim that they didn't know each other is in serious doubt. She filed a noise complaint against this guy just one week before this shooting took place.

B) Everything about finding a stranger in HER apartment. The large red rug outside the apartment indicating that it wasn't her apartment. That her key wouldn't have opened his door. She said she used her key. That wouldn't have worked and would have been a clear sign that she was at the wrong door. That those apartment doors close automatically....so unless the victim had it propped open....he would have had to let her in. Also leading back to point A. But let's say that it was propped open and she walked in. The fact that she didn't immediately recognize that the insides did not match her apartment suggests something much more sinister.

C) The now deceased witness that testified that her account of what happened was different than what he heard. Others heard banging on the door.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 

MnplsGopher

Active member
People seem to be glossing over a few other pieces of the story that put her story in doubt as well.

A) The claim that they didn't know each other is in serious doubt. She filed a noise complaint against this guy just one week before this shooting took place.

B) Everything about finding a stranger in HER apartment. The large red rug outside the apartment indicating that it wasn't her apartment. That her key wouldn't have opened his door. She said she used her key. That wouldn't have worked and would have been a clear sign that she was at the wrong door. That those apartment doors close automatically....so unless the victim had it propped open....he would have had to let her in. Also leading back to point A. But let's say that it was propped open and she walked in. The fact that she didn't immediately recognize that the insides did not match her apartment suggests something much more sinister.

C) The now deceased witness that testified that her account of what happened was different than what he heard. Others heard banging on the door.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
I didn’t bother to look up any of this stuff.

The previous discussion I raised is still valid as a philosophical argument about intent to kill.
 
Last edited:

stocker08

Active member
I didn’t bother to look up any of this stuff.

The previous discussion I raised is still valid as a philosophical argument about intent to kill.
It is extremely pertinent to the intent to kill argument. We have her account of what happened...and a lot of details that don't add up or make any sense. Plus there was a witness that directly refuted her claims of how the moments leading up to the shooting went.

To me....this doesn't look like an accident at all.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 

MnplsGopher

Active member
It is extremely pertinent to the intent to kill argument. We have her account of what happened...and a lot of details that don't add up or make any sense. Plus there was a witness that directly refuted her claims of how the moments leading up to the shooting went.

To me....this doesn't look like an accident at all.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
That’s fine. I agree that, if those are actually correct, it does make me question my original assumption of no malice a bit more than I had before (ie, more than none).

When I give my final comments to bigten, I will state the strict assumptions under which the comments are valid.
 

Dean S

Active member
Appreciate your long post.

You (and bass) are exactly wrong in what you think intent means. Intent means that she went to the apartment intending to to kill the man. She did no such thing. Just because her she thought she was about to die and reflexively shot the person in the torso does not prove she had intended to kill him that evening.

She should’ve hired me to defend her. I thought this was pretty elementary stuff her, but apparently this concept is quite difficult to grasp for lay people.

No doubt the main (sole?) aim of the prosecution was to conflate and confuse the jury into thinking that because she confirmed a minor detail of her case (how she fired the weapon), it (falsely) proved prior intent.
I hope you are a lawyer. It would be great to read about your rating as a lawyer. I would guess it would be fairly low.

They got you by the short hairs and you don't even know when to say "ouch".
 

Latest profile posts

If you're going bear hunting, you better be prepared to go get the bear.
  • Like
Reactions: Face The Facts
6
60's Guy
If you go bear hunting what’s the plan if you get one? (1) Heavy to get out of the woods? (2) Food value? (3) Expensive rug!
Just curious...obviously bear 🐻 hunting would be down on my list of things to do.
Top