Racist Black Judge Railroading Amber Guyger

[Skylar]

If she had not believed she was in her own apartment she would not have shot the guy...ridiculous to believe otherwise.

And still irrelevant.

Nonsense............that is the case in a nutshell.

Nope. It isn't.

Amber had ample opportunity to de-escalate.Her willful disregard for the opportunities to de-escalate elminate the claim that she 'had no choice'. She could have chosen to utilize any of those opportunities to de-esclate.

She had choices other than murdering Botham Jean. And instead, chose to shoot an unarmed man to death in his own apartment. Eliminating any claims of self defense.

Which is why her lawyers were forced to use their desperation play, their comic misapplication of the 'Castle Doctrine', insisting that she didn't have an obligation to back down or de-escalate. They did this because their self defense argument had already failed, due to the numeerous OTHER choices that Amber had to de-escalate.

And of course, their Castle Doctrine claim also failed......as murdering a man in his own home isn't the "Castle Doctrine".

Thus, Amber was rightfully convicted of murdering an unarmed man and justly sentenced to 10 years in prison. A sentence she earned and deserves.

 

[Grumblenuts]

If you believe you are in your own home

If you believe in the Tooth Fairy...

If one honestly believes they are in their own home then they will act like they are in their own home.

Anyone confronted with what they sincerely believe is a intruder in their home should not be blamed for trying to neutralize the threat.

At most she should just have just been charged with negligent homicide.

If one honestly believes in the Tooth Fairy, they are likely a small child, and as irrelevant as is repeatedly crying "intent" where criminal negligence is at issue.

Oh, she absolutely intended to shoot him. She intentionally shot him Jean to death. Which is why they went with murder rather than manslaughter.

And per the laws of Texas, rightly so.

Doesn't matter. Texas smushes Murder 1 & 2 together because they don't care whether it's premeditated. Criminal negligence + illegal entry is enough. Intent becomes an issue only in the sentencing phase.

 

[Skylar]

If you believe you are in your own home

If you believe in the Tooth Fairy...

If one honestly believes they are in their own home then they will act like they are in their own home.

Anyone confronted with what they sincerely believe is a intruder in their home should not be blamed for trying to neutralize the threat.

At most she should just have just been charged with negligent homicide.

If one honestly believes in the Tooth Fairy, they are likely a small child, and as irrelevant as is repeatedly crying "intent" where criminal negligence is at issue.

Oh, she absolutely intended to shoot him. She intentionally shot him Jean to death. Which is why they went with murder rather than manslaughter.

And per the laws of Texas, rightly so.

Doesn't matter. Texas smushes Murder 1 & 2 together because they don't care whether it's premeditated. Criminal negligence + illegal entry is enough. Intent becomes an issue only in the sentencing phase.

We're agreeing. Manslaughter in Texas is usually accidentally killing someone. Like cleaning a gun and having it go off and kill someone in the next room. It didn't match what Amber did.

The prosecutors decided to go with murder instead, based largely on the fact that the killing was willful and intentional rather than accidental, as is the case in Manslaughter.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

If you believe you are in your own home

If you believe in the Tooth Fairy...

If one honestly believes they are in their own home then they will act like they are in their own home.

Anyone confronted with what they sincerely believe is a intruder in their home should not be blamed for trying to neutralize the threat.

At most she should just have just been charged with negligent homicide.

If one honestly believes in the Tooth Fairy, they are likely a small child, and as irrelevant as is repeatedly crying "intent" where criminal negligence is at issue.

Oh, she absolutely intended to shoot him. She intentionally shot him Jean to death. Which is why they went with murder rather than manslaughter.

And per the laws of Texas, rightly so.

Doesn't matter. Texas smushes Murder 1 & 2 together because they don't care whether it's premeditated. Criminal negligence + illegal entry is enough. Intent becomes an issue only in the sentencing phase.

It was not illegal entry....look up the texas law on criminal trespass.
What Amber did does not meet all the criteria for criminal trespass.
I dare you to post the law on criminal trespass in texas....I will tear you a new one if you do. hehheh

 

[Grumblenuts]

It was not illegal entry....look up the texas law on criminal trespass.

Been there, done that. You look it up.. and actually read something for once.

 

[Skylar]

If you believe in the Tooth Fairy...

If one honestly believes they are in their own home then they will act like they are in their own home.

Anyone confronted with what they sincerely believe is a intruder in their home should not be blamed for trying to neutralize the threat.

