Racist Black Judge Railroading Amber Guyger

[Skylar]

So in your pseudo-legal gibberings.......Botham Jean 'provoked' Amber Guyger by being in his own apartment eating ice cream?

That's the stupidest thing I've heard today. And rememeber, you already tried to pass off your 'Gunshot wounds to the chest don't bleed' silliness. So topping that is quite the accomplishment.

It is obvious that his presence in her state of mind provoked her abetted by his refusal to show his hands...thus I think judical authorities of considerable more intelligence on the State Supreme Court will reverse this jurys conviction of Amber for murder....i predict negligent homicide though it is not really even that but they must give the Negroes something...I would not argue too much with that....no one wants rioting, looting and burning.

Yeah, but you also thought that a TORT standard for determining civil liability from Georgia bound Texas criminal homicide law, that Texas was bound to the the 'malice standard' of murder because you found it on 'law.com' and that the Federal definition of murder overrode Texas State law in a Texas State trial of violations of Texas State law.

So your 'legal conclusions' really don't amount to much. As you have no idea how the law works.

But its fun to watch you use the word 'thus', though! Like watching a toddler try on his daddy's shoes. Its just adorable.

Nonsense....you are making up stuff....but anyhow post the Texas definition of murder and I will again show how ridiculous it is.

Of course I'm not. You argued for *days* that 'innocent trespass' must be applied to Amber Guyver's case......a CIVIL standard from Georgia and Virginia for determining civil liability and damages. Which you laughably insisted had to be be applied to criminal cases (spoiler alert: it doesn't) in Texas which doesn't recognize 'innocent trespass'.

You're a legal incompetent, Green. You don't even know the difference between civil and criminal law.

Worse, you insisted that the 'malice' standard of murder that you found on 'law.com' must be used by Texas; a State that doesn't us the 'malice' standard and doesn't even mention it in its entire statute on criminal homicide, INCLUDING murder.

You're a legal incompetent, Green. Which makes your pseudo-legal drivel all the more adorable. Say 'thus' again!

And astonishingly, it still gets worse. As you cited the Federal statute for Murder and then laughably insisted that a Texas State trial of a Texas State indictment was bound to it. Laughably and completely ignorant of the entire concept of 'concurrent jurisdiction'.

You're a legal incompetent, Green. You don't even know how jurisdiction works.

Now here is a test for anyone to take that would like to see just how weird Texas is regarding murder. Now I know you are too cowardly to take this test but for others...that might not be afraid to take it.

You're now you're insisting that Texas should have ignored its OWN legal definition of murder?

Laughing....oh, you poor, hapless soul you. I just want to make you a grilled cheese sandwich and call your mom to come pick you up.

You get more ridiculous every time you post....if a state has a criminal trespass law then by that very definition ....'innocent trespass' must exist...if not the law would not be titled 'criminal trespass' but merely trespass...is that beyond your ability to wrap your head around? Probably so.

Then show us the term 'innocent trespass' located anywhere in the entirity of Texas statutes.

You can't. As the standard simply doesn't exist. Its a TORT standard used in Georgia that you found at 'law.com'. And laughably insisted that Texas had to apply to Amber Guyger's case.

Alas, you didn't know what you were talking about....did you? And Texas didn't apply that standard to Amber's case....did they?

Yeah, sorry, Green....but 'law.com' doesn't override the Texas Legislatures on their own murder statutes.

I am very familiar with the Texas law on murder and how nonsensical it is...even you admit it is very different from most states. In fact if Texas goes strictly by their definition of murder...every policeman in texas that kills someone is guilty of murder no matter the circumstances...I notice that once again you are too cowardly to present the Texas Definition of Murder....because you know I am right about it.

The only one saying that Texas murder statutes are 'nonsensical' is you. Citing you.

The obvious problem being.....you're a legal incompetent that doesn't even know the difference between civil and criminal law, has no clue how jurisdiction works, and laughably tried to claim that Texas was bound to the 'malice' standard because they found it on 'law.com'.

Nope.

And now, laughably, you're insisting that Texas should have ignored their OWN State law on the definition of murder. Um.....because?

Again, nope.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

'Adequate Cause'--obviously anyone and most especially a woman coming home and finding a nigha on her couch

And your argument just fell apart. It wasn't HER COUCH it was HIS.

You fail to grasp the central thesis of the argument.....that in her state of mind it was her home. In self defense the state of mind of the defendant is critical.

Alas, the Castle Doctrine isn't based on what you BELIEVE. But what actually is. And shooting someone to death in their own apartment isn't the Castle Doctrine.

