Amber Guyger Trial Starts...

[Gameface]

Or was it negligent killing? (apparently policeman are trained to shoot first shoot at the leg)

Police are absolutely NOT trained to shoot people in the leg.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

I moved to a new apartment in the same complex. A couple of days after moving in, I walked into the apartment next door as it was the same configuration as my old apartment. I instantaneously realized this was not my apartment as the interior decor looked nothing like mine. And I did not ever entertain the idea that the two startled people in the room were intruders. It was a split second realization on my part that I was wrong.

A cop likely has heightened danger awareness than I do, but I cannot see how anyone can justify what she did.

Sent from my moto z3 using JazzFanz mobile app

If I did walk in and someone was watching TV on my couch my first reaction would not be to shoot them. I'm not sure what it is like for women and I'm sure I have a different view of what is threatening... but my first thought wouldn't be this person is here to get me... I might pull a gun out if I had it on me but I'd figure out what the hell was going on before firing shots.

Her story makes no sense.

 

[JazzGal]

On a related note, why do so many people not lock their doors?

Sent from my moto z3 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[The Midnight]

Police are absolutely NOT trained to shoot people in the leg.

That's what the CRT guy testified to in the trial.. they're trained to shoot first at the torso inna robbery situation iirc.

 

[The Midnight]

I moved to a new apartment in the same complex. A couple of days after moving in, I walked into the apartment next door as it was the same configuration as my old apartment. I instantaneously realized this was not my apartment as the interior decor looked nothing like mine. And I did not ever entertain the idea that the two startled people in the room were intruders. It was a split second realization on my part that I was wrong.

A cop likely has heightened danger awareness than I do, but I cannot see how anyone can justify what she did.

Sent from my moto z3 using JazzFanz mobile app

Yeah but different circumstances.

Her boyfriend was testifying on the first day that they were 'sexting' i.e., texting about sex and sending forward/back sexy pictures on snapchat, etc, right up to the time when she opened her door.

So I think it's safe to say she was very pre-occupied with something entirely different when she opened the door and was startled.

 

[The Midnight]

On a related note, why do so many people not lock their doors?

Sent from my moto z3 using JazzFanz mobile app

That's true. That's 1 thing the victim did wrong.

 

[The Midnight]

If I did walk in and someone was watching TV on my couch my first reaction would not be to shoot them. I'm not sure what it is like for women and I'm sure I have a different view of what is threatening... but my first thought wouldn't be this person is here to get me... I might pull a gun out if I had it on me but I'd figure out what the hell was going on before firing shots.

Her story makes no sense.

I would agree it makes no sense if she has a prior motive to kill the guy - but in this case she doesn't know who he is and has no other motive than for the fact that she was startled by him being in what he thought was her apartment.

 

[The Midnight]

Body cam of the emergency services at 46min if anyone wanna see what the apartment complex looks like.

Some observations:

- Pretty posh apartment complex.
- The rooms really do look all the same from the outside.
- The guy who was shot was pretty FAR back inside the room.
- There's a kitchen counter, an ironing board, a TV, and computers before you even get to the couch he was sitting on.
- Victim was still alive

This is pretty damning actually.. it really does go against her 'self defense' defense IMO. He's at least a good 5-6 meters away from the door and behind many different 'obstacles' if he would be trying to get to her.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

I would agree it makes no sense if she has a prior motive to kill the guy - but in this case she doesn't know who he is and has no other motive than for the fact that she was startled by him being in what he thought was her apartment.

I don’t care about motive here... don’t have to prove motive. Maybe the guy looked at her wrong one time or maybe the story she’s telling is true and she was just an idiot... she still has to answer for her actions. It wasn’t some bang bang fight or flight situation. She had a lot of choices here.

 

[Miggs]

That's what the CRT guy testified to in the trial.. they're trained to shoot first at the torso inna robbery situation iirc.

Are you ****ing with us or are you actually this ****ing dumb? The torso is your mid-section, specifically, your stomach and chest. That’s not your legs. Jesus Christ.

 

[The Midnight]

Are you ****ing with us or are you actually this ****ing dumb? The torso is your mid-section, specifically, your stomach and chest. That’s not your legs. Jesus Christ.

My bad, thought he meant 'tibia' which is like the lower leg part, shinbone area.

I guess she did the right thing then shooting at the body as she was trained?

 

[Gameface]

My bad, thought he meant 'tibia' which is like the lower leg part, shinbone area.

I guess she did the right thing then shooting at the body as she was trained?

Unlike in the movies, being accurate with a handgun is hard. That's when you're just sitting at the range, taking your time, thinking about your breathing, taking shots at a piece of paper. In a violent confrontation your accuracy is going to go WAY WAY down most of the time, especially if you're moving, the target is moving, you've got massive adrenaline going on, you're out of breath, it's dark or the sun is in your eyes, etc..

People are always trained to shoot "center mass" in those situations. Center mass (torso) is the largest target, it's the part that if you hit it you are most likely to stop the threat.

Getting fancy/stupid and trying to take a skill shot on a target's leg has a lot of potentially negative consequences. First is that you miss and the threat is not stopped. Second is that you miss and your bullet goes on to hit something you didn't intend, like an innocent person. Third, you might hit the target but not stop the target.

There's another HUGE reason why police don't shoot limbs. Shooting a person is using very potentially deadly force, period. Shooting at a limb might still kill a person, or you could try to shoot a limb but hit a more critical part of their body and kill them. So anyway, the reason deadly force is justified is because the officer fears for the life or limb of themself or another person. So in that situation there is no acceptable course of action other than to try to stop the threat completely as soon as possible. If you're not justified in using deadly force then you're not justified in pulling the trigger at all.

And that's where shooting a leg comes in. In what situation would you shoot at a leg? The right answer is never, but let's say it was a thing. The time to shoot a leg is when there is NOT an imminent threat. Shooting a leg is using a deadly weapon in a hopefully less-lethal way. So let's say you are taking shots at legs, well you might hit that big-*** artery running through the leg and the person might bleed out in a minute or so. So you tried using your gun in non-lethal way but ended up killing a person anyway when deadly force was not justified.

The bottom line here is there would be massive liability issues for police if they shot at legs. First, it implies deadly force is not justified. Second, if the situation does justify the use of deadly force, but the office shot at a leg instead and the threat ended up killing an innocent person because the leg-shot didn't stop them, the police department might get sued by the innocent victim.

Anyway, cops don't shoot at limbs.