Posted on 10/02/2019 7:33:21 AM PDT by Meatspace
DALLAS — Prosecutors showed jurors racist and violent texts and social media posts linked to former Dallas police officer Amber Guyger as the sentencing phase began Tuesday afternoon.
Following the Tuesday morning guilty verdict, the jury returned to the courtroom early in the afternoon.
Jurors paid rapt attention as prosecutors displayed texts by Guyger.
The first text message thread presented to the jury was from Jan. 15, 2018 during the Martin Luther King Jr. parade in Dallas.
"When does this end lol," read a text to Guyger.
"When MLK is dead… oh wait…” she responded.
“Just push them… or spray your pepper spray in that general area,” she said in a text while discussing the crowd at the parade.
(Excerpt) Read more at wfaa.com ...
Texts??? But but but....I thought texts were private conversations. Guess you gotta be real careful who your “friends” are.
Social media is another animal completely. Only stupid people toss out to the world every little thought that enters that pointy little head.
Earlier reports (pre-trial) also had her exchanging very racy texts with her f-buddy, a fellow cop. She was evidently quite horny and arranging a later booty call. Naturally the media focus on the racist-seeming texts. It’s amazing how quickly this case went to trial and a verdict rendered.
The murdering racist bitch is getting what she deserves. She murdered a man in cold blood. Should get the death penalty.
Surprised the Judge didn't put a stop to this. It's prejudicial and has nothing to do with the actual crime.
Yes, texts. Stating that you are a racist does not usually help in the sentencing phase of a trial.
“In another text exchange, from Sept. 4, 2018, someone texted Guyger that she should adopt a German Shepherd.
“Although she may be racist,” the dog’s owner messaged Guyger.
“It’s okay.. I’m the same,” Guyger responded.”
“This is just an attempt to portray her as a bad person....”
1. Had an affair with a married man
2. Barges into a home that is not her own.
3. Murders a man in cold blood.
4. Rather than attempting first aid, she sexts her married boyfriend
5. States that she is a racist.
Not sure if the state can portray her as a bad person.
I don’t care is she’s racist or not. I don’t see how that matters to this case, however, I am glad that she got convicted of murder.
Can’t just walk in and kill someone and then say oops, my bad.
But I don’t think this incident was race related, although it is possible if there is some detail I’m not aware of.
Not surprised. The Jury was all women and majority black. How did her attorney manage to not get a balanced pool of jurors? She should have received manslaughter.
Her defense team presented other tenants at her apartment complex where they too had parked on wrong floor and tried to enter into wrong apartment.
“How did her attorney manage to not get a balanced pool of jurors?”
It’s Dallas County. The jury is balanced.
The members of the jury were her peers.
She testified in her own defense, probably against her attorneys wishes. She said some pretty damning things on the stand.
“She testified in her own defense, probably against her attorneys wishes. She said some pretty damning things on the stand.”
I knew she was done when the prosecutor backed off during cross. She was so stupid, so incompetent, that additional cross would have generated sympathy.
Has nothing to do with her crime.
2. Barges into a home that is not her own.
Thought it was her own home. This is called a "mistake."
3. Murders a man in cold blood.
Isn't murder if there is no criminal intent. Is manslaughter.
4. Rather than attempting first aid, she sexts her married boyfriend
Cannot do any meaningful first aid on a man who's heart has been pierced by a bullet. You have to be some sort of idiot to think pumping up and down on a man's shot heart is going to do him any good. All it will do is speed up exsanguination. (blood loss)
5. States that she is a racist.
Has nothing to do with the actual crime of shooting a man accidentally because you thought he was in your apartment.
Not sure if the state can portray her as a bad person.
The state should confine their arguments to facts that are actually germane to the crime, not drag up crap that has nothing to do with the actual offense she committed.
Punishing people for "wrong think" is an extremely dangerous thing to do, because we shall all be guilty of "wrong think" at some point in the future.
Or, as Napoleon supposedly said “Never interfere with your enemy when they are defeating themselves”
Haven't looked at the actual jury makeup, but a quick check on Dallas county Demographics yields the following.
The racial makeup of the county was 53.54 White (33.12% Non-Hispanic White), 22.30% Black or African American.... 38.30% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race.
So the jury should approximately reflect 53% white, 38% Hispanic, and 22% Black.
Of course it is ridiculous to implement these sorts of quota systems in practice, and we ought to live in a society where race isn't considered a factor.
I'm thinking she made a terrible mistake in thinking she had any chance of getting off for this offense. She was probably offered a deal for manslaughter and some years in jail, and she just didn't want to take it. She probably directed her lawyer to pursue a "not guilty" verdict, and that just wasn't going to happen considering what she did.
She was wishfully thinking, and now the prosecutor has gone to the max he thought he could get away with.
Amber elected to live in Dallas County.
Amber elected to commit a crime in Dallas County.
By those two actions, Amber elected jury.
You seem upset about the whole thing. She got convicted. What more do you want?
Unless there is a specific connection to the actual crime then this information w\should not be coming before the jury.
I know this is in Texas but in California it is an abuse of judicial discretion.
Evidence Code section 352:
“The court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.