Discussion: Case Against Officer Who Killed Neighbor To Go To Grand Jury

Yeah, there’s more to this story that IMO the cops are trying to downplay.


She parked on the fourth floor, instead of the third, where she lived, according to the affidavit, possibly suggesting that she was confused or disoriented.

Smoking weed doesn`t help .

Another innocent person of color murdered by the police, nothing to see here people, keep moving along.


Expect some really original explanations.


I imagine that the defense will be fatigue after a 15 hour day. The blood work will be conveniently lost. My guess is that she went out and had a few drinks with colleagues to celebrate their investigation and arrest of armed robbery suspects. She went home drunk enough to not recognize her own apartment.And there he was, guilty of the crime of being black in his own home.


“She told authorities she mistook the neighbor’s unit for her own”

Meaning she was drunk (or fucked up in some way) and then she shot someone.

ETA: If you are so drunk you can’t recognize your own apartment and you walk into someone else’s and then shoot them, you ought to be charged like a drunk driver would be. Getting drunk does not give anyone a free pass to do bad things then get away with it and I hate people who think it does.


This is not important. Standing for the National Anthem is what is important.

Show some respect for your killers.


Man, even the klan tried to come up with fake criminal charges when executing ni**ers on sight. Welcome to the new “We don’t need no stinking excuses” Jim Crow.

1 Like

She called 911 and, when asked where she was, returned to the front door to see she was in the wrong unit, according to the affidavit.

Does this make sense to anyone else? If she thought she was in her own apartment, why the need to check the door?


I think it makes sense for the arrest affidavit to be based on the officer’s testimony, cuz after all (depending on facts), it amounts to a confession.

Assume that there was no prior relationship that mattered between the victim and his killer – that is, if they knew each other, had a fight over loud music or something; God help us, if they had dated, that would obviously change all this radically. So figure they didn’t have any relationship at all except living in the same building. Then:

  1. There really is no other reasonable explanation but her own for going to the wrong door. At least, there’s nothing to indicate WHY she went to the wrong door, except a mistake.

  2. So the question becomes, why didn’t she realize it wasn’t her apartment? That he had a bright red welcome mat in front of the door is a matter of fact – either it’s true, or it ain’t. Either she had a similar one, or she didn’t. If he did have a bright red sign on the floor in front of the door (and she did not, in front of HER door), it’s hard to come up with any reasonable explanation for why she didn’t notice it was the wrong apartment OTHER than some kind of serious impairment – even if most people don’t notice details during a routine (like coming home).

  3. She says the door was unlocked and slightly ajar. At least one other person is said to have heard her knocking, and calling out “let me in” – if that person is credible (much less corroborated), the killer is lying.

  4. Even if you take her story at face value – that she came home to what she thought was her apartment, found the door open and the place dark, with someone inside whom she took to be an intruder – it’s hard to justify shooting, much less killing the guy. It’s simply not good police work to escalate a burglary into life and death: did the apartment have another exit? Did she call for backup BEFORE she drew her weapon?

This is a test for the Texas Rangers.


During my law practice days, I heard a lot of criminal defendants come up with bullshit scenarios to excuse their behavior. This one from the police officer takes the cake.


It seems to me that this is a case of home invasion with homicide. If he came into her apartment and killed her how would it be viewed? Also, i have never met nor heard of anyone named Amber who wasn’t dumber than a box of rocks.


As I understand it (and it’s possible I don’t), Texas law makes a couple relevant distinctions:

First, somebody can be tried on lesser included charges, right? That is, the killer could be charged with murder AND manslaughter, giving a trial jury an out to convict her of the lesser charge. Overcharging could lose the case, even keep a grand jury from indicting: right?

Second, murder in Texas means that she intended to kill the guy (hard to prove just from the fact she shot him, although firing more than once is a clue); or that she was committing some OTHER felony (your home invasion), and killed him as part of that first crime.

Third, capital murder (in Texas) requires only the slightest distinction between regular-ish murder, since they both use the phrase “intentionally and knowingly”.

The affidavit strongly implies that at least AFTER she’d killed the guy, she had doubts – checking the door for where she was, which kinda indicates she realized by then she wasn’t in her own apartment. She says she didn’t know she was in the wrong apartment until after she’d turned the lights on, which (as I understand it) wasn’t until after she’d killed the guy.

Proving it was a home invasion requires that she didn’t know it wasn’t her apartment – negatives are difficult to prove, yet might be the only way to convict her of regular-ish murder.

So getting a grand jury to charge her with both murder (not capital murder) depends on intent to really hurt him in a way that made him dead, and also manslaughter (which requires only that she killed him, and proving she was reckless) is probably the most effective way to enforce the law here. The Rangers have to get evidence to the grand jury that doesn’t go beyond the facts.

Or – am I wrong?


Sgt. Michael Mata, president of Dallas’ largest police union, the Dallas Police Association, said Guyger was a respected officer and well known to investigative units in the department because she worked on a high-risk team tasked with arresting some of the most violent offenders. On the day of the shooting, Guyger’s unit had arrested multiple suspects for armed robbery, he said.

Mata called for Guyger to have fair treatment, but also said she should answer for her actions.

And this is the president of the Dallas Police Union saying this. Those that speak for their local police unions are usually rabid defenders of anything a cop does. This should be seen as a tell IMO.


This officer entered the apartment of another person and killed that person. There is no excuse for what she did. Mr. Jean had the right to live and not be murdered by this officer.

Trying to paint this in any manner other than what she did and that she criminally took the life of another human being is wrong.


By the time she called 911presumably the light was on to show the clues of the wrong furniture placed in the wrong layout in a room painted the wrong color. She knew at that time she was not in her apartment and so had to go to the door and find out where she was. The 911 tape will be key evidence of what had just happened, even as the realization that it was not a good kill was starting to sink in.

The city should be offering a clear apology and quickly negotiate a hefty settlement with the family of the wrongful death victim. That settlement amount needs to go up by a factor of ten every time Dotardski offers his opinion on the case.


Yes. Why do you need to stick your key into the lock if the door was ajar?


It’s my understanding that she turned on the lights after she shot him and realized it wasn’t her apartment. That’s her story anyway.

It makes sense to include her testimony. The question is, why is her testimony the only source for the affidavit after 3 days of investigation. Do the witnesses the the victim’s family is talking about not exist? Was there no physical evidence at the scene? Perhaps this charge is just a placeholder, but it’s an awfully kind one (to the officer).

In Texas a murder charge does not actually require intent to kill. It can be proved up if the defendant “intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.” Penal Code Sec. 19.02(b)(2). This undercuts that “I didn’t want to kill him; I just wanted to shoot him a few times.” defense.