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 ...
Don't think for a moment that our enemies aren't noticing this, and making plans...
Very well, carry on.
Bingo!
I know you are not going to change your mind, but the simple text of the Texas murder law is in post 316. No one is trying to simplify it beyond that. We understand you know more about this than Judge Kemp, the Jury, and obviously anyone here.
The mistake she made moments before the shooting does not change the crime any more than taking the wrong exit from the freeway excuses any crime one commits moments later, but it can effect the appeal and sentencing.
She can appeal the charge to a second degree felony if she can demonstrate that she was panicking because, in the moment, she thought that her life was in danger. It still might be a tough sell, since Mr Jean was only armed with a bowl of ice cream. Then after realizing her mistake, she failed to try to help him in any way as he lay mortally wounded. Her remorse in the moment, recorded for all to hear, seemed to revolve around the loss of her precious job, not Mr Jean’s precious life.
....I’m no lawyer but I have an nuisance IQ and painful recall and a worthless BA and aced the LSAT ....713 in 1979 scoring scale (96 percentile) but like I said I’m no lawyer ..but they have proven useful to me in my 61 years....big time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Merlin law firm where I got my info from.
.I never wing it if I don’t know it and if I’m wrong I always own up and in this case I didn’t say it right ...and you caught that given you’re bright as well...I read your posts
https://www.medlinfirm.com/blog/the-difference-between-manslaughter-and-murder-in-texas/
~~~~~~~~~~
Manslaughter
Many states have two different forms of manslaughter: voluntary and involuntary. Texas, however, combines these two charges into one and has enhanced penalties for certain aggravating factors.
To be convicted of manslaughter, a defendant must be proven beyond reasonable doubt to have recklessly caused the death of another person. As opposed to murder, intent does not need to be proven in order to convict someone of manslaughter.
While Texas does not distinguish between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, it is the only state that has a specific crime known as “intoxication manslaughter,” which is reserved for when a death is caused by someone who was impaired by drugs or alcohol. This charge most often applies to impaired motorists. All manslaughter charges in Texas are second-degree felonies which carry prison sentences of 2 to 20 years and fines up to $10,000. Intoxication manslaughter may also result in minimum sentencing (meaning you must serve a certain period of time before being eligible for parole) and a mandatory 240-800 community services hours.
I’m saddened by the fact that many Freepers, you included, don’t think criminal intent is important in criminal law.
The mistake she made wasn’t the one “before the shooting.” The mistake WAS THE SHOOTING! What you and this jury decided is that whether she knew this was her apartment or not is immaterial to her pulling the trigger. This ruling says that no matter WHY you pulled the trigger, if you wanted the person dead when you pulled it, you are a CRIMINAL MURDERER. If a cop sees a perp in the act of raping and stabbing a child, if the cop shoots to KILL said perp, according to this ruling, the cop is a CRIMINAL MURDERER, because WHY he shot the perp is immaterial!
This jury set a very bad precedent: mens rea is NOT required to be convicted of criminal murder in Texas. I’m sorry that you don’t understand or don’t care about the legal, just and moral ramifications of such decisions. But being that I live in Texas, I may someday be affected by this legal stupidity. This is a sad and gross miscarriage of justice! This was an emotionally-charged lynch mob, who succeeded in using the court system to its end.
Her text messages are being released.
One states:
(Friend): you need a dog. There is a German Shepard available, but he’s racist.
(Amber): No worries, so am I.
He was not committing any crime. She flat out murdered him because she was criminally negligent and committed homicide. This isn’t that hard.
And that is why we have exceptions like the castle doctrine.
According to this jury, if the homeowner intends to kill the intruder when they interact with said intruder, then the homeowner is guilty of CRIMINAL MURDER! The reason WHY they engaged with said intruder is IMMATERIAL!
No he was not. He is entirely blameless for everything that happened. But she did not believe herself to be committing a crime when she shot him, and that is what makes it "not murder."
She flat out murdered him because she was criminally negligent and committed homicide. This isn’t that hard.
Negligent is not "intent." In order to be "murder" you have to have criminal intent. No criminal intent was present in this case.
Yes, it's a quibble, but some of us like a little bit of accuracy in the meaning of words.
That there is probably what did her in. Nowadays everyone is so concerned about virtue signalling how non racist they are that they want to punish "racists" extra especially hard if they can.
Has nothing to do with the actual germane facts of the case though.
This. This is an old concept in law, and I thought it would be universally understood by anyone that has any knowledge of law.
They are throwing the baby out with the bathwater here.
I think I can explain what is going on here, and thank you for your comments. I have appreciated this thread. I only seek to be corrected and contradicted so thanks in advance.
