Replies

I think "WTF???" And I start looking at my surroundings very carefully. I've lived in apartment complexes with numerous essentially identical buildings. Even there, the not-so subtle details give away whether or not one is in the right place.

Were you "sexting" at the time? If you are unfamiliar with it, it's about trading text messages of a sexual nature.

I don't have a modern phone, but I know a lot of people who do, and they spend every f***ing minute on those things, and they are oblivious to everything that is going on around them. Would people be even more distracted from their surroundings if they were fishing for sex in their text messages to their lover?

I sorta think they would.

So let me ask you again, were you "sexting" at the time?

I think you're trying to make excuses for a murderer. I suggest you take a good long look in the mirror, illuminated by your truth-seeking lamp, and question your own motivation for making those excuses.

I think she should have been convicted of homicide, manslaughter, or something like that. I think "murder" which to my understanding has always required criminal intent, is just a bridge too far.

Do you think that Minneapolis cop should be convicted of murder or manslaughter? Do you think he intended to commit a criminal act when he shot that woman?

I think they both deserve a murder conviction … and both of them in fact GOT a murder conviction.

You seem to see her habit of "sexting" as an excuse or mitigating factor. I see it as an aggravating factor, much as drunkenness is regarded.

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

I think she should have been convicted of homicide, manslaughter, or something like that. I think "murder" which to my understanding has always required criminal intent, is just a bridge too far.

"Homicide" isn't a criminal charge in Texas. From the jury charge:

"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.

"Our law provides 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."

Guyger testified that she intentionally caused his death. She wasn't acting recklessly, she didn't "consciously disregard" that he might die as a result of her shooting him in the chest. Her testimony is that she saw a man, pulled her gun, took aim and shot him dead. Her confusion about where she was doesn't come into it. Her own testimony took Manslaughter off the table.