If you shoot someone to death in Texas, you better be damn sure that the home is your own.

In the state of texas you best not shoot anyone....a very screwed up state.

Even if she had been in her home and shot an unarmed negro...and the state had presented a picture of him when he was 12 yrs. she would still have been in a heap of trouble.

Politicians are just too wrapped up in political correctness to insist on justice...they are more concerned about kowtowing to the blacks.

As I have said...lots of folks carry concealed weapons with no idea of the political climate that now exists....very dangerous now to carry a concealed weapon...with all the anti-gun hysteria and the political clout of the media and the blacks...you shoot and kill a un-armed negro even though he might beat you to death otherwise...you stand a good chance of going to jail...like Zimmerman would have if he had not had such a good defense team.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

It is obvious that his presence in her state of mind provoked her abetted by his refusal to show his hands...thus I think judical authorities of considerable more intelligence on the State Supreme Court will reverse this jurys conviction of Amber for murder....i predict negligent homicide though it is not really even that but they must give the Negroes something...I would not argue too much with that....no one wants rioting, looting and burning.

Yeah, but you also thought that a TORT standard for determining civil liability from Georgia bound Texas criminal homicide law, that Texas was bound to the the 'malice standard' of murder because you found it on 'law.com' and that the Federal definition of murder overrode Texas State law in a Texas State trial of violations of Texas State law.

So your 'legal conclusions' really don't amount to much. As you have no idea how the law works.

But its fun to watch you use the word 'thus', though! Like watching a toddler try on his daddy's shoes. Its just adorable.

Nonsense....you are making up stuff....but anyhow post the Texas definition of murder and I will again show how ridiculous it is.

Of course I'm not. You argued for *days* that 'innocent trespass' must be applied to Amber Guyver's case......a CIVIL standard from Georgia and Virginia for determining civil liability and damages. Which you laughably insisted had to be be applied to criminal cases (spoiler alert: it doesn't) in Texas which doesn't recognize 'innocent trespass'.

You're a legal incompetent, Green. You don't even know the difference between civil and criminal law.

Worse, you insisted that the 'malice' standard of murder that you found on 'law.com' must be used by Texas; a State that doesn't us the 'malice' standard and doesn't even mention it in its entire statute on criminal homicide, INCLUDING murder.

You're a legal incompetent, Green. Which makes your pseudo-legal drivel all the more adorable. Say 'thus' again!

And astonishingly, it still gets worse. As you cited the Federal statute for Murder and then laughably insisted that a Texas State trial of a Texas State indictment was bound to it. Laughably and completely ignorant of the entire concept of 'concurrent jurisdiction'.

You're a legal incompetent, Green. You don't even know how jurisdiction works.

Now here is a test for anyone to take that would like to see just how weird Texas is regarding murder. Now I know you are too cowardly to take this test but for others...that might not be afraid to take it.

You're now you're insisting that Texas should have ignored its OWN legal definition of murder?

Laughing....oh, you poor, hapless soul you. I just want to make you a grilled cheese sandwich and call your mom to come pick you up.

You get more ridiculous every time you post....if a state has a criminal trespass law then by that very definition ....'innocent trespass' must exist...if not the law would not be titled 'criminal trespass' but merely trespass...is that beyond your ability to wrap your head around? Probably so.

Then show us the term 'innocent trespass' located anywhere in the entirity of Texas statutes.

You can't. As the standard simply doesn't exist. Its a TORT standard used in Georgia that you found at 'law.com'. And laughably insisted that Texas had to apply to Amber Guyger's case.

Alas, you didn't know what you were talking about....did you? And Texas didn't apply that standard to Amber's case....did they?

Yeah, sorry, Green....but 'law.com' doesn't override the Texas Legislatures on their own murder statutes.

I am very familiar with the Texas law on murder and how nonsensical it is...even you admit it is very different from most states. In fact if Texas goes strictly by their definition of murder...every policeman in texas that kills someone is guilty of murder no matter the circumstances...I notice that once again you are too cowardly to present the Texas Definition of Murder....because you know I am right about it.

The only one saying that Texas murder statutes are 'nonsensical' is you. Citing you.

The obvious problem being.....you're a legal incompetent that doesn't even know the difference between civil and criminal law, has no clue how jurisdiction works, and laughably tried to claim that Texas was bound to the 'malice' standard because they found it on 'law.com'.

Nope.

You know I am right thus you are too cowardly to post the texas definition of murder....once again post it and I will show how nonsensical it is.

