Racist Black Judge Railroading Amber Guyger

[harmonica]

a lot of black judges are racists [ a lot of blacks are ]
they want payback for perceived/fake grievances

 

[pknopp]

Getting away from the idea that the police should be able to police themselves is once again a positive thing. His opinion is not any more valid than anyone else's opinion.

 

[Correll]

god, imagine being so incredibly brain dead you believe a person who enters into the wrong apartment, sees the real owner in there, and shoots him from many feet away, who is a policeman trained to react sensibly to stress without just shooting first and asking questions later, who could have just walked back out of the apartment, called for backup and have her gun drawn outside in the hall out of harm's way, is innocent of manslaughter or negligent homicide because she felt threatened IN SOMEBODY ELSE'S APARTMENT....i guess if she had gone to a lunch break during the trial, and then accidentally entered the wrong courtroom, became frightened and started shooting up that courtroom, you would want her to get a free pass for that, too. why do you think the judge is racist and maybe not the white cop for shooting to death an unarmed black guy in his own apartment? if think is the right word.

Yeah, those questions were answered in the thread already.


Asking them now, makes you look like you are defending the racism.

 

[Correll]

Getting away from the idea that the police should be able to police themselves is once again a positive thing. His opinion is not any more valid than anyone else's opinion.

I doubt too many people think that an investigation or trial is not called for.


But the judge's behavior, as described, does sound disturbing.

 

[pknopp]

Getting away from the idea that the police should be able to police themselves is once again a positive thing. His opinion is not any more valid than anyone else's opinion.

I doubt too many people think that an investigation or trial is not called for.


But the judge's behavior, as described, does sound disturbing.

She won't allow an opinion pass as fact. Trials should be about facts.

 

[Penelope]

Briefly, the small white police woman got off the elevator on the wrong floor (as have dozens of others) of her apartment building, walked into what she thought was her apartment after a 13 hour duty day and was confronted by a large black man who lived in that apartment. She was still in uniform. Believing she was in her apartment, she told the man to show his hands. He refused. He started moving toward her in the dark. She drew her service weapon and double-tapped him. He died shortly thereafter.

The judge is a large, belching, yawning, stretching black woman named Tammy Kemp. So far she has ignored a defense motion for mistrial since the DA defied a court order and gave the media an interview about the case, poisoning the jury pool. She has allowed a favorable picture of the victim to be placed in front of the jury. She has denied the defense expert testimony from police officers and experts in police shootings three times, not allowing the defense to defend their client. She's sure to get a conviction the way she's run this trial and sure to be overturned on appeal. It's obvious she wants to put this little white women in a prison at the mercy of her fellow-gigantic soul sisters.

Judge blocks testimony that Dallas cop acted reasonably in shooting neighbor

The only part of Armstrong's testimony the judge blocked was his view that Guyger acted reasonably and did not commit a crime. That's because that's an opinion.

I do not find that racist.

You're probably not a good judge of that

Why?

 

[Correll]

Getting away from the idea that the police should be able to police themselves is once again a positive thing. His opinion is not any more valid than anyone else's opinion.

I doubt too many people think that an investigation or trial is not called for.


But the judge's behavior, as described, does sound disturbing.

She won't allow an opinion pass as fact. Trials should be about facts.

Expert "opinion" is often presented. It is up to the jury to decide if the opinion is correct or not.

Indeed, professional opinion, witness perceptions, are all not "Facts".


YOur statement, sound like you are defending the judges behavior, even though you know it is wrong.

 

[pknopp]

Getting away from the idea that the police should be able to police themselves is once again a positive thing. His opinion is not any more valid than anyone else's opinion.

I doubt too many people think that an investigation or trial is not called for.


But the judge's behavior, as described, does sound disturbing.

She won't allow an opinion pass as fact. Trials should be about facts.

Expert "opinion" is often presented. It is up to the jury to decide if the opinion is correct or not.

Indeed, professional opinion, witness perceptions, are all not "Facts".


YOur statement, sound like you are defending the judges behavior, even though you know it is wrong.

I do not believe it is wrong. Present the facts.

 

[Billiejeens]

Briefly, the small white police woman got off the elevator on the wrong floor (as have dozens of others) of her apartment building, walked into what she thought was her apartment after a 13 hour duty day and was confronted by a large black man who lived in that apartment. She was still in uniform. Believing she was in her apartment, she told the man to show his hands. He refused. He started moving toward her in the dark. She drew her service weapon and double-tapped him. He died shortly thereafter.

The judge is a large, belching, yawning, stretching black woman named Tammy Kemp. So far she has ignored a defense motion for mistrial since the DA defied a court order and gave the media an interview about the case, poisoning the jury pool. She has allowed a favorable picture of the victim to be placed in front of the jury. She has denied the defense expert testimony from police officers and experts in police shootings three times, not allowing the defense to defend their client. She's sure to get a conviction the way she's run this trial and sure to be overturned on appeal. It's obvious she wants to put this little white women in a prison at the mercy of her fellow-gigantic soul sisters.

