Former Dallas Police Officer Amber Guyer Indicted on Murder

A person commits an offense if he:

(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;

(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.

No premeditation is need. She doesn't have to know she was committing a crime.

Her defense in this situation is that she believed he was unlawfully in her apartment and her life was in danger. The question is whether or not that belief was reasonable.

Did she know shooting him with a gun could kill him?

Yep.

Did she intend to kill him? Well she pulled a gun which she knew could kill him, pointed at him and pulled the trigger.

So yep.

That's murder folks.

Was her belief that he was in her apartment reasonable?

How slick is her attorney?

I see the definition of murder there, but it's not the real definition of murder.

that same definition would make a murderer out of someone who shoots an intruder who is waving a gun at them. "negligent homicide" would not need to be a category, if that murder definition could stand on its own.

we need to wait for more information.. all we know is Amber's account.. that Radio Host Mark Davis annoyed me this morning, first saying "this is an extreme over charge (murder)", then saying "maybe we don't have all the facts", then again saying a murder charge is absurd.

I think the Grand Jury discovered some things that clearly contradict Ambers' story. we should assume that, if justice works like we assume it should.


a Conspiracist might offer that a murder charge is recommended BECAUSE Amber is likely to beat it (if her story is somewhere near accurate).. she has made bail, so a pending murder vs. manslaughter charge has no effect on her for the next year, while awaiting trial. if her story is mostly true, I would (if I am Amber) want to be charged with murder, rolling the dice that I would beat the rap.

I see the definition of murder there, but it's not the real definition of murder.

that same definition would make a murderer out of someone who shoots an intruder who is waving a gun at them. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Everyone who defends themselves is potentially committing murder.

That's why anyone who uses lethal force when defending themselves better be goddamn certain they would be killed or seriously harmed if they didn't use deadly force.

I would buy into the conspiracy theory thing IF the very same DA didn't just prosecute & convict another police officer for a shooting.

If an intruder is in your home at night, you have every reason to believe your life is in danger.

Can't she be tried again for manslaughter if she isn't convicted? It's a waste of money, when she could be tried for both, now.

However, don't you think it would be easier for a jury to convict her of murder if they could not consider a lesser charge?

I think murder is appropriate. However, juries may not want to convict of murder if they can fall back on a lesser charge.

Interesting that Texas Rangers posited that manslaughter was the correct charge and now we have murder. Not sure but unless she pleads to the manslaughter then the DA must prove to the jury there was intent.
Why not just follow the recommendation of the Rangers ??
Vengeance is not justice.
Y’all be safe out here.

A person commits an offense if he:

(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;

(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.

No premeditation is need. She doesn't have to know she was committing a crime.

Her defense in this situation is that she believed he was unlawfully in her apartment and her life was in danger. The question is whether or not that belief was reasonable.

Did she know shooting him with a gun could kill him?

Yep.

Did she intend to kill him? Well she pulled a gun which she knew could kill him, pointed at him and pulled the trigger.

So yep.

That's murder folks.

Was her belief that he was in her apartment reasonable?

How slick is her attorney? Originally Posted by grean

According to the DA you are wrong. To commit murder you have to “intentionally and knowingly commit a crime”.That my friend is premeditation. She went on further to say the officer acted knowingly.

According to the DA you are wrong. To commit murder you have to “intentionally and knowingly commit a crime”.That my friend is premeditation. She went on further to say the officer acted knowingly. Originally Posted by txexetoo

I didn't pull that out of the air. It's straight from the penal code.

Doesn't say anything about premeditation of a crime.

I didn't pull that out of the air. It's straight from the penal code.

Doesn't say anything about premeditation of a crime. Originally Posted by grean

we know the exact words don't add up to murder, though. the idea of premeditation is imbedded in that language, otherwise many manslaughters and negligent homicides are murders.


my understanding is Amber gets murder or nothing.. they can not convict on a lesser charge, nor can they retry as manslaughter. my understanding is fallible, however, don't take it to the bank.

