Discussion in 'Trials' started by Cobra Jet, Sep 7, 2018.
Maybe ice cream is a lethal weapon.
They are not going to get a conviction for murder.
Manslaughter at best
Armstrong just said that once she was in the apartment hallway (inside the apartment), her best choice was to start shooting.
JMO, her best choice was to call for back up and wait when she was outside the apartment and heard someone moving around inside. Did Guyger, her defense or their experts take into consideration the danger of having a gunfight inside a crowded apartment building full of people when it could have been avoided?
I agree, but only because she is a Caucasian cop.
What do you base that on?
If I understood correctly, he will NOT be allowed to testify her actions were reasonable. Per judge that is for the jury to decide.
Peeked in at the trial today for the first time & was surprised to see a portrait of the victim displayed on the judges bench. Don't remember ever seeing that before.
Sure, alleviate her grief with another woman's husband. Is that what she was trying to do when she texted Rivera that she was "horny" on the day and just a few hours before she killed Botham?
Prosecution is doing a good job of showing the limits of the validity of Armstrong's testimony. He doesn't know what she thought or how she felt. She is able to testify about that herself, so he doesn't need to.
I agree. They are doing a good job narrowing this down.
I was very nervous heading into today, but I feel they have been very professional and technical.
I think the judge won't allow Armstrong, or if she does she will limit what he can say so much it will be useless to the defense.
Prosecution now going after speculation and opinion about what happened or how Guyger felt. He doesn't know how she felt, if she had vision restriction, auditory exclusion, etc. Would be idle speculation offered to the jury. Ms Guyger can talk about these things herself.
I wonder how much the defense is paying their witnesses. None of them have seemed terribly invested in this.
Lots of people have sex before a tragic event happens. One doesn't have to trigger the other. Sex is natural.
This. Everyone’s journey with grief is unique and when you navigate it it’s not a straight path. It’s up and down, back and forth and can catapult you into unknown places. Many of us here know this. We know it because we’ve had our own journey or we’ve witnessed someone else find their own way.
While AGs sexting MR after BJs death is certainly inappropriate, I can understand that maybe this time, her need was driven by something entirely different than before. I have seen some very inappropriate things transpire during grief and under extreme amounts of shock and/or stress.
That being said, I’m not saying this is the case here, just trying to maintain some objectivity.
All is simply my own opinion.
What about having it after a tragic event? Sexting with a married person a day or two after you killed an innocent person?
With a minority jury.