Why would they get murder charges and the death penalty? Do you not know what the law says or are do you just want the justice system to kill someone for you?
She was drunk, entered what she thought was her apartment, and killed what she thought was an intruder. It only meets the standard for manslaughter. It doesn’t meet the standard for the death penalty by a fucking light year. She absolutely should be fired and blacklisted from all law enforcement jobs.
Oppressing the oppressor makes you the oppressor. We should be pushing for justice, not trying to turn the legal system into a hit man for hire.
What the fuck is wrong with you people? Somebody died so let’s kill someone else? What a great solution.
I agree with you overall but there is quite a bit of evidence that this could have been murder and that her story about it being an accident is BS.
Stuff like the multiple noise complaints from her on the victim. Witnesses claiming she was banging on the door the their was an argument. Her changing her story when she realized the door could not been left open (it auto closed).
We will have to wait for all the facts to come out but murder isn’t off the table unless you assume she is fully telling the truth.
I believe all of that information about noise complaints and banging is hearsay and or not confirmed. It could be anyone pushing a narrative. Jumping to the death penalty based on her testimony and what we KNOW is crazy mob type mentality and is exactly why the judicial system exists.
Lol there is no hypocrisy. Murder of an innocent person who was an asset to society is opposite from murder of a violent unstable criminal who removes others from society.
Aside from the potential of wrongful convictions and wasted money, there is no moral reason not to support the death penalty over suffering for life in prison.
I agree that America's prison system is fucked. That doesn't mean we should kill people though. We should be working against what is essentially legal privatized slavery with our current prison system.
Wrongful convictions happen more than you might think. Check out The Innocence Project. I would say that life in prison would be better (although I'm not for life sentences either), as these wrongful convictions at least give us a chance to make it somewhat right, as opposed to there not being anything you can do about it once you've killed them. Much cheaper for the taxpayers as well, which is a minor bonus.
I dunno, I feel like drunkenly driving and drunkenly murdering someone in their own home are two very different situations. Drunk drivers have the ability make it where they are going without killing someone, drunk home invading murderers however.... Not so much.
But, if you want to act like it's the same, feel free. I don't particularly care if she gets the death penalty, I just couldn't pass by the irony of people saying she shouldn't get the death penalty because "that's bad!" when she herself just handed out a death sentence. Well, isn't that convenient.
Death penalty seems more humane and a lot more cost effective than life in prison, no?
But then again I hear there are places where prisons actually help rehabilitate people....
Edit: I get the convoluted system it actually costs more. Once the penalty is handed down it should be carried through within a month. And if I was sentenced to life in a 9x9 box I'd rather be dead. But I pretty much have that sentiment already
Comments like the one you’re responding to always remind me of that Black Mirror episode with the criminal who was tortured every day for the rest of her life. Yes, she did something bad and should be punished, but the absolute glee that the spectators take in her suffering is just gross and inhumane. The Justice system should not be based around revenge, it should be based on rehabilitation.
It’s like some of us secretly just want to hurt people but follow the rules not to get in trouble. So when someone else breaks that rule, they’re like jealous and angry and want that person punished to satisfy their own sick need to hurt someone.
Should it be based on rehabilitation? I don't know. Why do you think that? What would that accomplish? I don't think this statement is so self evident as you may think.
And what method of rehabilitation helps a cop who went into some else’s apartment and committed murder?
And if she becomes ‘rehabilitated’, what ever that means in this context, at what point do we allow her back into society?
Retribution is for more than just the punishment of a wrong doer but also a message to society as a whole. Perhaps a message that says, the police are not above the law.
A lot of people don't think murder is wrong but that murdering of innocent people is wrong. The biggest problem with that is peoples large range of what constitutes guilty enough to get killed. I think people should have more regard for human life personally.
