What if I go get high then go into the wrong apartment thinking 100% in my mind it is my apartment with no intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault?

Here the problem with your attempt to apply that to this case.

She did not enter, what she thought was her own home, with the intent to commit an assault. However, while she was there, she did commit the definition of an assault, in self-defense. Using you argument this would apply to anyone that “assaults” a burglar in their own home.

Sec. 30.02. BURGLARY. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, the person:
(1) enters a habitation, or a building (or any portion of a building) not then open to the public, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault; or
(2) remains concealed, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault, in a building or habitation; or
(3) enters a building or habitation and commits or attempts to commit a felony, theft, or an assault.

Then you can not be tried for Burglary. According to penal code 30.02.

OK, so if "I THINK" it is my home, does that by matter of law "MAKE IT MY HOME"

I have a hard time following this line of thought. Just because I think the speed limit is 70, if the speed limit is actually 55 and I get pulled over, my thoughts of the matter don't change the fact of the matter.

Similarly, just because a squatter thinks my home is theirs, it doesn't become theirs unless I abandon it, correct? If I think your home is mine, can I just walk in and assume it is mine?

THE APARTMENT WASN"T HER APARTMENT....therefore, she should not be entitled to self defense as it was her assaulting someone, not the converse.

Am I wrong here? Any lawyers feel free to speak up, because I am not one and I don't understand why this concept is eluding me...

A comparison I'm seeing, is if a schizophrenia patient hears something and "thinks" he's being attacked and kills someone innocent. Then because this patient thought that he was being attacked, it's ok to kill someone and they should not be held responsible. That line of thinking is what's wrong. She was in the wrong apartment by her own mistake and killed someone. It may not be murder, but it sure is something related to it, and not a self defense situation.

If you see what she did was in self defense, then that's the problem. She will be found guilty of some form of manslaughter or homicide.

No mercy from me. Royal f-ups like this deserve a very, very stiff penalty, IMO. It's the only way to help prevent them in the future.

Well, it happens every day on our southern border so there's that.

I'm kidding - only stirring the pot a little.

Not gonna read all this. Nor argue but here's my 2 cents.

I personally do not want anyone in prison for a pure d accident/ mistake. Should she be an officer? No.
It does not benefit us as society by having someone like her in prison. She is not threat to society. Putting someone in prison will not make them a better person. It will not make them a productive member of society and I'll have to pay for it. Then they'll get out not be able to function in society which means.... More tax burden.

I would agree IF this were an accidental discharge (I know there is no such thing, but you know what I am saying) or a ricochet or something like that. This was someone who made a mistake and then the mistake worse by pulling the trigger on an unarmed man. She had intent to kill, it was no accident. It turns out her intent was misplaced in her wrong place, but that's on her...no accident here.

I'm sure Mr. Jean would differ with those statements. She's already proven she's a threat to society by making a big mistake of entering into someone else's apartment and shooting them. No, she's not a hardened criminal, but her ignorance/stupidity caused her own problem and someone else died due to her mistake. People have to pay for their mistakes. She should have to pay for her mistake. No one wins in this deal. The worst off was Mr. Jean. That's a sad deal.

Exactly! This case is drenched in race politics; involving a cop compounds the situation. They MUST find her guilty of something with jail time. No matter what, the amount time won't be enough. Therefore, possible rioting and the opportunity to damage and steal stuff. We've seen versions of this movie before.

Boggles the mind, doesn’t it?

The lead investigator, Texas Ranger David Armstrong, said Wednesday that he doesn’t believe Guyger committed any crime, including murder, manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide.

https://www.wfaa.com/video/news/spe...287-26724f4d-1555-4d5d-943e-590a39e6e029

The fact she was wearing a dept issued uniform, dept issued badge, carrying a dept issued firearm and may or may not have identified herself as a police officer just before shooting may put her in an "Acting under Color of Law" situation. It is too far over my head to know if that is a good thing or bad thing for her or how it could play into a subsequent civil lawsuit.

That’s not what prison is for. Prison is a punishment.

She also is obviously a danger to society.

I have thought about this all day since I first heard it...is this just a cop covering up another cops mistake? What am I missing here, really what am I missing? She killed a dude. With intent. By mistaking his house for hers. Someone please tell me how this is not at least manslaughter?

I just don’t get it, the nuance of the law. Recklessly causing a death vs intentionally causing a death, how do we parse the language and how do we parse the decision to charge a crime? Someone please help because I really do not get it.

It wasn’t in front of the jury and the judge won’t allow him to testify his opinion in front of the jury.

David Armstrong has his own past with an accident and someone dying and not being punished, despite him breaking department policy.

http://lawflog.com/?p=2058

(Link to the lawsuit is in that blog post, and there are also media reports about the incident if you google, but I don’t have a subscription to the SA Express, so I couldn’t read their article.)

Sec. 8.02. MISTAKE OF FACT. (a) It is a defense to prosecution that the actor through mistake formed a reasonable belief about a matter of fact if his mistaken belief negated the kind of culpability required for commission of the offense.

He's a Texas Ranger and knows the Penal Code quite well I'm sure.

I keep on hearing that she thought it was her apartment, because this is what she said. Has anyone ever considered that she intentionally went into his apartment. We will never know otherwise.
So many are defending her on what she claims happened.

The fact that the judge won't let his testimony, the senior investigator of the incident, be heard by the jury sets her up for an appeal if convicted....

He testified, just not about his opinion. His testimony was very favorable to the defense. He testified the investigation concluded that 15% of the residents of the building on all floors have parked on the wrong floor in the garage and went to the wrong door, believing it was theirs, and put their key card in the wrong door.

What would the motive be for her to go in his apartment intentionally and kill him. I have not heard any theories on this. Did I miss something

And when it didn't work they didn't go in anyway and kill the person who lives there.

Are the apartment numbers not on the door??? Or next to the door??

Awww.... just send her to Gatesville for 36 months. Shut down the media b.s. and spare the innocent folks from all of the fallout that will happen.