Former Dallas police officer Amber Guyger shot Botham Jean after accidentally entering his apartment in what her attorney called a “series of horrible mistakes.” A Texas jury just convicted the white woman for the murder of the black man. How can we protect cops, and innocent citizens downrange, from the flaws of their human nature? What does this case say about the national “Black Lives Matter” discussion? Should off-duty officers leave their guns in their lockers at the precinct?
Categories
It’s Murder: Dallas Cop Amber Guyger Convicted After “Series of Horrible Mistakes”
Former Dallas police officer Amber Guyger shot Botham Jean after accidentally entering his apartment in what her attorney called a “series of horrible mistakes.” A Texas jury just convicted the white woman for the murder of the black man. How can we protect cops, and innocent citizens downrange, from the flaws of their human nature?
13 replies on “It’s Murder: Dallas Cop Amber Guyger Convicted After “Series of Horrible Mistakes””
As a LE Officer, I say AMEN Steve… still very sorry for all involved… just sayin’
You want to be a bit humbled, watch the brother of the man who got shot.
Just wow.
https://www.facebook.com/NowThisNews/videos/2384115651839037?sfns=mo
Gentlemen, nice handling of a situation with no good outcomes. Nobody wins here.
I fear that this will not remotely be the outcome for her.
You are correct. We don’t allow people any anonymity. On the other hand if “celebs” would stop having their publicists tell people where they are going to be, they could have some.
I wish her the best. She is clearly remorseful.
The topic I rarely hear brought up with one of these officer or off-duty officer involved shootings is training. I look at this incident and wonder why the officer’s first move was not to back out of the apartment and call for back up. She assumed that the individual she encountered was armed, though did not see a weapon. As a fighter pilot would say, extend and escape. It’s an apartment, he’s not going anywhere. Then you can assess the situation from safety.
She discharged her weapon. Part of that is poor training.
We see this frequently.
The incident in Cleveland several years ago. Someone calls 911, there is a guy in the park waving a gun around. Turns out it was a 12 year old with a toy.
LEO rolls up right next to the suspect, within feet, jumps out of his car and shoots.
Easily could have stopped 25 yards away and assessed the situation.
Poor training.
But we let the narrative be racial. Are we afraid of offending LEOs saying they need better training?
Cops kill the barking terrier. Is that necessary?
Storm the wrong house serving a warrant and kill a child with a flash bang, really?
Why are we serving warrants with SWAT teams instead of waiting for people to just exit their homes? Does it make better press?
Is it a training issue? Or is it, we have the equipment, this is a chance to use it?
I am a staunch defender of LEO, my brother-in-law is one, but when he does questionable stuff on the job, he gets called out in the family.
In this particular case, I think the problem is one that no one wants to bring up.
Study after study, and a lot of anecdotal evidence, shows that female cops are trigger happy. They tend to pull early and escalate the situation. Also, in shooting where a female cop is present, it tends to be the woman who shoots first, often surprising the male cops with her.
I don’t think this reflects a predilection for violence that they have, just an understanding that if the situation devolves to violence, they are conscious of how vulnerable they are and so they want to control the situation before it comes to that.
I think that’s what happened here. She was alone in a dark apartment and a large man rushes her. She panics and fires. If she were not a police officer, I think we would all have more sympathy. She would be a poor, scared woman who made an awful, though understandable, mistake.
I still don’t understand why this wasn’t a bench trial. Did her lawyer think this was another OJ Simspson trial and a blue minority status would get a Dallas jury to nullify her guilt?
My first thought was plead out, but that may not have been offered given the national visibility. I wonder if the 10 year sentence reflects, lets have a trial, this is going to be the outcome.
No. Police officers should ALWAYS carry their sidearms, because without them they are both helpless and unable to enforce the law or protect anyone from a deadly threat–which they are sworn to do. But this is also true for every citizen who can be legally armed, because citizens face the same thing that police face every day–it’s the same threat. The only difference is that citizens aren’t sworn to protect anybody. A citizen can choose to run away (and usually should).
Where it changes is for the police is they have extensive training on use of force law. I have been a police officer in a town very near Dallas, and Texas police are heavily trained in use of force laws, both at the TCLEET state academies and by their local departments. To prove self-defense an officer or a citizen must prove there was a reasonable cause to perceive a threat to one’s life (or someone else’s). Realize that in Texas, “peace officers” (all police in Texas are state peace officers) are never really off-duty. As a peace officer you can’t ignore a crime just because you’re off the clock. So, police should ALWAYS be armed (as should most legally-armed citizens, IMO).
Police cannot turn a blind eye, flee the area and pretend they did not see a crime. It is not my purpose to second-guess this officer, but it seems she made poor decisions made based on the training I am sure she was given. If it is not your apartment (and even if it is) and you believe there is a burglar inside, you call for backup and on-duty officers if you can. You don’t know how many bad guys are in there or what they are armed with, so going in could be suicidal. And if you do go in alone, they must still clearly present an immediate threat (death or serious bodily injury) to your own life before you can legally shoot them (there is some more leeway given if the crime is at night, however). That’s also true for anyone else who has to use deadly force against another. So, based on the bad judgement, she should have been terminated, and she would definitely have been charged.
A jury felt her actions met the requirements for murder, and made that decision. I am sure it was a hard decision, but they did what they were charged to do. So be it.
What bothers me is I know the Dallas civil environment and there are people there who will use this tragedy–even though justice was served–to spread racist hate for police within the urban culture there, which is totally wrong. This should be a right or wrong homicide matter, not a racial one. The investigators felt it was wrong, the jury agreed, and a verdict was given. That’s how the justice system works, for anyone. As police, we all knew that risk when we put on the badge and gun. People who carry concealed weapons should also know this. If you don’t know lethal force laws in your state, study, get carry insurance, and don’t carry until you do (and know the laws vary from state to state).
Jack Webb said it best. The problem we have in selecting perfect police officers is that we only have humans to choose from.
I grieve for all the people involved in this case. It’s a tragedy for everyone.
Interesting: Those who hold Faith as primary ultimately dismiss Reason. Those who hold Reason as primary ultimately dismiss Faith. Then there is that massive muddled middle who try to straddle the fence and live split lives with very mixed success.
I agree that those who carry have an additional responsibility of care and caution to avoid error based upon the likelihood of lethal consequence of that error. Yet, it is quite possible that delayed action will result in the death of the carrier who also had a right to defend his or her life. This presents an almost impossible challenge for split second decision to be unfailingly correct.
It is also clear that Amber had multiple opportunities to discover her error and did not. As such she failed to exercises even minimal care and caution. The results were catastrophic for all involved.
I suspect there were several “if only” things about the case. Such as “if only he had locked his door and her key did not fit the lock then maybe….”. However things happened as they happened. Now the state and we the people are left with deciding her fate.
Quite frankly, I am not wise enough to know what her fate should be. I suspect getting off with just losing her job or being committed to prison for life do not represent justice. What I do know, there are no winners in this mess and the best we can do is “due process”. It is not perfect but it is the best we have discovered.
Love your ending Scott.