 

[Skylar]

'Adequate Cause'--obviously anyone and most especially a woman coming home and finding a nigha on her couch

And your argument just fell apart. It wasn't HER COUCH it was HIS.

You fail to grasp the central thesis of the argument.....that in her state of mind it was her home. In self defense the state of mind of the defendant is critical.

Alas, the Castle Doctrine isn't based on what you BELIEVE. But what actually is. And shooting someone to death in their own apartment isn't the Castle Doctrine.

If you shoot someone to death in Texas, you better be damn sure that the home is your own.

In the state of texas you best not shoot anyone....a very screwed up state.

Amber was a LEO. She knew the law before she flagrantly broke it. For crying out loud, she *enforced* the very law that you now insist that Texas was supposed to ignore.

Nope.

Politicians are just too wrapped up in political correctness to insist on justice...they are more concerned about kowtowing to the blacks.

As I have said...lots of folks carry concealed weapons with no idea of the political climate that now exists....very dangerous now to carry a concealed weapon...with all the anti-gun hysteria and the political clout of the media and the blacks...you shoot and kill a un-armed negro even though he might beat you to death otherwise...you stand a good chance of going to jail...like Trayvon would have if he had not had such a good defense team.

Nope. Its the evidence that convicted Amber Guyger. She shot an unarmed man in his own apartment when she had plenty of opportunities to de-escalate.

She chose instead to murder him. That's why she was convicted.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

It is obvious that his presence in her state of mind provoked her abetted by his refusal to show his hands...thus I think judical authorities of considerable more intelligence on the State Supreme Court will reverse this jurys conviction of Amber for murder....i predict negligent homicide though it is not really even that but they must give the Negroes something...I would not argue too much with that....no one wants rioting, looting and burning.

Yeah, but you also thought that a TORT standard for determining civil liability from Georgia bound Texas criminal homicide law, that Texas was bound to the the 'malice standard' of murder because you found it on 'law.com' and that the Federal definition of murder overrode Texas State law in a Texas State trial of violations of Texas State law.

So your 'legal conclusions' really don't amount to much. As you have no idea how the law works.

But its fun to watch you use the word 'thus', though! Like watching a toddler try on his daddy's shoes. Its just adorable.

Nonsense....you are making up stuff....but anyhow post the Texas definition of murder and I will again show how ridiculous it is.

Of course I'm not. You argued for *days* that 'innocent trespass' must be applied to Amber Guyver's case......a CIVIL standard from Georgia and Virginia for determining civil liability and damages. Which you laughably insisted had to be be applied to criminal cases (spoiler alert: it doesn't) in Texas which doesn't recognize 'innocent trespass'.

You're a legal incompetent, Green. You don't even know the difference between civil and criminal law.

Worse, you insisted that the 'malice' standard of murder that you found on 'law.com' must be used by Texas; a State that doesn't us the 'malice' standard and doesn't even mention it in its entire statute on criminal homicide, INCLUDING murder.

You're a legal incompetent, Green. Which makes your pseudo-legal drivel all the more adorable. Say 'thus' again!

And astonishingly, it still gets worse. As you cited the Federal statute for Murder and then laughably insisted that a Texas State trial of a Texas State indictment was bound to it. Laughably and completely ignorant of the entire concept of 'concurrent jurisdiction'.

You're a legal incompetent, Green. You don't even know how jurisdiction works.

Now here is a test for anyone to take that would like to see just how weird Texas is regarding murder. Now I know you are too cowardly to take this test but for others...that might not be afraid to take it.

You're now you're insisting that Texas should have ignored its OWN legal definition of murder?

Laughing....oh, you poor, hapless soul you. I just want to make you a grilled cheese sandwich and call your mom to come pick you up.

You get more ridiculous every time you post....if a state has a criminal trespass law then by that very definition ....'innocent trespass' must exist...if not the law would not be titled 'criminal trespass' but merely trespass...is that beyond your ability to wrap your head around? Probably so.

Then show us the term 'innocent trespass' located anywhere in the entirity of Texas statutes.

You can't. As the standard simply doesn't exist. Its a TORT standard used in Georgia that you found at 'law.com'. And laughably insisted that Texas had to apply to Amber Guyger's case.

Alas, you didn't know what you were talking about....did you? And Texas didn't apply that standard to Amber's case....did they?

Yeah, sorry, Green....but 'law.com' doesn't override the Texas Legislatures on their own murder statutes.