At most she should just have just been charged with negligent homicide.

If one honestly believes in the Tooth Fairy, they are likely a small child, and as irrelevant as is repeatedly crying "intent" where criminal negligence is at issue.

Oh, she absolutely intended to shoot him. She intentionally shot him Jean to death. Which is why they went with murder rather than manslaughter.

And per the laws of Texas, rightly so.

Doesn't matter. Texas smushes Murder 1 & 2 together because they don't care whether it's premeditated. Criminal negligence + illegal entry is enough. Intent becomes an issue only in the sentencing phase.

It was not illegal entry....look up the texas law on criminal trespass.
What Amber did does not meet all the criteria for criminal trespass.

Irrelevant. She was never charged with criminal trespass. She was charged with murder.

Once again, you awkwardly try to prove her innocence of a crime she was never charged with. While ignoring the overwhelming evidence affirming her conviction for murder.

And the jury didn't ignore the evidence that you must to cling to your irrationality.

I dare you to post the law on criminal trespass in texas....I will tear you a new one if you do. hehheh

Laughing.....is this where you start babbling about 'innocent trespass', the TORT standard from Georgia and insisting that Texas criminal homicide charges are bound to it?

Your pseudo-legal gibberish always makes me giggle.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The prosecutors decided to go with murder instead, based largely on the fact that the killing was willful and intentional rather than accidental, as is the case in Manslaughter.

Yes, she admitted shooting the guy upfront and very deliberately. Clearly not any sort of accident.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Irrelevant. She was never charged with criminal trespass. She was charged with murder.

Yes and no. The criminal trespass is a given, her being the intruder. The extra charge would simply be redundant.

 

[Skylar]

Irrelevant. She was never charged with criminal trespass. She was charged with murder.

Yes and no. The criminal trespass is a given, her being the intruder. The extra charge would be redundant.

Its irrelevant because it didn't play any role in the charges she faced. If she trespassed, if she didn't, she intentionally killed the man either way.

The only relevance the location of the intentionally killing was whose home it was (and thus, the application of the Castle Doctrine) and the opportunities the layout of the apartment, hallway, fire stairs, etc gave her to de-escalate.

The prosecutor never claimed she criminally trespassed in the trial, nor was she ever charged with it.

 

[airplanemechanic]

I'm really quite shocked how many people here are saying she did barely anything, if anything, wrong.

She was WAAAAYY too trigger happy. He was unarmed and thus she had no reason to shoot him. Had she taken even 30 seconds to figure out WTF was going on she could have realized she was in the wrong apartment and been like holy shit I'm sorry and life would go on. I mean how many intruders would sit down and eat ice cream while watching a football game if they were going to rob the place?

But instead she double tapped that nigah and is paying for it but not nearly long enough.

 

[Skylar]

I'm really quite shocked how many people here are saying she did barely anything, if anything, wrong.

You'll find these are usually the same people that refer to black folks as 'nighas'.

 

[airplanemechanic]

I'm really quite shocked how many people here are saying she did barely anything, if anything, wrong.

You'll find these are usually the same people that refer to black folks as 'nighas'.

They call each other that. So I certainly can. Either the term is racist for all or racist for none.

But I think she should have received the death penalty or life without.

 

[Skylar]

I'm really quite shocked how many people here are saying she did barely anything, if anything, wrong.

You'll find these are usually the same people that refer to black folks as 'nighas'.

They call each other that. So I certainly can.

But I think she should have received the death penalty or life without.

I disagree. I think the death penalty and life without parole should definitely be reserved for those with genuine malice.

I don't think Amber Guyger had that. She made some absolutely horrible choices that cost a man his life and should definitely be punished for it though.

10 years seemed an appropriate sentence.

 

[airplanemechanic]

I'm really quite shocked how many people here are saying she did barely anything, if anything, wrong.

You'll find these are usually the same people that refer to black folks as 'nighas'.

They call each other that. So I certainly can.

But I think she should have received the death penalty or life without.

I disagree. I think the death penalty and life without parole should definitely be reserved for those with genuine malice.

I don't think Amber Guyger had that. She made some absolutely horrible choices that cost a man his life and should definitely be punished for it though.

10 years seemed an appropriate sentence.

You do realize that in state cases you do 30%? She'll be a free woman in 3 years.

3 years for walking into someone's home and shooting them dead is ridiculous. Had YOU done this you'd be looking at 25 to life I promise.

