Posted on 10/01/2019 8:55:22 AM PDT by CaptainK
Amber Guyer guilty of murder, Just announced on FOX News
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
As has been noted previously, Texas statute states that murder only requires an intent to kill. Her own testimony indicates that she shot to kill him.
That is what I have been trying to do is get people to use some kind of reasoning for their decisions.
I was told that regardless if she made a mistake, she is guilty of MURDER because she intended to pull the trigger!
If that is all that is required to commit murder, then every time a cop pulls the trigger and the perp dies, the cop is GUILTY OF MURDER! The cop INTENDED to pull the trigger and kill the perp!
When they say, well he was doing his job. SO WHAT?!? None of that matters, only the fact that he intended to pull the trigger and kill the perp! Therefore, according to some of these Freepers, that cop is a MURDERER and should be CONVICTED!
She's clearly guilty of homicide, but not deliberate or intentional homicide. She made a stupid mistake and killed a man, but she never had "intent" as I understand the term to mean when applied to a crime.
There is no mens rea. She thought she was doing a lawful thing at the time.
People just want to burn someone for a senseless tragedy and it's especially bad because there is race involved here. Had she shot a white guy, I think she would have been convicted of manslaughter.
I think some of this is about sending a message more so than it is weighing whether the charges fit the crime.
When someone is shot in the chest, you don’t just “give up”. Officer Guyger had first aid training and first aid supplies on her person when she shot Mr Jean.
Also, the bullet struck him above the left nipple and traveled into his lower torso near the spine. The coroner said the bullet damaged his heart. While that can cause all sorts of problems, including death, it doesn’t mean that CPR or other first aid won’t help.
When first responders arrived, Jean was still breathing, something not possible unless your heart is still beating. The first responders immediately began CPR and tried to control his bleeding. Guyger should have been attempting the same. Obviously, it’s not clear if he would have survived or not. Likely not. We will never know, as she didn’t try.
Several times outside of my military life, I have had to render first aid. One time, I was pretty sure the victim was dead, but I continued CPR until I was relieved by a doctor. That’s how we are trained. Guyger should have rendered aid until help arrived, but she walked away and texted her lover to complain she was going to lose her job!
Several times outside of my military life, I have had to render first aid. One time, I was pretty sure the victim was dead, but I continued CPR until I was relieved by a doctor.
I've had CPR training too, and they emphasize that only a doctor can declare a patient "dead".
Bad situation.
Sometimes CPR accelerates exsanguination.
“What sort of first aid is useful to a man with a bullet hole in the center of his chest?“
Obviously, sexting her married boyfriend was far more important than rendering first aid to the dude she shot in his own home.
“Sometimes CPR accelerates exsanguination.“
Did Amber explain that while on the stand?
Since she couldn't do anything to help him, it didn't really matter what she did.
What she should have done is act like she was trying to help him.
None of this changes the fact that she did not have any criminal intent when she shot him, which appears to be where the jury went wrong.
Hole in your heart or aorta? Here, let me push up and down on it! Don't mind that blood spurting out through the hole, i'm trying to help you!
Yes, but doing nothing is not usually an option.
In the case I mentioned, it was a head wound with no pulse, so that wasn’t a concern.
In Botham Jean’s case, he was breathing and his heart was beating, so his bleeding probably would have been first priority. The evidence indicates she didn’t even touch him. I’m not saying she would have saved him, but that she should have at least tried, rather than texting her boy toy.
No, it was a case of her accidentally seeing him as a threat, then acting appropriately for a perceived threat.
Again, Mens rea. It's a legal term that means "guilty mind." When she acted, she was not acting with a guilty mind. She believed she was doing something lawful.
Do you believe this woman had a guilty mind? That she knowingly and intentionally committed what she believed to be a criminal act?
I dislike it when people try to put false intent into other people's actions. It was her fault that she didn't realize she was not in her own apartment. There was no "intent" to go into someone else's house.
it was her fault that she drew her sidearm, and it was her fault that she took aim and killed him, even though he presented no threat.
"Threat" is in the eye of the beholder. You may or may not be aware of this, but scrawny short female police officers tend to be quite trigger happy. Far more so than males. Females know they can't win a physical struggle with a much larger male, so they immediately go to their gun for the slightest reason.
She could have easily stepped back a few steps and put herself out of his view.
I think this is right. Were I in a similar situation, I would jump back, because if I was surprised by someone in my house, I'd want to get some distance first. If they come at me I can shoot them, but first thing is to get back to a safer distance.
Had she done this, it would have been a case of "I almost shot you!" instead of shooting an innocent man.
Ironically, had she paid attention to her police training, she would have backed out of the residence and called for backup, at which point an innocent young man would still be alive, and she would still be a cop with decent judgement.
I think she panicked. Women tend to do that when they are small police officers. Post 224 summed it up pretty well.
Yes she should have been convicted, but I think "murder" is a bridge too far. Manslaughter, negligent homicide, or something similar, but intentional murder is just going too far.
“None of this changes the fact that she did not have any criminal intent when she shot him, which appears to be where the jury went wrong.”
She had a judge elected from her community and a diverse jury of her peers.
Guilty!
"Peers" doesn't necessarily mean anything. There are a lot of stupid "peers" out there that will react emotionally rather than logically.
Look at that guy that got convicted in the Charlottesville thing. He got something like 455 years in prison!
He has gotten a worse sentence than an actual premeditated murderer often gets, and it was all to send a message about how much everyone involved hates racism or something.
People don't keep perspective anymore. No common sense among much of society nowadays.
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.