Castle Doctrine, Someone Else's Castle

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am not an expert and not a lawyer, but castle doctrine in this case is total BS. There is no doubt that the cop was in the wrong place. If the deceased had a gun in his hand and killed the cop, that would be a better application of castle doctrine, in my opinion. Could castle doctrine possibly apply to both sides in this case? I don't think so.
 
I doubt arguing the Castle Doctrine would work when you kill someone in their "castle" after you illegally entered!
 
Despite the widely held misconception that castle doctrine is a license to shoot just because they are in your house (or other place you can legally be) it's not.

It is a protection from prosecution (generally civil) based on the argument that you had a duty to retreat, therefore the shooting cannot be justified.

Allowing the defense to use the argument of castle doctrine does NOT mean the shooting was justified, it just means the defense can make the argument that the defendant thought she was justified, or something similar.

Thinking you are justified does not make a bad shoot into a good one. It MAY mean you are not guilty of murder, but manslaughter instead. And as always there are many, many other things that must be factored into the decision.

That is the jury's job.
 
Interesting case but I'll bet the below will be the outcome..jury deliberating now.
The judge also announced in the meeting with lawyers on both sides that the jury would be allowed to consider manslaughter in any potential sentencing of Guyger.
Click to expand...
 
Looks to me like when the prosecutor decided to play hard ball, the defense went all in and tried to take manslaughter off the table. Guyger testified she intended to kill Jean (taking manslaughter off the table) but that she was justified in self-defense and mistake of fact.

Looks like the jury decided to take her at her word. Interested to see what the sentence is.
 
Are cops actually trained that they must shoot to kill? The rest of us are told over and over (if we pay attention) that we can shoot to stop a threat, and that is all.
 
If she had not been sexting her work mate she likely would have noticed that she was trespassing. If she had not been trespassing then none of this ever happens.

If some cop wanders in to my house by mistake and blows my wife away while she is on the couch watching Netflix and downing a bowl of ice cream I think anything less than murder would not be justice.

Turned around the other way if the same cop wanders in to my house and pulls a gun on me then I would feel threatened enough to use deadly force to defend myself.

I can't believe anyone would honestly be on the other side of that issue. Sure the whole thing was a terrible mistake. Making a mistake doesn't make one less accountable.
 
Are cops actually trained that they must shoot to kill?
Click to expand...

Well, I can’t speak for all police officers but I doubt any American police officers are trained that way and I know Dallas PD doesn’t teach that.

This is just my opinion; but it looks to me like the defense was rightly worried that they couldn’t beat a manslaughter charge; but thought the jury would be reluctant to convict Guyger of murder under the circumstances. By testifying that she intended to kill and not just stop Jean when she fired, Guyger took away the manslaughter option since that isn’t available to someone who intended to kill under Texas law. Then her attorneys argued self-defense and mistake of fact to give the jury a reason not to go with murder.

Big gamble and one that didn’t pay off it seems; but her trial team was busy preserving grounds for appeal, so she has that.
 
Are cops actually trained that they must shoot to kill?
Click to expand...

Yes. If you are going to use lethal force then being fast and effective is in the interest of public safety.

If you look at the police qualification and what they are training the lizard brain to do....It is to apply lethal force quickly and effectively.

They do not train on wounding shots or warning shots.
 
Despite the widely held misconception that castle doctrine is a license to shoot just because they are in your house (or other place you can legally be) it's not.
Click to expand...

That bears repeating.

Castle doctrine has to do with the elimination of the duty to retreat.

there are other things in law in some jurisdictions the justification of regarding self defense in one's home, but strictly speaking, they are not "castle doctrine".
 
They do not train on wounding shots or warning shots.
Click to expand...

That makes complete sense. However I would hope that their training includes situational awareness, that seems to be the crux of the matter in this case.

The whole thing is a fascinating tragedy. The victim did absolutely nothing wrong. The officer is obviously devastated, but IMO she deserves to be held to a higher standard of conduct because she was a cop. I don't see a problem with a murder conviction as opposed to manslaughter.
 
I don't see a problem with a murder conviction as opposed to manslaughter.
Click to expand...
From what I have read, the upgraded charge and eventual conviction seem to all come back to two things:
1. The cop's statement indicating that when she drew the gun, she intended to kill.
2. The autopsy results indicating a high likelihood that the victim was kneeling or cowering when he was shot.
 
1. The cop's statement indicating that when she drew the gun, she intended to kill.
Click to expand...

This is where the words one uses really matter, and matter much, much more than the same words using in casual conversation.

And cops are not "trained to shoot to kill". They use the same terms we use or should use, shoot to stop the threat. We all know that using deadly force and aiming for vital organs can, and often does kill. But we must ALWAYS state that our intent was to STOP, not kill, because, as this woman has learned, a statement to the court of intent to kill is an admission of intent to commit murder.

Either she wasn't properly coached by her defense team, or she stupidly ignored their advice and spoke in apparently the conversational manner she was used to.

Words matter, in court, they MUST be precise, because the court is going to look at them that way, whether you do, or not.

For an example, say you testify that you pulled up to the stop sign, waited a minute, looked both ways, and then drove on. Something people would say, every day.

BUT, since it is testimony, that "minute" must be 60 seconds. IF you did not wait a full 60 seconds, and they can prove you didn't, you have just perjured yourself and therefore ALL your credibility is now suspect, if not entirely gone.

if you had said "I waited a moment..." then that would be different, But, if you say "a minute" you are telling the court you waited the full 60 seconds.

If she had said "I intended to shoot him..." that would be one thing. Saying "I intended to kill him" that is something entirely different in the eyes of the court, and that justifies the murder charge, rather than manslaughter.

When I saw the thread title, I though it was going to be about something else, which hasn't been mentioned yet, so I'll bring it up, now..

Castle doctrine in someone else's castle, where you have a lawful right to be. For example staying with a friend or relative, where you were invited and welcome. As I see it, while its not your castle, its their castle, if you have a legal right to be there, then castle doctrine should apply if you are forced to defend yourself, in their castle.

If you are a valid, invited (or at least accepted) guest, and not an illegal intruder, how could it be otherwise??

This was simply not the case in the shooting under discussion, and would not be the case in any case of "mistakenly" being in the wrong house/apt.
 
2. The autopsy results indicating a high likelihood that the victim was kneeling or cowering when he was shot.
Click to expand...

He was probably looking for cover after the first shot missed.

Are cops actually trained that they must shoot to kill?
Click to expand...

I'm sure this will be revisited with the follow on lawsuit against the city and anyone else with deep enough pockets to matter. (Don't get me wrong, I'd probably sue everyone too.) If they plan on using that as a basis for the suit it will likely not go great.

Generally police are trained to "end the threat". Most police qualifications are for "X"# of center of mass hits. Center mass hits are likely to be fatal or majorly incapacitating.

There is a move among the Black Lives Matter group to train the police to; "Shoot suspects to wound them". To me this is as ridiculous as it sounds. Hit rates are already extremely bad among people involved in gun fights. Trying to wing them in to submission instead of ending their ability to do harm would be near impossible under stress for most people. I'm sure some department will give it go (San Fran PD or Fairfax County, looking your way).
 
"Shoot suspects to wound them". To me this is as ridiculous as it sounds.
Click to expand...

Not only is it ridiculous, its doubtful if it is legal. While the police operate under slightly different rules than the rest of us, there is a common thread that in order to use deadly force, you must believe that it is justified. Shooting to wound is seen as a de facto admission that you did not believe deadly force was justified. And if you don't believe deadly force is justified, you are not justified in shooting, at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top