Judge blocks testimony that Dallas cop acted reasonably in shooting neighbor

The only part of Armstrong's testimony the judge blocked was his view that Guyger acted reasonably and did not commit a crime. That's because that's an opinion.

I do not find that racist.

You're probably not a good judge of that

Why?

Is it because I have never read anything that you have written that seemed based in reality?
Yeah - that's it.

 

[Correll]

Getting away from the idea that the police should be able to police themselves is once again a positive thing. His opinion is not any more valid than anyone else's opinion.

I doubt too many people think that an investigation or trial is not called for.


But the judge's behavior, as described, does sound disturbing.

She won't allow an opinion pass as fact. Trials should be about facts.

Expert "opinion" is often presented. It is up to the jury to decide if the opinion is correct or not.

Indeed, professional opinion, witness perceptions, are all not "Facts".


YOur statement, sound like you are defending the judges behavior, even though you know it is wrong.

I do not believe it is wrong. Present the facts.

Expert opinion is common accepted practice. YOUr position is insane.

 

[Billiejeens]

Getting away from the idea that the police should be able to police themselves is once again a positive thing. His opinion is not any more valid than anyone else's opinion.

I doubt too many people think that an investigation or trial is not called for.


But the judge's behavior, as described, does sound disturbing.

She won't allow an opinion pass as fact. Trials should be about facts.

There are very few actual facts in the world.
There are many perceptions that confirm someone's bias that they then see as fact.

 

[pknopp]

Getting away from the idea that the police should be able to police themselves is once again a positive thing. His opinion is not any more valid than anyone else's opinion.

I doubt too many people think that an investigation or trial is not called for.


But the judge's behavior, as described, does sound disturbing.

She won't allow an opinion pass as fact. Trials should be about facts.

Expert "opinion" is often presented. It is up to the jury to decide if the opinion is correct or not.

Indeed, professional opinion, witness perceptions, are all not "Facts".


YOur statement, sound like you are defending the judges behavior, even though you know it is wrong.

I do not believe it is wrong. Present the facts.

Expert opinion is common accepted practice. YOUr position is insane.

Biased "expert" opinion. He has absolutely NO idea what she was doing or thinking that night.

 

[pknopp]

Getting away from the idea that the police should be able to police themselves is once again a positive thing. His opinion is not any more valid than anyone else's opinion.

I doubt too many people think that an investigation or trial is not called for.


But the judge's behavior, as described, does sound disturbing.

She won't allow an opinion pass as fact. Trials should be about facts.

There are very few actual facts in the world.
There are many perceptions that confirm someone's bias that they then see as fact.

That is what this testimony was trying to do. Influence perceptions as facts. It was right to keep it out of the trial.

 

[Correll]

I doubt too many people think that an investigation or trial is not called for.


But the judge's behavior, as described, does sound disturbing.

She won't allow an opinion pass as fact. Trials should be about facts.

Expert "opinion" is often presented. It is up to the jury to decide if the opinion is correct or not.

Indeed, professional opinion, witness perceptions, are all not "Facts".


YOur statement, sound like you are defending the judges behavior, even though you know it is wrong.

I do not believe it is wrong. Present the facts.

Expert opinion is common accepted practice. YOUr position is insane.

Biased "expert" opinion. He has absolutely NO idea what she was doing or thinking that night.

Sure he does. He can look at the facts and using his experience and expertise, come to a conclusion about her actions and thoughts.


That, btw, is basically what our system is asking the jury to do. So, if opinion doesn't matter, than our whole system is a scam and we should go back to Trial by Combat.

 

[Correll]

to say the judge is racist and is trying to "railroad" a cop who entered the wrong apartment and shot the unarmed rightful occupant to death is the height of racist bullshit. just because the judge is black and the cop is white makes someone believe race is involved? judges make rulings all the time about what is considered evidence and what is considered not. and i live here and I saw the cop on tv making these statements to the jury so I am not sure what the original poster is even crying about. sure would not want to see somebody get punished for shooting to death an unarmed person IN THEIR OWN APARTMENT WITHOUT WARNING.....

and here is another factoid that makes you wonder just how accurate her story is- she says she entered the wrong apartment, but it was at night, and she had been gone from her apartment a long time, shouldn't she have had a clue it was not her apartment when her key did not fit? Or is she trying to say she goes away for long periods of time without locking her door behind her? Shouldn't she have known something was up if the door was open and not locked or if her key did not fit the door? Was she on drugs? Drunk? People who drink and drive and injure other drivers are prosecuted for mistakes not for intentionally hurting anyone....some parents who somehow forget their kid is in the car and they die in the heat are prosecuted and they did not intend to hurt them...why should she get off for doing something just as negligent, if not more?

The op explained his reasons for coming to his conclusion that the judge is being racist.


Instead of just asking that same question, over and over, what you need to do, if you want to disagree,


is to explain why you think he stated reasons are wrong.