I am very familiar with the Texas law on murder and how nonsensical it is...even you admit it is very different from most states. In fact if Texas goes strictly by their definition of murder...every policeman in texas that kills someone is guilty of murder no matter the circumstances...I notice that once again you are too cowardly to present the Texas Definition of Murder....because you know I am right about it.

The only one saying that Texas murder statutes are 'nonsensical' is you. Citing you.

The obvious problem being.....you're a legal incompetent that doesn't even know the difference between civil and criminal law, has no clue how jurisdiction works, and laughably tried to claim that Texas was bound to the 'malice' standard because they found it on 'law.com'.

Nope.

And now, laughably, you're insisting that Texas should have ignored their OWN State law on the definition of murder. Um.....because?

Again, nope.

It is obvious that his presence in her state of mind provoked her abetted by his refusal to show his hands...thus I think judical authorities of considerable more intelligence on the State Supreme Court will reverse this jurys conviction of Amber for murder....i predict negligent homicide though it is not really even that but they must give the Negroes something...I would not argue too much with that....no one wants rioting, looting and burning.

Yeah, but you also thought that a TORT standard for determining civil liability from Georgia bound Texas criminal homicide law, that Texas was bound to the the 'malice standard' of murder because you found it on 'law.com' and that the Federal definition of murder overrode Texas State law in a Texas State trial of violations of Texas State law.

So your 'legal conclusions' really don't amount to much. As you have no idea how the law works.

But its fun to watch you use the word 'thus', though! Like watching a toddler try on his daddy's shoes. Its just adorable.

Nonsense....you are making up stuff....but anyhow post the Texas definition of murder and I will again show how ridiculous it is.

Of course I'm not. You argued for *days* that 'innocent trespass' must be applied to Amber Guyver's case......a CIVIL standard from Georgia and Virginia for determining civil liability and damages. Which you laughably insisted had to be be applied to criminal cases (spoiler alert: it doesn't) in Texas which doesn't recognize 'innocent trespass'.

You're a legal incompetent, Green. You don't even know the difference between civil and criminal law.

Worse, you insisted that the 'malice' standard of murder that you found on 'law.com' must be used by Texas; a State that doesn't us the 'malice' standard and doesn't even mention it in its entire statute on criminal homicide, INCLUDING murder.

You're a legal incompetent, Green. Which makes your pseudo-legal drivel all the more adorable. Say 'thus' again!

And astonishingly, it still gets worse. As you cited the Federal statute for Murder and then laughably insisted that a Texas State trial of a Texas State indictment was bound to it. Laughably and completely ignorant of the entire concept of 'concurrent jurisdiction'.

You're a legal incompetent, Green. You don't even know how jurisdiction works.

Now here is a test for anyone to take that would like to see just how weird Texas is regarding murder. Now I know you are too cowardly to take this test but for others...that might not be afraid to take it.

You're now you're insisting that Texas should have ignored its OWN legal definition of murder?

Laughing....oh, you poor, hapless soul you. I just want to make you a grilled cheese sandwich and call your mom to come pick you up.

You get more ridiculous every time you post....if a state has a criminal trespass law then by that very definition ....'innocent trespass' must exist...if not the law would not be titled 'criminal trespass' but merely trespass...is that beyond your ability to wrap your head around? Probably so.

Then show us the term 'innocent trespass' located anywhere in the entirity of Texas statutes.

You can't. As the standard simply doesn't exist. Its a TORT standard used in Georgia that you found at 'law.com'. And laughably insisted that Texas had to apply to Amber Guyger's case.

Alas, you didn't know what you were talking about....did you? And Texas didn't apply that standard to Amber's case....did they?

Yeah, sorry, Green....but 'law.com' doesn't override the Texas Legislatures on their own murder statutes.

I am very familiar with the Texas law on murder and how nonsensical it is...even you admit it is very different from most states. In fact if Texas goes strictly by their definition of murder...every policeman in texas that kills someone is guilty of murder no matter the circumstances...I notice that once again you are too cowardly to present the Texas Definition of Murder....because you know I am right about it.

The only one saying that Texas murder statutes are 'nonsensical' is you. Citing you.

The obvious problem being.....you're a legal incompetent that doesn't even know the difference between civil and criminal law, has no clue how jurisdiction works, and laughably tried to claim that Texas was bound to the 'malice' standard because they found it on 'law.com'.

Nope.

And now, laughably, you're insisting that Texas should have ignored their OWN State law on the definition of murder. Um.....because?

Again, nope.

