Judge rules jury can apply Castle Doctrine in Amber Guyger murder trial

Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Public House › Judge rules jury can apply Castle Doctrine in Amber Guyger murder trial

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • September 30, 2019 at 11:29 pm #106030
    nittany ram
    Moderator

    A white off-duty Police officer inadvertently broke into a black man’s apartment and shot him to death as he ate ice cream and watched TV. She thought it was her apartment. She got off on the wrong floor and somehow didn’t notice the large mat outside the door that she didn’t have. The Judge rules that the Castle Doctrine can be applied.

    The Castle Doctrine, similar to the Stand Your Ground Law, allows a person to use “or using force (even deadly force) in the protection of a home, vehicle, or other property if someone attempts to forcibly enter or remove an individual from the premises.

    So…someone can do something unimaginably stupid like mistaking someone else’s home for theirs, brutally gun down the innocent person who actually owns the home, and still be protected by a law that says you have the right to use lethal force against an intruder in your home even if it is YOU that’s the intruder in the murdered person’s home.

    Does anybody think a judge would rule this way if a black man had broken into a white woman’s apartment and shot her?

    Link: https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2019/09/30/jury-consider-castle-doctrine-amber-guyger-murder-trial/

    October 1, 2019 at 1:02 am #106037
    zn
    Moderator
    nittany ram wrote:

    Does anybody think a judge would rule this way if a black man had broken into a white woman’s apartment and shot her?

    I enjoy a good use of rhetorical questions.

    Or…do you think I like well-used rhetorical questions?

    October 1, 2019 at 12:01 pm #106055
    wv
    Participant

    Damn. What the heck do you do with ‘that’ fact pattern.

    What ‘is’ she guilty of, exactly. Somethin. But ‘what’ exactly?

    w
    v

    October 1, 2019 at 12:15 pm #106057
    zn
    Moderator
    wv wrote:

    Damn. What the heck do you do with ‘that’ fact pattern.

    What ‘is’ she guilty of, exactly. Somethin. But ‘what’ exactly?

    w
    v

    Well I don’t know me all the nuu-ahnsez of the law.

    But it’s at least manslaughter right.

    I mean, you can’t jist shoot someone dead, and say “oops my bad.”

    October 1, 2019 at 2:11 pm #106059
    nittany ram
    Moderator

    To me the issue is how the Castle Doctrine is allowed to be applied to this case. I suppose the judge allowed it because the defendant claims to have believed she was in her own home.

    But she wasn’t, so the Castle Doctrine shouldn’t apply because believing something is true doesn’t make it true.

    “I believed I was sober even though I had a blood alcohol level of 2.5, so I shouldn’t be convicted of drunk driving.”

    She is certainly guilty of manslaughter at least. But it’s possible she could get a much reduced sentence or even acquitted by a jury based on the Castle Doctrine.

    October 1, 2019 at 6:46 pm #106064
    waterfield
    Participant

    She was just convicted of murdering the black man.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.