 

[Skylar]

I'm really quite shocked how many people here are saying she did barely anything, if anything, wrong.

You'll find these are usually the same people that refer to black folks as 'nighas'.

They call each other that. So I certainly can.

But I think she should have received the death penalty or life without.

I disagree. I think the death penalty and life without parole should definitely be reserved for those with genuine malice.

I don't think Amber Guyger had that. She made some absolutely horrible choices that cost a man his life and should definitely be punished for it though.

10 years seemed an appropriate sentence.

You do realize that in state cases you do 30%? She'll be a free woman in 3 years.

3 years for walking into someone's home and shooting them dead is ridiculous. Had YOU done this you'd be looking at 25 to life I promise.

Not for murder. Texas law requires that a murderer has to serve at least half their sentence before they're even eligible for parole. And most parole requests are denied.

Texas law stipulates murder convicts aren’t eligible for parole until serving at least half their sentence, meaning Guyger will be locked up for a minimum of five years.

How many years will Amber Guyger stay in prison? That could depend on Botham Jean's family

Apparently, a major factor is the wishes of the family.

Ed Cox, whose Cox Law Firm outside Dallas regularly handles parole cases, said the board gives a fair amount of weight to letters from relatives of both the victim and the offender when pondering an early release.

“If his brother decides to support her release on parole, I think the board would absolutely consider that,’’ Cox said. “And I would expect that lawyers for her if she’s represented before the board would reach out to his family and seek to gain their support.’’

So we'll see. I suspect she'll serve between 7 and 10.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Its irrelevant because it didn't play any role in the charges she faced. If she trespassed, if she didn't, she intentionally killed the man either way.

True in that sense. Also true that presuming of criminal trespass in such cases allows Texas to sensibly differentiate Murder without premeditation from Manslaughter while doing away with Murder 2 altogether. Pretty impressive, imho. Efficient.

 

[Skylar]

Its irrelevant because it didn't play any role in the charges she faced. If she trespassed, if she didn't, she intentionally killed the man either way.

True in that sense. Also true that presuming of criminal trespass in such cases allows Texas to sensibly differentiate Murder without premeditation from Manslaughter while doing away with Murder 2 altogether. Pretty impressive, imho.

Criminal Trespass just didn't come into it. The differentiation between murder and manslaughter in Texas is intentionality. Did you mean to kill someone or was it accidental. And she openly admitted to intentionally shooting the man twice in the chest.

So per Texas law, it was murder.

Texas doesn't really differentiate murder into Murder 1, Murder 2 and the like. They draw a line between Murder, Capital Murder, Manslaughter and Criminally Negligent Homicide......the last one is kind of a lost sock drawer for anything that doesn't fall into the first three, but still involves one person killing another.

Criminal Trespass isn't a factor in any of them. It isn't mentioned in any capacity. Here's the Statute:

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 19. CRIMINAL HOMICIDE

 

[Grumblenuts]

Criminal Trespass just didn't come into it.

Conceded at least twice now.

The differentiation between murder and manslaughter in Texas is intentionality. Did you mean to kill someone or was it accidental.

That's the main gist, as in all States obviously. But no, it's not that simple in Texas. I posted why not a while back. No idea why you're so insistent about this?

 

[Skylar]

Criminal Trespass just didn't come into it.

Conceded at least twice now.

The differentiation between murder and manslaughter in Texas is intentionality. Did you mean to kill someone or was it accidental.

That's the main gist, as in all States obviously. But no, it's not that simple in Texas. I posted why not a while back. No idea why you're so insistent about this?

Murder is where Texas gets interesting. They split it into just two main categories: Murder and Capital Murder. Murder they'll imprison you for, and murder they'll kill you for.

Capital murder is fairly specific....like if you kill a cop, a child, or kill someone while trying to escape from a penitentiary. But premeditation doesn't really come it. Which is unusual. The closest they come is in the defenses they offer, like 'sudden passion'. But that's more of a mitigation in the sentencing phase that would reduce the charge to a second degree felony.

The other way in which Texas unusual is their lack of application of the 'malice' standard. Most states require malice for something to be murder. Texas doesn't. You just need to kill someone and mean to kill them.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

That is incorrect, there was no toxicology report done on her

Guyger's toxicology reports taken on the night of the shooting came back negative for drugs or alcohol, a detective testified

"I need you. Hurry": Texts between Amber Guyger, partner revealed at trial