Laughable....as said before...you are a shallow thinker. Now I know you do not answer questions at least you never have yet....but anyhow....why do they have a law titled....'criminal trespass' if there is no concept of innocent trespass in texas...that makes no sense.

And last but not least....why was Amber not charged with 'criminal trespass' another question you will not answer because you are a coward.

 

[Skylar]

Yeah, but you also thought that a TORT standard for determining civil liability from Georgia bound Texas criminal homicide law, that Texas was bound to the the 'malice standard' of murder because you found it on 'law.com' and that the Federal definition of murder overrode Texas State law in a Texas State trial of violations of Texas State law.

So your 'legal conclusions' really don't amount to much. As you have no idea how the law works.

But its fun to watch you use the word 'thus', though! Like watching a toddler try on his daddy's shoes. Its just adorable.

Nonsense....you are making up stuff....but anyhow post the Texas definition of murder and I will again show how ridiculous it is.

Of course I'm not. You argued for *days* that 'innocent trespass' must be applied to Amber Guyver's case......a CIVIL standard from Georgia and Virginia for determining civil liability and damages. Which you laughably insisted had to be be applied to criminal cases (spoiler alert: it doesn't) in Texas which doesn't recognize 'innocent trespass'.

You're a legal incompetent, Green. You don't even know the difference between civil and criminal law.

Worse, you insisted that the 'malice' standard of murder that you found on 'law.com' must be used by Texas; a State that doesn't us the 'malice' standard and doesn't even mention it in its entire statute on criminal homicide, INCLUDING murder.

You're a legal incompetent, Green. Which makes your pseudo-legal drivel all the more adorable. Say 'thus' again!

And astonishingly, it still gets worse. As you cited the Federal statute for Murder and then laughably insisted that a Texas State trial of a Texas State indictment was bound to it. Laughably and completely ignorant of the entire concept of 'concurrent jurisdiction'.

You're a legal incompetent, Green. You don't even know how jurisdiction works.

Now here is a test for anyone to take that would like to see just how weird Texas is regarding murder. Now I know you are too cowardly to take this test but for others...that might not be afraid to take it.

You're now you're insisting that Texas should have ignored its OWN legal definition of murder?

Laughing....oh, you poor, hapless soul you. I just want to make you a grilled cheese sandwich and call your mom to come pick you up.

You get more ridiculous every time you post....if a state has a criminal trespass law then by that very definition ....'innocent trespass' must exist...if not the law would not be titled 'criminal trespass' but merely trespass...is that beyond your ability to wrap your head around? Probably so.

Then show us the term 'innocent trespass' located anywhere in the entirity of Texas statutes.

You can't. As the standard simply doesn't exist. Its a TORT standard used in Georgia that you found at 'law.com'. And laughably insisted that Texas had to apply to Amber Guyger's case.

Alas, you didn't know what you were talking about....did you? And Texas didn't apply that standard to Amber's case....did they?

Yeah, sorry, Green....but 'law.com' doesn't override the Texas Legislatures on their own murder statutes.

I am very familiar with the Texas law on murder and how nonsensical it is...even you admit it is very different from most states. In fact if Texas goes strictly by their definition of murder...every policeman in texas that kills someone is guilty of murder no matter the circumstances...I notice that once again you are too cowardly to present the Texas Definition of Murder....because you know I am right about it.

The only one saying that Texas murder statutes are 'nonsensical' is you. Citing you.

The obvious problem being.....you're a legal incompetent that doesn't even know the difference between civil and criminal law, has no clue how jurisdiction works, and laughably tried to claim that Texas was bound to the 'malice' standard because they found it on 'law.com'.

Nope.

You know I am right thus you are too cowardly to post the texas definition of murder....once again post it and I will show how nonsensical it is.

Oh, goodness no, Green.

What I know...is that you're clueless about the law.

You've made blunder after hapless, comic blunder about the law, making shit up as you go along and demonstrating a profound ignorance of even the basics of civil law, criminal law, jurisdiction, murder statutes in texas, all of it.

And then even more comically, in that state of useless ignorance, you're going to offer us a 'legal analsyis' that ignores both the law and the facts of the case?

Laughing...nope. Texas isn't going to ignore its OWN murder statutes just because you have a 'feeling' about them.

You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

Yeah, but you also thought that a TORT standard for determining civil liability from Georgia bound Texas criminal homicide law, that Texas was bound to the the 'malice standard' of murder because you found it on 'law.com' and that the Federal definition of murder overrode Texas State law in a Texas State trial of violations of Texas State law.