Think of it this way, nothing is true at all until the jury verdict is rendered. But as the jury listens, they are changing their minds. So under Texas law she intended to kill him and he is in fact dead at her hands, that is murder, but that word just means she is dealt with under that part of the criminal code. Her punishment may be 5 years or it may be 99 years.
Now she gets to present her justification. If the jury agrees, they can justify the killing, but that is very much an affirmative defense. The judge told the jury (did she not?) that they could consider the “castle doctrine” in their deliberations. She thought it was her home. She had no duty to retreat etc. But the jury did not buy it. I am not surprised. This “duty to retreat” which we find so objectionable really has the effect of invalidating a self defense case. “Stand Your Ground” just means they cannot automatically throw out a claim of self defense by demonstrating that she never backed up. There are many other ways of rejecting a claim of self-defense.
“Stand Your Ground” does not mean she can execute someone for being in her home. When she said, “He was the threat,” she made a statement that put her future in the jury’s hands. She must prove that in court. He was no threat to her from her perspective according to her own story. The killing is not therefore justified and the verdict is rendered, so now she is in fact a murderer. Please correct me, but there was no disputation of fact in the whole trial except her statement of rendering CPR right?
A feature of Texas law is the broad discretion given to the jury. The judge will deliver her into their hands and they can give her five years or 99 or anything in between. Those twelve can do as they like and she will serve every day of it. I expect 35 years. Some juror will say, “poor girl” and vote for 5 years. Another will say, “racist!” and want 99 years. They will go back and forth until they are tired and come back with 35 years. Am I wrong?
(I too thought all murder needed malice aforethought, but it appears not).
It appears that Texas has a quirky way of defining the word "murder" to mean something slightly different than what most people understand it to mean.
Either that, or the meaning of the word "intent" is being abused.
I have always understood the word "intent" regarding a crime to be "criminal intent", meaning a mind that was knowingly doing something illegal.
Doing something because you have been misinformed is not criminal intent.
-—You rightly said, “Texas law appears to be capable of applying the term “murder” to something that was an accident, while the laws of other states would regard this as “manslaughter” or unjustifiable homicide “. -——
I looked up the old word “murther” which was possibly pronounced with a d sound not a th sound just as we do today. Every source just says “unlawful killing” or such like.
Mens rea is a specific legal term which in court comes with all sorts of presumptions. So it is not necessary for the jury to read her mind under mens rea. She would still have to prove that she did not have an evil intention. She could say that she pulled the trigger accidentally, but she must still provide evidence to that effect. She sincerely thought that she was justified in killing him. But there is no Texas law that justified her. I hope someone will correct me, but in Texas mens rea was her intent, actus reus was the actual pulling the trigger. The jury does not have to read her mind, but even so, her thought that she was not committing some crime does not justify her.
You are right essentially in your opinion of the word murder in normal language, but not in court. She was charged and convicted under a numbered statute in Texas law which has the word murder in its language. Latin terms are used to call for established precedents. So her defense would demonstrate that either she did none of the things in court precedent that would establish her intent, (but she pointed the gun right at him,) or she did one of the things that would establish that she did not have the intent (like if she was dropping the gun and grabbed at it trying to catch it and her ring finger bumped the trigger and she killed him.)
She said she meant to kill him.
Anyway I always enjoy your comments, DiogenesLamp and appreciate your thoughts here on FreeRepublic. You are one of the heroes!
I believe the state would have to prove she did.
The jury does not have to read her mind, but even so, her thought that she was not committing some crime does not justify her.
Asserting that she had criminal intent is "reading her mind", and no, she is not justified in what she did, but it doesn't rise to the level of criminal intent.
There was no demonstrable criminal intent in shooting someone whom you thought was in your apartment.
The case is clear for reckless homicide, or manslaughter, but there is no good evidence for criminal intent which is what most normal people regard as the threshold for "murder."
But I think people are hairsplitting words and their meanings to achieve the emotional outcome they prefer.
I personally do not have a dog in this fight, I think the woman committed a grave offense and deserves to go to prison, but some of the things I don't like to see are abuse of the legal system, and twisting of commonly understood meanings of words, and this case smells like both of those to me.
Anyway I always enjoy your comments, DiogenesLamp and appreciate your thoughts here on FreeRepublic. You are one of the heroes!
Well thank you! I try to be fair and objective in my thinking, and I try to be accurate in my understanding of topics which I discuss, and hopefully most of the time I hit my mark.
Even when I disagree with people, or when they disagree with me, I hold no grudge and I will be welcoming of them as friends in future topics of discussion.
I ask that people keep in mind that we are all really friends her, and we should not let our feelings and emotions allow us to forget that we are friends and allies in the larger struggle against liberalism.
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.