I still question wtf the low paid by the city of fkn Dallas is hiring for the protect n serve??? She had a fkn gun and a fkn radio for assistance. She made the decision to shot to kill. Damn I want to be at that trial and let the truth be heard. And read the book and watch the movie that are being written now. Ann rice n Texas monthly are all over this

She had a fkn gun and a fkn radio for assistance. She made the decision to shot to kill. Damn I want to be at that trial and let the truth be heard. Originally Posted by Tsmokies

yeah, that's why I think the Grand Jury knows a lot that we don't.. Amber could have easily retreated instead of firing, if her story has any truth.. the trial is at least a year away, I think, but something has to leak soon. I wonder what kind of life Guyger can lead until the trial? she probably has to be practically in hiding, I would think.

I didn't pull that out of the air. It's straight from the penal code.

Doesn't say anything about premeditation of a crime. Originally Posted by grean

I am sure the DA knows the penal code better. Willingly and knowingly

"Willingly" is not a legally defined culpability in Texas. Those are intentional, knowing, reckless, and criminal negligence. The crime of murder, in Texas, requires intentionally OR knowingly causing the death of another person OR intending to cause serious harm and killing another person (whether or not you meant to kill them). There is no requirement of premeditation (though heat of passion arguments can bump it down to a second degree felony at the punishment phase).

Manslaughter requires recklessly causing a death. Recklessness is legally defined as consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk. Basically saying you didn't intend to hurt the other person, but ignored the fact that firing a gun directly pointed at a person has a serious chance or hurting them.

Given her claim that she was shooting someone she thought was an intruder, that would definitely fall under intending to cause serious harm at the very least. Murder appears to be the appropriate charge given the law and the information available. Whether or not she thought she was in her own home defending herself has no bearing on what charge is appropriate. That would be justification, which can be a defense (if a jury finds it reasonable). Technically, there's nothing stopping a DA from charging everyone for murder when they kill someone in self defense, but they decline to charge people in cases where the defense justification is so obvious there's no way they could convict. Obviously the DA believes that a a justification defense isn't going to work in this case (that or they're just doing things for show to avoid riots).

As for manslaughter, from what I can gather, it can be a lesser included offense to murder, so it's possible a jury finds not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. This may require the prosecutor charging her with both, and/or jury instructions from the judge.

I think the D.A. succumbed to public pressure and social media and charged Amber Guyger with murder but she has a better chance of being found not guilty for murder than being found not guilty for manslaughter.

Once she is found not guilty for murder, she can't be tried again for murder again (Double Jeopardy defence) and she also MAY not be tried for manslaughter.

Double Jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges and on the same facts, following a valid acquittal or conviction.

I think she will be found not guilty because the Prosecution will not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt she murdered the victim which requires premeditation and preplanning.

She insists it was an accident: going into the wrong apartment, exiting the elevator on the wrong floor, etc.

An accident is exactly what it is, an accident.

It wasn't planned or premedidated.

You don't get in your car and drive down the road on your way to work or the grocery store or to pick up your kids and get into a car accident.

"When I left this morning with the plan to drive my kids to school and then to work, I was involved in a traffic accident. I planned that, you know, to get into a car accident." said No One, Ever!

On one of the news articles I found online about this, someone posted this comment:

Hope they (the parents of the victim and the African American community and activitists) still feel all warm & fuzzy in a year or in a couple years when a jury of 12 will probably hear this. And probably won't be in Dallas County. And wait until the Defense gets their turn at bat, they may be able to keep manslaughter and such off the table. Hope they enjoy it, cause if the Jury returns Not Guilty because the Defense is able to show reasonable doubt, there is no second chances and no retrial. But then they may take solace in all the millions that will have been spent on prosecuting this on Murder instead of opting for Manslaughter and a possible quicker plea deal. Never mind the millions that will get paid out later in Civil Court which won't happen until all the criminal issues are settled. And it will go immediately into the appeal pipeline. Once again costing hundreds more or possibly millions more in taxpayer dollars being spent. No New Libraries, pot holes getting fixed. more police officers that the city of Dallas sorely need by at least 1,000, or other things that people will be whining about during election times. The family of the victim and their community activists buddies will still have their Warm & Fuzzy Murder Charge to keep them warm inside.

Oh by the way, the current D.A. is on the way out because she lost in the election they just had last month.