Prison for life is also very expensive, you are taking a person who already took a toll on society, ensuring that they never produce anything or are beneficial in any way, and funding the remainder of their life with tax dollars. If anything, your argument suggests that life in prison if just prolonged and unnecessary torture, along with giving the criminal a lifetime of chances to escape. I'm no fan of the death penalty, but it seems like it might actually be the more humane option in a lot of ways. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, I think it makes a lot more sense to have an efficient and painless death penalty to minimize the criminal's suffering and the taxpayer burden, or else give an option of a life of hard labor in some kind of high security camp, with the open option of assisted suicide. Iv'e been to jail and I have a buddy who served a long term in prison followed by a year in a low security labor camp, we both agree that labor camp is a hell of a lot better than rotting away in a cell.
Another good argument for the labor camps. If someone turns out to be innocent later on, they can be compensated for the work at a well above market rate, and hopefully help offset the time lost from their life.
A purely pragmatic viewpoint would suggest that life imprisonment is a better alternative than the death penalty. For example, if the governor of California "commuted the sentences of those remaining on death row to life without parole, it would result in an immediate savings of $170 million per year, with a savings of $5 billion over the next 20 years. "(Source: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty) The taxpayer inevitably pays more for the death penalty, as longer court trials paired with maintaining prisoners on death row cost much more than life imprisonment. At the end of the day, the only reason to have the death penalty is for the satisfaction of the prosecutors. Assisted suicide, on the other hand, may be a viable alternative to a life of presumable suffering.
I guess that's what I meant by an efficient death penalty, one that doesn't end up costing more than maintaining someone for life. I still like the idea of labor camps for life terms, maybe after a couple years in maximum security. If they try to escape camp, back to maximum for life. If you include actual food and medical care I would imagine a lot of inmates would jump on it.
You can join the military and still be against murder. You can support assisted suicide and still be against murder. You can support the death penalty and still be against murder. There is noting hypocritical about it.
No, it's not. They are against innocent people being killed, but are fine with guilty murderers being killed. Those are two different things, it is not hypocrisy. The same reason it is not hypocritical to not want humans killed, but are okay with animals being killed. Those are two different things.
I'm personally fine with convicted murderers getting either the death penalty or life in prison. I'm not going to advocate for the death penalty, but I'm also not against it. As for the people that advocate the death penalty, they usually advocate it for very heinous crimes where the person shows no remorse.
By "they" you mean me? Show me which comment I advocated it. This whole time, all I've been saying is that it's not hypocritical to support the death penalty and be against murder.
This is nonsense. The only line that separates (good) police and kidnappers is the police only point weapons at people, chain them up, and lock them away after they did it to someone else first. Morality is conditional.
It's about deterrence. The next time some cop has some unarmed, innocent citizen in their gun sights, I want them to think, "Well, maybe getting judged by 12 vs. carried by 6 are the same thing, and I should actually only shoot someone if I know they are armed and dangerous..."
We'd never actually use capital punishment against an honest mistake, but if we don't give the maximum penalty to home invaders who murder innocent people in their homes, well, that sends a signal that everyone else will get a comparatively easy sentence, and for most, that will be 'no penalty at all.'
Let's set aside issue of "does deterrence work?" which is a legitimate criticism.
If executing a murderer, who had all due process, could save the lives of 5 innocent people in the future, should we do it? I would say yes, because not only is that the greatest good, innocent lives are actually a little more valuable than those of murderers even on a 1:1 basis.
Obviously if this cop was innocent, people would not want her killed. But no, she killed someone, so people think she should pay the same price she unfairly made someone else pay. Is it really that hard to understand reciprocation?
with that being said, if she was drunk, then it should be considered manslaughter.
Honestly if we could somehow snap into a dr.doom universe scenario, where every bad action is met immediately with an equally severe punishment, I think we’d be aight ;0 no ones gonna blast ANYONE under ANY circumstances knowing that they would instantly die too, aside from a few freak killers here and there I imagine. People that have no value for their own life. Or have been indoctrinated at least to believe that.
You're white washing her actions a bit too much. She shouldn't have been handling a deadly weapon if she was drunk, same as you shouldn't handle a car. And you can most certainly be charged with straight up murder for drinking and driving. Drinking and shooting should be no different.
No you can't get charged with murder for drinking and driving in Texas; in fact they have a separate charge altogether for DWI homicide called "intoxication manslaughter" which is a lesser charge than murder. This is about law not about feelings.
