TexasCHLforum.com

hondo44 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:18 pm

C-dub wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:07 pm

hondo44 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 12:55 pm The bottom line is that as a LEO she did have the right to be there, technically.

Whoa there cowboy. Why?

The police were not called to that apartment. She was not investigating a crime. She was not in pursuit of anyone. I'm curious about your assertion that she technically had a right to be in someone elses home.

It wasn't a home, it was an apartment. There is a significant difference between the occupant and the owner. The owner of the property probably didn't have a problem with a LEO resident keeping an eye on things to make sure they are safe. In Texas, tenants do not have an absolute 4th amendment privacy right because it's not their home. The apartment owner can enter the apartment or have a PROXY enter the apartment such as a repairman or a security guard.

You must be tired after making such a huge leap. That you believe that an off duty police officer has a right to be in someone else's apartment is Grand Canyon kind of leaping. Not even Evel Kneivel was able to do that.

Guyger testifies....she better hope that she sounded more convincing to the jury than this article's account.

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2019/09/27/acc ... the-stand/

Grayling813 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:55 pm Guyger testifies....she better hope that she sounded more convincing to the jury than this article's account.

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2019/09/27/acc ... the-stand/

My health is not well today, but while laying here watching the testimony I honestly didn’t see the tears that matched the crying. I am in no way way making a judgement that it was not real I am just just giving my two cents.

If I understand that Ranger correctly, it's reasonable for anybody to enter the home of a LEO and shoot everybody who lives there. Even if none of the residents are armed, no crime was committed, as long as the door wasn't locked.

Ameer wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 6:11 pm If I understand that Ranger correctly, it's reasonable for anybody to enter the home of a LEO and shoot everybody who lives there. Even if none of the residents are armed, no crime was committed, as long as the door wasn't locked.

I think you have to reasonable believe that it was your home, so similar looking apartment door, etc. I'm sure that there are plenty of cases where Texas Rangers have been quick to testify on behalf of non-LEO's who have made these kind of mistakes

Ameer wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 6:11 pm If I understand that Ranger correctly, it's reasonable for anybody to enter the home of a LEO and shoot everybody who lives there. Even if none of the residents are armed, no crime was committed, as long as the door wasn't locked.

You understood wrong. That is your slant which is what CNN does to President Trump.

hondo44 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:18 pm

C-dub wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:07 pm

hondo44 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 12:55 pm The bottom line is that as a LEO she did have the right to be there, technically.

Whoa there cowboy. Why?

The police were not called to that apartment. She was not investigating a crime. She was not in pursuit of anyone. I'm curious about your assertion that she technically had a right to be in someone elses home.

It wasn't a home, it was an apartment. There is a significant difference between the occupant and the owner. The owner of the property probably didn't have a problem with a LEO resident keeping an eye on things to make sure they are safe. In Texas, tenants do not have an absolute 4th amendment privacy right because it's not their home. The apartment owner can enter the apartment or have a PROXY enter the apartment such as a repairman or a security guard.

It certainly is their home. They just don't own it. I don't think "home" is a legal term, so residence might be more apt in this case. The landlord might be able to enter without notice, but that depends upon the lease. The landlord can be denied entry if the occupant has a good reason and has a deadbolt that locks form the inside. They cannot keep the landlord out indefinitely, but that can on specific occasions. The landlord also cannot enter so much that it becomes an annoyance. There are no details in Texas renters laws on this issue and it is up to whether or not any specifics are spelled out in the lease. I don't know if it is the case in this case, but some people do own their apartments. I don't think they are called apartments in those situations, but possibly condos or something else.

Guyger was not acting in an official capacity at the time of this incident. She had absolutely no right to be in his apartment legally or technically. She was not acting as an agent of the landlord or anyone else at that time. She was, basically, do different than you or I at that time. Not minding a DPD officer keeping an eye on things is drastically different from allowing them to enter another tenant's residence without probable cause is a major leap that I doubt very much was the case here.

Grayling813 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:40 pm

hondo44 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:18 pm

C-dub wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:07 pm

hondo44 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 12:55 pm The bottom line is that as a LEO she did have the right to be there, technically.

Whoa there cowboy. Why?

The police were not called to that apartment. She was not investigating a crime. She was not in pursuit of anyone. I'm curious about your assertion that she technically had a right to be in someone elses home.

It wasn't a home, it was an apartment. There is a significant difference between the occupant and the owner. The owner of the property probably didn't have a problem with a LEO resident keeping an eye on things to make sure they are safe. In Texas, tenants do not have an absolute 4th amendment privacy right because it's not their home. The apartment owner can enter the apartment or have a PROXY enter the apartment such as a repairman or a security guard.

You must be tired after making such a huge leap. That you believe that an off duty police officer has a right to be in someone else's apartment is Grand Canyon kind of leaping. Not even Evel Kneivel was able to do that.

Well that is one of the defense arguments. That the lease specified the apartment is NOT the property of the tenant and they do not have reasonable expectation of privacy from leasing agency personnel, their contractors (like LEOs), or First Responders, including Fire, Police, and EMTs, including OFF DUTY.

hondo44 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 9:02 pm

Grayling813 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:40 pm

hondo44 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:18 pm

C-dub wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:07 pm

hondo44 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 12:55 pm The bottom line is that as a LEO she did have the right to be there, technically.

Whoa there cowboy. Why?

The police were not called to that apartment. She was not investigating a crime. She was not in pursuit of anyone. I'm curious about your assertion that she technically had a right to be in someone elses home.

It wasn't a home, it was an apartment. There is a significant difference between the occupant and the owner. The owner of the property probably didn't have a problem with a LEO resident keeping an eye on things to make sure they are safe. In Texas, tenants do not have an absolute 4th amendment privacy right because it's not their home. The apartment owner can enter the apartment or have a PROXY enter the apartment such as a repairman or a security guard.