So your 'legal conclusions' really don't amount to much. As you have no idea how the law works.

But its fun to watch you use the word 'thus', though! Like watching a toddler try on his daddy's shoes. Its just adorable.

Nonsense....you are making up stuff....but anyhow post the Texas definition of murder and I will again show how ridiculous it is.

Of course I'm not. You argued for *days* that 'innocent trespass' must be applied to Amber Guyver's case......a CIVIL standard from Georgia and Virginia for determining civil liability and damages. Which you laughably insisted had to be be applied to criminal cases (spoiler alert: it doesn't) in Texas which doesn't recognize 'innocent trespass'.

You're a legal incompetent, Green. You don't even know the difference between civil and criminal law.

Worse, you insisted that the 'malice' standard of murder that you found on 'law.com' must be used by Texas; a State that doesn't us the 'malice' standard and doesn't even mention it in its entire statute on criminal homicide, INCLUDING murder.

You're a legal incompetent, Green. Which makes your pseudo-legal drivel all the more adorable. Say 'thus' again!

And astonishingly, it still gets worse. As you cited the Federal statute for Murder and then laughably insisted that a Texas State trial of a Texas State indictment was bound to it. Laughably and completely ignorant of the entire concept of 'concurrent jurisdiction'.

You're a legal incompetent, Green. You don't even know how jurisdiction works.

Now here is a test for anyone to take that would like to see just how weird Texas is regarding murder. Now I know you are too cowardly to take this test but for others...that might not be afraid to take it.

You're now you're insisting that Texas should have ignored its OWN legal definition of murder?

Laughing....oh, you poor, hapless soul you. I just want to make you a grilled cheese sandwich and call your mom to come pick you up.

You get more ridiculous every time you post....if a state has a criminal trespass law then by that very definition ....'innocent trespass' must exist...if not the law would not be titled 'criminal trespass' but merely trespass...is that beyond your ability to wrap your head around? Probably so.

Then show us the term 'innocent trespass' located anywhere in the entirity of Texas statutes.

You can't. As the standard simply doesn't exist. Its a TORT standard used in Georgia that you found at 'law.com'. And laughably insisted that Texas had to apply to Amber Guyger's case.

Alas, you didn't know what you were talking about....did you? And Texas didn't apply that standard to Amber's case....did they?

Yeah, sorry, Green....but 'law.com' doesn't override the Texas Legislatures on their own murder statutes.

I am very familiar with the Texas law on murder and how nonsensical it is...even you admit it is very different from most states. In fact if Texas goes strictly by their definition of murder...every policeman in texas that kills someone is guilty of murder no matter the circumstances...I notice that once again you are too cowardly to present the Texas Definition of Murder....because you know I am right about it.

The only one saying that Texas murder statutes are 'nonsensical' is you. Citing you.

The obvious problem being.....you're a legal incompetent that doesn't even know the difference between civil and criminal law, has no clue how jurisdiction works, and laughably tried to claim that Texas was bound to the 'malice' standard because they found it on 'law.com'.

Nope.

And now, laughably, you're insisting that Texas should have ignored their OWN State law on the definition of murder. Um.....because?

Again, nope.

Yeah, but you also thought that a TORT standard for determining civil liability from Georgia bound Texas criminal homicide law, that Texas was bound to the the 'malice standard' of murder because you found it on 'law.com' and that the Federal definition of murder overrode Texas State law in a Texas State trial of violations of Texas State law.

So your 'legal conclusions' really don't amount to much. As you have no idea how the law works.

But its fun to watch you use the word 'thus', though! Like watching a toddler try on his daddy's shoes. Its just adorable.

Nonsense....you are making up stuff....but anyhow post the Texas definition of murder and I will again show how ridiculous it is.

Of course I'm not. You argued for *days* that 'innocent trespass' must be applied to Amber Guyver's case......a CIVIL standard from Georgia and Virginia for determining civil liability and damages. Which you laughably insisted had to be be applied to criminal cases (spoiler alert: it doesn't) in Texas which doesn't recognize 'innocent trespass'.

You're a legal incompetent, Green. You don't even know the difference between civil and criminal law.

Worse, you insisted that the 'malice' standard of murder that you found on 'law.com' must be used by Texas; a State that doesn't us the 'malice' standard and doesn't even mention it in its entire statute on criminal homicide, INCLUDING murder.

You're a legal incompetent, Green. Which makes your pseudo-legal drivel all the more adorable. Say 'thus' again!

