Ted Cruz Wants to Avoid Rush to Judgment on Cop Who Broke Into Apartment and Killed Neighbor

“I wish Beto O’Rourke and Democrats weren’t so quick to always blame the police officer.”

Ted Cruz

Ron Sachs/CNP via ZUMA Wire

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

On Friday, Rep. Beto O’Rourke, the Democratic nominee for Texas Senate, told an audience at a Dallas church that Amber Guyger, the police officer who broke into the home of Botham Jean, her 26-year-old neighbor, and killed him on September 6th, should be fired.

“I don’t understand given the actions how anyone can come to any other conclusion,” he said.

O’Rourke, whose comments last month on police shootings went viral—and landed him on Ellen—criticized the handling of the subsequent investigation, noting that a search warrant released to the public on the day of Jean’s funeral revealed police had searched for drugs in the victim’s home.

“When we all want justice and the facts and the information to make an informed decision, what’s released to the public? That he had a small amount of marijuana in his kitchen,” O’Rourke added.

O’Rourke’s opponent, incumbent Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, took a different position. In a Sunday interview with Houston’s Fox affiliate, the first-term senator conceded that the officer who broke into an apartment and shot the man who lived there “may have been in the wrong,” but that it should be up to a jury to decide her fate.

Here’s Cruz’s full comment:

It’s a tragic situation where everyone is horrified by what happened. And it may well be that two lives were destroyed that night. That obviously the individual that was at home in his apartment and found himself murdered—that is horrific and a nightmare. As I understand it, the police officer’s story is that she was mistaken she was confused she thought she was in her apartment and was instead in his and thought he was an intruder. It’s possible what happened was a horrifying and horrific misunderstanding. Or it may be something else. And that’s why we have a legal justice system, to actually learn what the facts are, learn what happened. I wish Beto O’Rourke and Democrats weren’t so quick to always blame the police officer, always attack the police officer. She may have been in the wrong and if a jury of her peers believes that she behaved wrongly then she’ll face the consequences. But I don’t think we should jump to conclusions. It may have been just a horrific misunderstanding with horrifying consequences, or it may have been something worse.

What Cruz is doing here isn’t exactly subtle. As with his prior attacks on O’Rourke for supporting Colin Kaerpernick’s protest of police shootings, the incumbent wants to cast his Democratic rival as an America-bashing, anti-cop radical.

Cruz, evidently, sees Guyger’s case as a political opportunity. But he’s sticking his neck out after a deadly incident whose facts have already caused some conservatives to rethink their broader perspectives on police shootings. O’Rourke, for his part, wasn’t calling for summary legal judgment; he was saying that an officer who, in the most favorable reading, accidentally committed a home invasion that ended in a homicide, should not continue to be armed and deputized by the state to shoot to kill. Cruz is silent on that question.

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate