Posted on 09/24/2019 8:31:35 AM PDT by Presbyterian Reporter
I hope she never gets out. Better yet would be being put in general population. too much to hope for Mr Happy Needle.
That has to be the silliest thing I’ve read in a long while, what the hell does ‘intent’ have to do with if an innocent person is dead or not? And I thought we had some stupid laws in California.
SMH.
Hope she fries.
Because unfortunately, serious accidents happen (as she is alleging in this case), but that does not mean that she MURDERED him; it means that she caused his death. Causing someone to die, without intent, is manslaughter.
By your argument, if you ran over and killed a kid, since you caused that innocent child’s death, you MURDERED THEM and therefore, you should be put to the death chamber?!? It doesn’t matter why, it doesn’t matter what you were doing, doesn’t matter what the kid was doing, none of that is important - just they are DEAD and you DID it - hello electric chair!
I am 100% for the death penalty, when it is warranted. But it is NOT warranted every time someone dies.
But it wasn't...…
Next.
“The TX Rangers first investigated the case and sent it to the Grand Jury as manslaughter. The murder charge came out of the wind.”
Yeah, it’s very stupid. Hope it doesn’t bite them in the b*tt.
See, I think juries don’t like stuff like this because they think it insults their intelligence, which it does. I do think for the most part our juries are still doing a good job. And bless those Anglo forebears who came up with that idea.
This woman should really win any and every award for screw-up of the century. I feel very, very sorry for the man who was killed, and for his family. All he was doing was sitting in his own home. Maybe he was smoking pot, or whatever, that is entirely irrelevant. OK, he failed to secure the door, I did that myself last night. One is NOT REQUIRED to secure one’s door.
People on all sides are being quite awful with a. the race mongering, and b. the “murder” mongering (because that’s how I see all this speculation that this woman had some motive to off this guy - nothing supports that).
Now, the interesting thing is that these two narratives are mutually exclusive although neither paints this woman in a good light. But each provides a much tidier story than what actually/apparently happened.
Sir,
One cannot equate what you describe as a auto accident, wherein the driver was legally operating and circumstances beyond his control resulted in a death , to this situation.
Certainly the driver in your example had no intent, but in the murder case, Guyger indeed acted with malice and intent when she drew, aimed and fired at Jean. The fact that she was mistaken regarding her presence in his apartment is irrelevant. Her actions show clear intent to shoot someone.
It may be mitigating that her actions may have been motivated by “sudden passion”, but that defense is, per TX code, useful only in sentencing.
It seems you are confusing her intent of being in the wrong apartment as the crime, when the law clearly portrays “ intent” with the actual act of the killing. Mistake of fact could be her defense if she was charged with illegally entering Jeans apartment, but it is well past that trivial matter.
We shall see!
Regard and thanks for your service.
Actually, “mistake of fact” is a very heavy part of her defense. And you are mistaken with how “intent” plays into this or any murder case.
The Judge will not instruct the jury that if she intended to kill Mr. Jean when she drew her weapon, he will instruct them that she intended to kill him when she went to his apartment.
We shall see. But I can assure you if the judge gives the earlier instructions to the jury it will be overturned on appeal.
And thank you for your service.
Also, clear intent to shoot someone isn’t clear INTENT TO MURDER or KILL.
Oy, vey!
If one points a ( presumed loaded) weapon at someone else who is innocent and not the aggressor, they indeed have the right privledge and honor to shoot first. If Jean had a firearm and he won, I don’t think he’d be standing in court....
Intention on the other party to “only wound” would evoke a very funny response in court....
You OBVIOUSLY do not understand the laws in Texas.
I’m sorry if they hurt your feelings, or don’t fall into YOUR preferred parameters, but I am telling you that if the judge tells the jury that the must ASSUME that Amber Guyger had murderous intent to kill Botham Jean, because she pulled her weapon and pointed and even pulled the trigger, Guyger will win a new trial on an appeal! I guarantee it!
Enough with the condescending platitudes.
My feelings are not hurt, this is a discussion about which we disagree on the elements of the case.
If your reading of the law in Texas leads you to the conclusion that intentionally pointing and firing a firearm ( it was not an accident) at someone resulting in their death, is excused because the firer thought she was in her apartment and that is a reasonable mistake of fact, then you certainly are entitled to that opinion.
I no where indicated that the judge ought to or should require the jury to consider anything.
We shall see.
Regards
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.