And astonishingly, it still gets worse. As you cited the Federal statute for Murder and then laughably insisted that a Texas State trial of a Texas State indictment was bound to it. Laughably and completely ignorant of the entire concept of 'concurrent jurisdiction'.

You're a legal incompetent, Green. You don't even know how jurisdiction works.

Now here is a test for anyone to take that would like to see just how weird Texas is regarding murder. Now I know you are too cowardly to take this test but for others...that might not be afraid to take it.

You're now you're insisting that Texas should have ignored its OWN legal definition of murder?

Laughing....oh, you poor, hapless soul you. I just want to make you a grilled cheese sandwich and call your mom to come pick you up.

You get more ridiculous every time you post....if a state has a criminal trespass law then by that very definition ....'innocent trespass' must exist...if not the law would not be titled 'criminal trespass' but merely trespass...is that beyond your ability to wrap your head around? Probably so.

Then show us the term 'innocent trespass' located anywhere in the entirity of Texas statutes.

You can't. As the standard simply doesn't exist. Its a TORT standard used in Georgia that you found at 'law.com'. And laughably insisted that Texas had to apply to Amber Guyger's case.

Alas, you didn't know what you were talking about....did you? And Texas didn't apply that standard to Amber's case....did they?

Yeah, sorry, Green....but 'law.com' doesn't override the Texas Legislatures on their own murder statutes.

I am very familiar with the Texas law on murder and how nonsensical it is...even you admit it is very different from most states. In fact if Texas goes strictly by their definition of murder...every policeman in texas that kills someone is guilty of murder no matter the circumstances...I notice that once again you are too cowardly to present the Texas Definition of Murder....because you know I am right about it.

The only one saying that Texas murder statutes are 'nonsensical' is you. Citing you.

The obvious problem being.....you're a legal incompetent that doesn't even know the difference between civil and criminal law, has no clue how jurisdiction works, and laughably tried to claim that Texas was bound to the 'malice' standard because they found it on 'law.com'.

Nope.

And now, laughably, you're insisting that Texas should have ignored their OWN State law on the definition of murder. Um.....because?

Again, nope.

Laughable....as said before...you are a shallow thinker.

And by 'shallow thinker', you mean I use the ACTUAL law, the ACTUAL jurisdiction, and the ACTUAL facts of the case rather than whatever hapless pseudo-legal fantasy you make up?

I'm *so* happy to disappoint you.

As I'll gladly stick with the actual law and evidence over your comic blunders about even the most basic legal concepts involved in this case.

But say 'thus' again. Its adorable!

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Nonsense....you are making up stuff....but anyhow post the Texas definition of murder and I will again show how ridiculous it is.

Of course I'm not. You argued for *days* that 'innocent trespass' must be applied to Amber Guyver's case......a CIVIL standard from Georgia and Virginia for determining civil liability and damages. Which you laughably insisted had to be be applied to criminal cases (spoiler alert: it doesn't) in Texas which doesn't recognize 'innocent trespass'.

You're a legal incompetent, Green. You don't even know the difference between civil and criminal law.

Worse, you insisted that the 'malice' standard of murder that you found on 'law.com' must be used by Texas; a State that doesn't us the 'malice' standard and doesn't even mention it in its entire statute on criminal homicide, INCLUDING murder.

You're a legal incompetent, Green. Which makes your pseudo-legal drivel all the more adorable. Say 'thus' again!

And astonishingly, it still gets worse. As you cited the Federal statute for Murder and then laughably insisted that a Texas State trial of a Texas State indictment was bound to it. Laughably and completely ignorant of the entire concept of 'concurrent jurisdiction'.

You're a legal incompetent, Green. You don't even know how jurisdiction works.

Now here is a test for anyone to take that would like to see just how weird Texas is regarding murder. Now I know you are too cowardly to take this test but for others...that might not be afraid to take it.

You're now you're insisting that Texas should have ignored its OWN legal definition of murder?

Laughing....oh, you poor, hapless soul you. I just want to make you a grilled cheese sandwich and call your mom to come pick you up.

You get more ridiculous every time you post....if a state has a criminal trespass law then by that very definition ....'innocent trespass' must exist...if not the law would not be titled 'criminal trespass' but merely trespass...is that beyond your ability to wrap your head around? Probably so.

Then show us the term 'innocent trespass' located anywhere in the entirity of Texas statutes.

You can't. As the standard simply doesn't exist. Its a TORT standard used in Georgia that you found at 'law.com'. And laughably insisted that Texas had to apply to Amber Guyger's case.