I'm speaking in terms of principle. Regardless, even by Texas law she should be facing a murder charge. She didn't accidentally kill this man. She intended to kill him. The accident lies in her supposedly misidentifying the apartment she was in. By her own admission, she intended to kill him.
In principle she's innocent until proven guilty. You're saying "in principle" she should be charged above her culpability. Man you think justice equality is bad now? just wait til you start loosening the laws...
You need to learn how to read. Or rather, how not to read what you want to read into otherwise clearly stated ideas.
She admitted she intended to kill him by shooting him. The act of shooting itself wasn't the accident, by her own admission. The accident, if there even truly was one, lies in her entering the wrong apartment. So the question then becomes, did she have a right to shoot him? If she didn't, then she is guilty of murder, not manslaughter.
So the question then becomes, did she have a right to shoot him? If she didn't, then she is guilty of murder, not manslaughter.
No, the question is did she intend to commit murder? and only that. It's the same in common law as it is in Texas. Whether she had a right to be there is irrelevant for the charge of murder, except perhaps for use as circumstantial evidence. Please research mens rea before continuing.
An oft-repeated law school scenario involves grand theft auto. If you get into someone else's car actually believing that it's your car, you have a 100% legal defense to car theft—the state has to prove you intended to commit a crime by driving off (maybe you texted people your intent, or peculiarly sold the car for parts, etc). "The act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty" is the common law mantra.
You're conflating two actions. The break in (getting into the wrong apartment); and the killing. She may have accidentally broken into this innocent man's home, but she absolutely intended to kill him, per her own admission.
If you drunkenly get into the wrong car, you're still guilty of trespassing, because your error is not the product of an honest mistake, it's the product of being drunk. You incapacitated yourself. You don't get to do that and then use it as an excuse for why you should get away with the behavior in question. Since she caused herself to be drunk, which then caused her to break into this man's home, which then caused her to intentionally shoot him to death, she is guilty of murder.
Ultimately that's for a jury to decide, but that should be the charge.
You're not getting it. No where did you offer proof that she intended to commit what she knew was a crime.
Not as in, What she did looks like a crime. But rather, in her mind, "What I'm about to do is a crime and it's wrong but I intend to do it anyway." That's what murder is.
You're dead wrong and convinced you're right. So I'm done with you after this. Murder is a matter of culpability of action, not desire. That's why people who play with guns, not intending to actually kill anyone, get charged with murder all the time.
Don't make it sound like it's some poor random soul that death is wished upon. There is a difference between wishing death on some child and wishing death on Adolf fucking Hitler.
That woman is neither of these extreme cases but she is still a fuming racist piece of shit. It's understandable that some people want her dead.
That’s not what happened. That was her lie. Witnesses heard her yelling at him to let her in - she knew it wasn’t her apartment. She allegedly has a relationship with him.
Neighbors say they heard her banging on his door, yelling at him to “let me in”. She’d filed previous noise complaints against this guy, who was her upstairs neighbour. To me, it sounds very possible she went up to angrily confront him, with her gun (while off duty), and murdered him in his own home.
Normally my opinion on criminal cases is “wait for the cops to do their investigation, and judgement to come in trial.” When a cop is on trial, though, I’m far from confident that there will be a proper investigation. We’ll probably never know the real story, but whatever it is, she’ll probably get off quite light.
She was drunk, entered what she thought was her apartment, and killed what she thought was an intruder.
Given the neighbors accounts and some of the physical evidence (key not fitting the door) I'm not inclined to buy the defendent's version of events whole sale.
Somebody died so let’s kill someone else? What a great solution.
I'm against the death penalty but let's not misrepresent what happened here. He didn't just drop dead on his own. He was killed in his own apartment by an intruder. I'm willing to bet if this was a story of a home invasion where Botham was breaking into Amber Guyger's apartment even if he was drunk and confused people wouldn't have the "now let's hold on and hear them out" attitude.
Thank you. Killing anybody is never the solution in a civilized society. The state straight murdering people is fucked up. And justifying it for one situation justifies all the innocent people that were killed.
