Posted on 10/02/2019 9:33:26 AM PDT by Navy Patriot
A former police officer who argued she had a right to use lethal force when she killed an innocent man after mistakenly entering his apartment has been convicted of murder.
Amber Guyger faces a lengthy prison sentence after a jury found her guilty of the murder of Botham Jean in Dallas on 6 September last year – a verdict Jean family attorneys hailed as a significant moment in the battle to hold police accountable.
Guyger is white. Jean was black. Guyger is the first Dallas police department officer to be convicted of murder since the 1970s, the Dallas Morning News reported.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
How do I know? The whole place was furnished differently. They are not furnished apartments.
In re the ice cream eating anything out of a bowl- murderous intruders don’t sit there and eat out if a bowl while hunting.
“I don’t think arrogance was behind this at all. I think fear was behind this. Unwarranted fear, but fear non the less.”
She had another shooting ... a dude that took her taser away.
OTOH this posting by her:
“I wear all black to remind you not to mess with me, because I’m already dressed for your funeral.”
In re something going on I have read that they had had previous arguments but I can’t cite the source.
“That works on a door one floor above her? “
Wow! Right over your head!
well then we both understand that you don’t know everything.
I know of a lot of doors where action must be taken to engage the locking mechanism.
“In Texas, she was charged with murder because she shot to kill. Period”.
Don’t you just love it when people from other places just can’t help but tell you how you are supposed to do things where you live.
We live in the high and very remote mountains of cali and we get the flatlander city slickers up here all the time and they are trained parrots. The first words out of their mouths is, “that is not how we do things at home”.
My reply is always the same, “then go the fuck home”.
“well then we both understand that you don’t know everything.
I know of a lot of doors where action must be taken to engage the locking mechanism.”
So you are claiming that the door was NOT self-closing and self-locking?
How do you know that?
Please: NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts.
“So you are claiming that the door was NOT self-closing and self-locking?”
I only know of one person who knows the state of and situation of that door and what she said on the witness stand.
Do you think she lied? There was no testimony that her key worked in the door or unlocked the door. If you think she was telling the truth about everything else then it is reasonable for you to think she was telling the truth about this too.
“I only know of one person who knows the state of and situation of that door and what she said on the witness stand.”
You?
I hear ya'. :-)
As for Texas, I'm an outsider myself. I've never even visited that state (though I'd love to, someday).
That was stupid
“I only know of one person who knows the state of and situation of that door and what she said on the witness stand.”
You?
No the only person who is still alive who was there that night and who testified that she turned the handle and it opened.
“...jury nullification...”
Did you see the court’s instructions to the jury before deliberations? They were given complete latitude to do whatever they wanted with her. They could find guilty or not guilty of murder or manslaughter. They were instructed to find guilty on manslaughter if they were hung on murder. They could consider her exculpatory narrative and the castle doctrine if they wished. Furthermore they could give her five or ninety nine years. What is to nullify?
Basically,I nullify the right of the judge to tell me what to think or what to do while sitting on a jury....among other things.
And BTW...for the record...I think that ten years might be a reasonable sentence for her appalling negligence despite the fact that one or two Freepers wanted her hanged.
So what you are telling me is that shooting someone with intent to kill is sometimes not murder, so defining "murder" as killing someone intentionally is not accurate.
Exactly my point.
People get shot in Texas by someone with intent to kill every year, and these people who are shooting to kill do not get charged with murder and are not convicted of murder.
Therefore the defacto definition of "murder" in Texas is not based on mere intent to kill.
As sipow has pointed out above, there are "exceptions".
Exceptions mean that the definition isn't merely "intent to kill." Some "intents to kill" are legal, and some are not.
But this is putting a finer point on it than most people want to bother, so we just inaccurately accept that "murder" in Texas means "intent to kill", even though there are so many exceptions to this, you can drive a truck through them.
This has become a pointless argument. The woman killed a man accidentally because of her bad judgement, and she deserves to go to prison, and she is going to prison.
Who cares if we use accuracy in meaning? The consequences appear to be the same.
Do you believe she lied?
But, the fact that she intended to kill means she didn't commit manslaughter. Guyger was not charged with manslaughter because she didn't "recklessly" cause the man's death. She herself testified that she shot him with the intention to kill.
That's why she was charged with murder (and not manslaughter). If you intended to kill, you didn't commit manslaughter.
Some "intents to kill" are legal, and some are not.
Sure, sometimes people shoot to kill in self-defense, for example. In this case, her attorneys brought up Castle Doctrine as a defense. But, the reality is that Mr. Jean was sitting in his own apartment, and she went into his apartment and killed him. That wasn't self-defense.
Apparently, Texas has only capital murder (where the perp faces the death penalty) and murder (where the perp faces 5-99 years). She was rightfully charged with murder. She was rightfully found guilty.
Apparently, in Texas, after a murder conviction, the jury then takes other factors into consideration when they decide on sentencing. A few of you here were complaining about the murder conviction before she was even sentenced. Now, as you can see, her sentence is pretty much a slap on the wrist.
Thanks for your reply. I am interested in hearing more from you. I will go back through your posts and comments.
I understand in Texas she will serve half, five years before her first parole hearing. She will not be released at that time probably. You don’t get out until your second or third hearing usually. And there is no credit for time served and such on this charge.
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.