Amber Guyger guilty of murdering black neighbor Botham Jean in his own home

The Guardian via Yahoo Noose ^ | October 2, 2019 | Tom Dart in Houston

[TexasGator]

“How did door open? “

From the outside you push.

From the inside you pull.

[TexasGator]

“How the f*** did she get in then? Hmmmm???? “

Maybe she had a keycard?

[DiogenesLamp]

Her version of the story indicates the door was open.

The reality of her walking in proves the door was open when she went through it.

Distinctive red carpeting in his apartment.

What color is the carpet in her apartment, and was it well lit enough to see that it was red in his?

Locked or not, she still entered illegally and there are no provisions in the law for singularly just “breaking” or just “entering” .

I'm pretty sure everyone that accidentally walks into someone's door isn't convicted of a felony. I think if anyone attempted to bring charges for someone accidentally opening their door, the courts would toss it out.

And it's murder if there is criminal intent. Manslaughter or reckless homicide if there isn't.

[TexasGator]

“Yes, she intended to kill him, but she thought she was killing a burglar who broke into her apartment. This makes it a legal intent, not illegal. “

ROTFLMAO! You better go see a lawyer before you end up in the pen with this gal.

[DiogenesLamp]

Eons ago, I found out some apts. had the same key after a couple of times someone would open my door and IMMEDIATELY shut it before taking one step in. I had a furnished apt. so it would be similar to others but every time, people knew in a split second it wasn’t theirs.

So extrapolating this piece of information to all people, we can conclude that no one will ever step into an apartment by accident.

I think your extrapolation is not the same as proof.

People make mistakes. Some people are slower to catch on than others.

[DiogenesLamp]

Disagree. You have to have criminal intent.

[DiogenesLamp]

I’m white and female. My judgement would be 99 years. Not everything revolves around race.

You should get with RedStateRocker. If I understand him correctly, he wants to nail her to a cross on the side of the road.

[TexasGator]

“The reality of her walking in proves the door was open when she went through it. “

No one witnessed your ‘reality’!

[DiogenesLamp]

Some dude sitting on a couch watching tv and eating ice cream isn’t an immediate threat to little 5’1” scrawny women.

So what was the reason for which you think she shot him?

[TexasGator]

“The door could have been completely off the hinges and down in the maintenance man’s shop but the second she stepped across the threshold, she “broke” the threshold and was “breaking and entering”.”

To be more correct you should refer to criminal trespass, but you would still be wrong.

[TexasGator]

“People make mistakes. Some people are slower to catch on than others. “

She was on an elite task force, trained to not make such mistakes.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

And it's murder if there is criminal intent.

""A person commits the offense of murder if the person 1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual or 2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits and act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual." Her testimony is that she intentionally and knowingly caused the death of an individual.

Manslaughter or reckless homicide if there isn't.

First, there's no such thing as reckless homicide in Texas law. Second, the law on manslaughter is "a person commits the offense of manslaughter if she recklessly causes the death of an individual. A person acts recklessly or is reckless with respect to the result of her conduct when she is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor’s standpoint." Did she consciously disregard that the result of her shooting the victim would be his death? No, her own testimony was that she aimed and fired intending to kill.

[DiogenesLamp]

Just read in the court reviews she had ended the sexy texts to her married partner 3 minutes before she fired her weapon. That’s 3 minutes to realize she was at the wrong apt.

Oh. See, I don't know how this phone "sexting" stuff works.

I never realized that after you sent a text, you immediately stopped paying attention to your phone, and started looking at everything around you.

After sending a text asking about having sex, it would never occur to me to watch the phone waiting for a reply.

After all, most people are completely unconcerned about the possibility of having sex, and are completely willing to wait for hours to see if they get an invitation to have sex with someone to whom they are attracted.

Nah, nobody waits for a return "sex" message. They just stop looking at their phone, place it in their pocket, and then go on about their business.

[Chauncey Gardiner]

You’ve a fine interpretation. But the law is clear and makes no such distinctions.

[DiogenesLamp]

Some people should not have Guns much less be on an elite task force!

Well I agree, but that still doesn't mean someone who was reckless wanted to kill someone for no good reason.

The woman was foolish, and she made a very poor judgement call. Now it's going to cost her much if not all of her life.

[DiogenesLamp]

She entered the mans apartment without his permission or an invitation, she admits the door was closed.

How did she get in?

[Tired of Taxes]

It’s only costing her 10 years.

How much time was Mr. Jean sentenced to, just for the crime of sitting down to have some ice cream in his own apartment?

[TexasGator]

“The woman was foolish, and she made a very poor judgement call.”

She was on an ego trip. Trained to kill and a menace to society.

[Tired of Taxes]

Under Texas law, this is murder because she testified that she shot him with the intent to kill.

[DiogenesLamp]

I must say, I'm finding your apparent position on this matter to be increasingly repugnant.

I find people's lack of knowledge and thereby lack of judgement to be repugnant. I didn't make up this concept of "mens rea". It has been a bedrock principle of law going back into the dark ages. It even has a f***ing Latin name, it's so old.

This business of throwing out normal standards to achieve extra super duper punishment for people we don't like is not appropriate to a civilized nation.

And the increasing levels of ignorance among supposedly knowledgeable and otherwise educated people is another sign the nation is in decay.

I shall lose no sleep over what happens to this woman, but the realization that the rule of law is fungible to political pressure and emotionalism is something that will probably keep me up some nights.

You are entitled to your own opinion, even if its silly and full of suppositions and errors in thinking. I shall lose no sleep over it.