What you are doing, by ignoring the state explanation and defending the judge without addressing them,


makes it look like you agree that this is racism, and support it BECAUSE it is racism.


Is that your intent?

 

[pknopp]

She won't allow an opinion pass as fact. Trials should be about facts.

Expert "opinion" is often presented. It is up to the jury to decide if the opinion is correct or not.

Indeed, professional opinion, witness perceptions, are all not "Facts".


YOur statement, sound like you are defending the judges behavior, even though you know it is wrong.

I do not believe it is wrong. Present the facts.

Expert opinion is common accepted practice. YOUr position is insane.

Biased "expert" opinion. He has absolutely NO idea what she was doing or thinking that night.

Sure he does. He can look at the facts and using his experience and expertise, come to a conclusion about her actions and thoughts.


That, btw, is basically what our system is asking the jury to do. So, if opinion doesn't matter, than our whole system is a scam and we should go back to Trial by Combat.

A jury is instructed to rule on the facts. He is no more of an expert than the other 100 people the other side could present that state that they never walk into the wrong apartment.

 

[Correll]

Expert "opinion" is often presented. It is up to the jury to decide if the opinion is correct or not.

Indeed, professional opinion, witness perceptions, are all not "Facts".


YOur statement, sound like you are defending the judges behavior, even though you know it is wrong.

I do not believe it is wrong. Present the facts.

Expert opinion is common accepted practice. YOUr position is insane.

Biased "expert" opinion. He has absolutely NO idea what she was doing or thinking that night.

Sure he does. He can look at the facts and using his experience and expertise, come to a conclusion about her actions and thoughts.


That, btw, is basically what our system is asking the jury to do. So, if opinion doesn't matter, than our whole system is a scam and we should go back to Trial by Combat.

A jury is instructed to rule on the facts. He is no more of an expert than the other 100 people the other side could present that state that they never walk into the wrong apartment.

He seems like he claimed that this was a common occurrence.

"
"How many of all floors have walked to the wrong apartment on the wrong floor and put their key in the wrong door?" the defense asked Armstrong, who replied, "That would be 15%"

"


A little unclear, but it seems that others do do it. So, any "other side" would have to explain why all those other residents were lying.

 

[The Professor]

My assessment of the evidence convinces me that Amber Guyger will be found guilty. She originally told two separate and conflicting stories about what happened and the story she elected to stick with is not believable. I have already written about this issue on USMB and you can find my article at the following link:

Grand jury hears evidence in Dallas police officer shooting of black neighbor

Outside of her inconsistent statements, the strongest evidence against her is (1) the red carpet in front of Jean's door was an obvious indication that it was not her apartment; and (2) the testimony of two witnesses who say they heard a female banging on the door and yelling, “Let me in, let me in!” before hearing a gun being fired. No one ever bangs on their own door and demands admission into their own unoccupied home when their key doesn't work. If the jury believes the witnesses are telling the truth, Guyger is toast.

 

[pknopp]

I do not believe it is wrong. Present the facts.

Expert opinion is common accepted practice. YOUr position is insane.

Biased "expert" opinion. He has absolutely NO idea what she was doing or thinking that night.

Sure he does. He can look at the facts and using his experience and expertise, come to a conclusion about her actions and thoughts.


That, btw, is basically what our system is asking the jury to do. So, if opinion doesn't matter, than our whole system is a scam and we should go back to Trial by Combat.

A jury is instructed to rule on the facts. He is no more of an expert than the other 100 people the other side could present that state that they never walk into the wrong apartment.

He seems like he claimed that this was a common occurrence.

"
"How many of all floors have walked to the wrong apartment on the wrong floor and put their key in the wrong door?" the defense asked Armstrong, who replied, "That would be 15%"

"


A little unclear, but it seems that others do do it. So, any "other side" would have to explain why all those other residents were lying.

Police officers are known to lie.

 

[Correll]

Expert opinion is common accepted practice. YOUr position is insane.

Biased "expert" opinion. He has absolutely NO idea what she was doing or thinking that night.

Sure he does. He can look at the facts and using his experience and expertise, come to a conclusion about her actions and thoughts.


That, btw, is basically what our system is asking the jury to do. So, if opinion doesn't matter, than our whole system is a scam and we should go back to Trial by Combat.

A jury is instructed to rule on the facts. He is no more of an expert than the other 100 people the other side could present that state that they never walk into the wrong apartment.

He seems like he claimed that this was a common occurrence.

"
"How many of all floors have walked to the wrong apartment on the wrong floor and put their key in the wrong door?" the defense asked Armstrong, who replied, "That would be 15%"

"


A little unclear, but it seems that others do do it. So, any "other side" would have to explain why all those other residents were lying.

Police officers are known to lie.

So, it would be the job of the defense to ask the cop to support his claim, and then for him to either do it, or not be able to do it.


If he was unable to support his claim, then his "opinion" on the woman's actions, would hopefully not be given much weight by the jury.


Banning him from giving his professional, expert opinion, seems like an overreach by the judge.