You must be tired after making such a huge leap. That you believe that an off duty police officer has a right to be in someone else's apartment is Grand Canyon kind of leaping. Not even Evel Kneivel was able to do that.

Well that is one of the defense arguments. That the lease specified the apartment is NOT the property of the tenant and they do not have reasonable expectation of privacy from leasing agency personnel, their contractors (like LEOs), or First Responders, including Fire, Police, and EMTs, including OFF DUTY.

Wrong.
She was not acting under the authority of her badge. Her occupation is pretty irrelevant actually. The only reason it is mentioned is due to the ongoing tension between police and the public. If she was an accountant that just got off a 14 hour shift this probably wouldn’t be 1/10th of the news spectacle that this is, yet would be the exact same case. No one has authority to enter a residence without permission or warrant. Where are you coming up with this stuff?

I thought it was interesting this morning that she said she realized theres an intruder in her apartment when she put the key in the door and the door started opening. Till now I was under the impression that she realized someone was in the appartment AFTER she was in but according to her she knew someone was in before she fully opened the door and she made the decision to go in and confront the intruder or who she maybe honestly thought was an intruder.

Even if we believe everything she says and she did make an honest mistake by thinking it was her apartment, I find her behavior criminal because she chose to enter a leased property and confront someone that she considered an intruder rather than call for backup. Idk anything about law so I dont know whether this counts as murder but I'm finding it very hard to excuse her of all criminal responsibility.

Her stupidity already cost an innocent man's life. I hope it doesnt cost more innocent lives by having a negative effect on gun rights.

hondo44 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 9:02 pm

Grayling813 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:40 pm

hondo44 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:18 pm

C-dub wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:07 pm

hondo44 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 12:55 pm The bottom line is that as a LEO she did have the right to be there, technically.

Whoa there cowboy. Why?

The police were not called to that apartment. She was not investigating a crime. She was not in pursuit of anyone. I'm curious about your assertion that she technically had a right to be in someone elses home.

It wasn't a home, it was an apartment. There is a significant difference between the occupant and the owner. The owner of the property probably didn't have a problem with a LEO resident keeping an eye on things to make sure they are safe. In Texas, tenants do not have an absolute 4th amendment privacy right because it's not their home. The apartment owner can enter the apartment or have a PROXY enter the apartment such as a repairman or a security guard.

You must be tired after making such a huge leap. That you believe that an off duty police officer has a right to be in someone else's apartment is Grand Canyon kind of leaping. Not even Evel Kneivel was able to do that.

Well that is one of the defense arguments. That the lease specified the apartment is NOT the property of the tenant and they do not have reasonable expectation of privacy from leasing agency personnel, their contractors (like LEOs), or First Responders, including Fire, Police, and EMTs, including OFF DUTY.

"The owner of the property PROBABLY didn't have a problem with a LEO resident keeping an eye on things to make sure they are safe."
That statement has absolutley zero relevance to the legality of her actions and whether or not a crime was committed. Her actions certainly did not ensure anyone's safety by virtue of the end result.

The defense attorneys can argue any point they want in order to try and paint their client in the best possible light. The fact that the defense attorneys said the tenant did not have any reasonable expectation of privacy does not make it so--that is merely their interpretation of the wording of a lease. The prosecution can throw that out simply by asking the defense to show evidence that the landlord had a "contract" with the officer authorizing her to enter anyone else's apartment at will. That clause in the lease is there for an emergency situation, where someone has called for a response from one of those agencies. It does not mean that any EMT, fireman or policeman just wandering by can enter anyone's residence without a warrant or responding to an actual reported emergency situation.

She is guilty of killing the man. I think this whole trial will hinge on what the judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney agreed to as to the options that will be presented to the jury to vote on. Having been a juror before, I remember one case where I wanted to do something that the judge did not offer to the jurors as an option.

Was her crime premeditated murder? No.
Did she make a mistake? Yes.
Should she be held accountable for killing an innocent man? Yes.
What statutes define the crime she committed? I don't know.

But here lies the rub. What will the jury be allowed to convict her of? What will be the punishment?

Lynyrd wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2019 12:27 pm She is guilty of killing the man. I think this whole trial will hinge on what the judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney agreed to as to the options that will be presented to the jury to vote on. Having been a juror before, I remember one case where I wanted to do something that the judge did not offer to the jurors as an option.

Was her crime premeditated murder? No.
Did she make a mistake? Yes.
Should she be held accountable for killing an innocent man? Yes.
What statutes define the crime she committed? I don't know.

But here lies the rub. What will the jury be allowed to convict her of? What will be the punishment?

The judge ruled that the jury can consider manslaughter. She also said the jury can consider "castle doctrine" in their deliberations. Not sure how the castle doctrine applies if you are entering a residence other than your own and killing the lawful resident.

Grayling813 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2019 12:36 pm

Lynyrd wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2019 12:27 pm She is guilty of killing the man. I think this whole trial will hinge on what the judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney agreed to as to the options that will be presented to the jury to vote on. Having been a juror before, I remember one case where I wanted to do something that the judge did not offer to the jurors as an option.

Was her crime premeditated murder? No.
Did she make a mistake? Yes.
Should she be held accountable for killing an innocent man? Yes.
What statutes define the crime she committed? I don't know.

But here lies the rub. What will the jury be allowed to convict her of? What will be the punishment?

The judge ruled that the jury can consider manslaughter. She also said the jury can consider "castle doctrine" in their deliberations. Not sure how the castle doctrine applies if you are entering a residence other than your own and killing the lawful resident.

Thank you. I did not know what options the jury will have.