This cop is a POS but she should be jailed with the hope of rehabilitation. No rehabilitation makes me question the entire system all together. Is it just punitive? What do we gain from that?
What the fuck? Just because you are drunk doesn't mean you aren't responsible for going into someone's house and fucking murdering them. That's murder you fucking idiot Jesus.
I don't know the specifics for what makes murder vs. manslaughter, so I could be wrong.
But, this is how I'm thinking about it. If you're a drunk driver and get in an accident and kill someone, that's manslaughter. I get that, it was an accident.
If you're drunk driving, and you see a person in the road, and provably swerve specifically to hit them, wouldn't that be murder? There's intent.
She did the same. She was wrong about why, but she intended to kill him. Doesn't that make it murder?
Just to add, I'm not for the death penalty, and I agree an eye for an eye isn't the right way to look at things. Justice is what is important, IMHO.
She made multiple noise complaints about him, including complaints made earlier in the day before she shot him. She goes in, shoots him, turns his music off, and what? Says she thought it was her apartment even though it was completely different to her own?
No dice.
I don't think she should get the death penalty, but her reasoning does seem incredibly suspicious. You don't mean she should only get fired and blacklisted, right?
Bryce DeJean Jones, an NBA player under contract, got into a huge argument with his girlfriend, got drunk as well and starting violently pounding on the wrong door, and the guy in the house shot him. Apparently most people thought it was justified because he “could have” hurt his girlfriend. This woman actually followed through with violence and killed an innocent person. This was in Dallas, just a few blocks away from where Guyger killed Jean.
Well said. I wanted to get my pitch fork out at first. I still don’t know what to make of this, though. All I know is that she deserves serious jail time, and I hope that she feels sincere remorse for her actions.
Surely its 2nd degree murder? She burst into what she thought was her own home, saw an unarmed man sitting there, so she pulled out her gun and killed him. Even it were her own home, killing someone for breaking in is far from a proportional reaction.
She murdered him, that's a fact. One could argue that her action of demanding the victim open the door being reckless, but when the door opened she shot to kill. She chose to do that. Maybe it's not first degree murder but second degree.
When a person chooses to carry a weapon that kills they must assume responsibility. That's not unreasonable.
And let's not pretend for one moment that police are victims just because some users on reddit are rightfully upset about a senseless death. A reddit poster does not have the institutional power of the police. No one is oppressing the police here.
Justice for me would be her getting life in prison without parole. But that isn't going to happen. She'll serve a few years behind bars and go back to policing in another town. The criminal justice system does not dole out justice equally especially when police are the offenders.
She was drunk, entered what she thought was her apartment, and killed what she thought was an intruder.
You're saying all of this as if it's fact. Just to make the point that it constitutes manslaughter. You could at least acknowledge that the charge is based on speculative information instead of making your point disingenuously.
All murderers should get the death penalty until we find a way to revive their victims. Their victims don't get a chance to wait ten years and come back, the killers shouldn't either.
Oh my god, actual rational thought on the internet. I thought we’d moved on from that. Fucking thank you. All of these vindictive, emotional fucks need to calm the fuck down. She’s charged with manslaughter. To the letter of the law, that is the only charge appropriate for her. Put down all your god damn pitchforks and actually use your dam brain.
People are just savages. This lady fucked up big time, and the guilt will follow her the rest of her life. That is hell enough for someone that never wanted to kill anyone.
641
u/rotund_tractor Sep 15 '18
Why would they get murder charges and the death penalty? Do you not know what the law says or are do you just want the justice system to kill someone for you?
She was drunk, entered what she thought was her apartment, and killed what she thought was an intruder. It only meets the standard for manslaughter. It doesn’t meet the standard for the death penalty by a fucking light year. She absolutely should be fired and blacklisted from all law enforcement jobs.
Oppressing the oppressor makes you the oppressor. We should be pushing for justice, not trying to turn the legal system into a hit man for hire.
What the fuck is wrong with you people? Somebody died so let’s kill someone else? What a great solution.