Discussion in 'Trials' started by Cobra Jet, Sep 7, 2018.
Fort Worth PD denied her application! Hmmm. It’s clear she should’ve never been a PO!
I'm guessing right in the middle (or slightly less) from this jury. 20 years? As a felon, she's now prohibited from owning or carrying a firearm in Texas, I believe.
Fortunately, verdicts do not spin on what the defendant (now murderer) thinks. No system of justice relies primarily on what the defendant says.
If it did, it wouldn't be justice. Both sides got their time in court; Ms. Guyger did not come across as credible and in fact, did a number of things that we know juries associate with dissembling and lying. So why would the jury take her point of view?
She admits she shot a man dead. She also openly admitted she intended to kill him. That's murder in Texas.
Again with wanting to bring in the Rangers statement ! ????
what time has she served! and you must have missed a lot .
But it will be a factor in her sentencing!
I love this judge. "Anyone need to go to the bathroom cause we are gonna go till you all are done."
He most certainly was NOT an unknown man in a woman's house, and there was actually no reason for her to believe that was her apartment. It was clear from the mat outside the door it was not her apartment and surely a police officer, who is trained to be observant, would not overlook that her apartment has a new doormat?
No, I read the case. She shouldn’t serve any time!
That is a good point, she meant to kill him when she fired the weapon.
But... the defense could argue that the initial reckless action was thinking she was entering her apartment. Thus, the death was due to reckless action (recklessly thinking there was an intruder in her apartment).
Shooting an actual intruder, as apposed to an innocent man is not reckless.
Amber herself testified that she intended to kill Jean. She said she was outside in the hallway when she heard noise from inside the apartment. So she went in to "find the threat" instead of following police safety protocols, and taking cover/concealment plus calling for backup.
Did you hear that!
prosecution wants to bring in her pot thing
because they brought up Bo’s pot
IMO, he's doing his job.
It doesn't have to be an accident. AND she didn't need to premeditate killing him. Again...look at the law. Understand it. Or try.
They can introduce the information but it won't be considered a mitigating factor. The judge/jury are well aware that police officers work long, exhausting shifts all the time and it doesn't result in them murdering someone.
BBM: Yes, I sure hope so.
ALL of it - the good, the bad and the ugly - needs to be exposed.
Or to stop the perceived threat in front of her!
Pretty sure this poster is nothing but a troll.... the ignore button will help filter out annoying people
Do you agree that a jury of her peers found her guilty of murder, but that she should not serve time for the felony conviction, or do you believe she’s was wrongfully convicted?
Texas has codified the castle doctrine in a series of laws that permit the use of force if one "reasonably believes" it is "immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land," and the use if deadly force if they reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent an intruder from committing a crime, or from escaping afterwards.
The flaw in this reasoning, of course, is that Guyger was not in her home—in her castle—when she killed Jean. She was, instead, trespassing in his home and breaking in to his castle, and she killed him inside of it. Under Texas law, if it had been Jean who shot and killed Guyger when she crossed over the threshold, he would have been perfectly justified in doing so.
Guyger's lawyers offered an answer for that problem, too: In Texas (and many other states), there is no crime if a defendant made a reasonable mistake about a matter of fact—here, the all-important fact that Guyger was in the wrong apartment. It is a theory that knits together two distinct legal concepts into one exculpatory narrative: Because she had an erroneous but good-faith belief about where she was, they argued, she is entitled to the protections of the castle doctrine, which absolves her of criminal responsibility.
Much of Guyger's trial centered on questions about whether her actions were, under the circumstances, reasonable: Did she not notice Jean's red doormat, for example, or differences in the hallways she walked each day? But it was impossible to ignore how race affected the way in which the trial unfolded: Amber Guyger, a white law enforcement officer, killed an unarmed black man in his home, and yet was allowed to assert a defense in court reserved for people in their own homes. As prosecutor Jason Fine put it: "This law is not in place for her. It's in place for Bo."
While you're at it, you may as well request that she be nominated for the Dallas Police Officer of the Year award.