16
votes
Former Dallas PD officer ordered to pay $100 million
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Ex-cop ordered to pay $100 million for killing man in his apartment
- Published
- Nov 21 2024
- Word count
- 536 words
Former Dallas police officer Amber Guyger was ordered to pay $100 million after being found liable for
bad stuff
the murder of Botham Jean in a civil trial. She mistakenly entered his apartment, thinking it was her own. He was sitting on his couch watching TV, eating vanilla cream when she surprised him by opening the door, then shot him twice and killed him.She’s currently serving her criminal sentence and won’t be freed anytime soon.
How does someone who was likely worth little to nothing actually pay this kind of penalty? A company would likely have insurance that pays out when sued. Does anyone understand how it would work for an individual?
Is it merely symbolic? The quote from the family makes it seem like they think they’ll see some money from this.
Edit: no one was wearing ice cream…thanks @Khalos
I have highly competent criminal lawyer friends. Not one of them would defend themself at trial. It’s no surprise that this turned out to be a stupid outcome.
"[H]e who will be his own Counsellour, shall be sure to have a Fool for his Client." - William De Britaine, 1682.
Not that it's the most important thing, but he was eating not wearing vanilla ice cream when he was killed.
I'm sure this was just an innocent typo, but it paints a very different picture of this poor man's last moments.
Kinda?
She's only serving a 10 year sentence and is next eligible for early release in 2026. Once out, she's going to need a job, and somewhere to live, etc. She's never going to have $100M, but they can request restitution be ordered which will garner any wages she earns and put judgment liens on any property she obtains so that upon sale the money goes to them instead of her (house, car, retirement, investments, etc.)
She shot a man eating ice cream in his own home. She'll spend up to 10 years in prison and will never live a prosperous life again, the former as judgement from her criminal trial, the latter as judgement from the civil trial.
If nothing else, they'll be able to take all of her assets beyond some fairly punitive baselines, have liens on any she somehow acquires in the future, and garnish her income for the rest of her life. It's not likely to be $100M, but it'll be something. I have no idea what her net worth was before this, but it'll be negative for the rest of her life.
Just 10 years for murdering someone. <_<
Distracted or not, she heard someone was in there beforehand and had plenty of time to stop to think but instead chose to shoot someone who had yet to be a credible threat. I'm all for the castle doctrine, because without it you have to let criminals do as they wish to your property, but using it as justification to kill someone who isn't a threat (to life or property) or even in your own home is asinine. No threat because she had no reason to think he'd run before help arrived to arrest him and was obviously not in any danger if she had yet to open the door.
Don't police have a rule about going into a potentially risky situation without backup? It's just really hard to believe she thought she was in danger. Seems more likely she knew about the castle doctrine and planned to shoot whoever was inside before even seeing who it was, thinking she'd be protected.
Was it her or is this just how police are trained, to have zero care for human life or shoot first ask questions later? She's crying over killing an innocent person, but does she think it'd have been fine to shoot him if he were an actual intruder? It's ok to shoot criminals committing petty crimes, especially when there's plenty of time to get help to arrest them instead? What would have happened if he got the wrong apartment and walked into hers? Would she have just shot him there too?
What I don’t understand is how this could possibly be considered accidental. The article doesn’t mention her being drunk or high, but honestly you would have to be extremely inebriated to miss so many clues it leads to murdering someone. I get pressing the wrong button and going to the wrong apartment because the layout of the nth floor is the same as the n+1th floor. But, what, did she think that someone cleaned up all of her belongings and then replace them all with brand new things?
And then there is all the hullabaloo about letting her go because of the insane “self defense” gun laws in Texas, but I’ll refrain from commenting further on it because it wouldn’t change anything.
If he had been in the wrong apartment, we wouldn't be seeing these fines levied in an attempt at justice. It would just be another name on the memorial of Americans killed by an increasingly militant police force.