Alas, you didn't know what you were talking about....did you? And Texas didn't apply that standard to Amber's case....did they?

Yeah, sorry, Green....but 'law.com' doesn't override the Texas Legislatures on their own murder statutes.

I am very familiar with the Texas law on murder and how nonsensical it is...even you admit it is very different from most states. In fact if Texas goes strictly by their definition of murder...every policeman in texas that kills someone is guilty of murder no matter the circumstances...I notice that once again you are too cowardly to present the Texas Definition of Murder....because you know I am right about it.

The only one saying that Texas murder statutes are 'nonsensical' is you. Citing you.

The obvious problem being.....you're a legal incompetent that doesn't even know the difference between civil and criminal law, has no clue how jurisdiction works, and laughably tried to claim that Texas was bound to the 'malice' standard because they found it on 'law.com'.

Nope.

And now, laughably, you're insisting that Texas should have ignored their OWN State law on the definition of murder. Um.....because?

Again, nope.

Nonsense....you are making up stuff....but anyhow post the Texas definition of murder and I will again show how ridiculous it is.

Of course I'm not. You argued for *days* that 'innocent trespass' must be applied to Amber Guyver's case......a CIVIL standard from Georgia and Virginia for determining civil liability and damages. Which you laughably insisted had to be be applied to criminal cases (spoiler alert: it doesn't) in Texas which doesn't recognize 'innocent trespass'.

You're a legal incompetent, Green. You don't even know the difference between civil and criminal law.

Worse, you insisted that the 'malice' standard of murder that you found on 'law.com' must be used by Texas; a State that doesn't us the 'malice' standard and doesn't even mention it in its entire statute on criminal homicide, INCLUDING murder.

You're a legal incompetent, Green. Which makes your pseudo-legal drivel all the more adorable. Say 'thus' again!

And astonishingly, it still gets worse. As you cited the Federal statute for Murder and then laughably insisted that a Texas State trial of a Texas State indictment was bound to it. Laughably and completely ignorant of the entire concept of 'concurrent jurisdiction'.

You're a legal incompetent, Green. You don't even know how jurisdiction works.

Now here is a test for anyone to take that would like to see just how weird Texas is regarding murder. Now I know you are too cowardly to take this test but for others...that might not be afraid to take it.

You're now you're insisting that Texas should have ignored its OWN legal definition of murder?

Laughing....oh, you poor, hapless soul you. I just want to make you a grilled cheese sandwich and call your mom to come pick you up.

You get more ridiculous every time you post....if a state has a criminal trespass law then by that very definition ....'innocent trespass' must exist...if not the law would not be titled 'criminal trespass' but merely trespass...is that beyond your ability to wrap your head around? Probably so.

Then show us the term 'innocent trespass' located anywhere in the entirity of Texas statutes.

You can't. As the standard simply doesn't exist. Its a TORT standard used in Georgia that you found at 'law.com'. And laughably insisted that Texas had to apply to Amber Guyger's case.

Alas, you didn't know what you were talking about....did you? And Texas didn't apply that standard to Amber's case....did they?

Yeah, sorry, Green....but 'law.com' doesn't override the Texas Legislatures on their own murder statutes.

I am very familiar with the Texas law on murder and how nonsensical it is...even you admit it is very different from most states. In fact if Texas goes strictly by their definition of murder...every policeman in texas that kills someone is guilty of murder no matter the circumstances...I notice that once again you are too cowardly to present the Texas Definition of Murder....because you know I am right about it.

The only one saying that Texas murder statutes are 'nonsensical' is you. Citing you.

The obvious problem being.....you're a legal incompetent that doesn't even know the difference between civil and criminal law, has no clue how jurisdiction works, and laughably tried to claim that Texas was bound to the 'malice' standard because they found it on 'law.com'.

Nope.

And now, laughably, you're insisting that Texas should have ignored their OWN State law on the definition of murder. Um.....because?

Again, nope.

Laughable....as said before...you are a shallow thinker.

And by 'shallow thinker', you mean I use the ACTUAL law, the ACTUAL jurisdiction, and the ACTUAL facts of the case rather than whatever hapless pseudo-legal fantasy you make up?

I'm *so* happy to disappoint you.

As I'll gladly stick with the actual law and evidence over your comic blunders about even the most basic legal concepts involved in this case.

But say 'thus' again. Its adorable!

You are a coward and intellectually dishonest....case closed.

Until you answer my questions I will place you on ignore.

 

[Skylar]

Of course I'm not. You argued for *days* that 'innocent trespass' must be applied to Amber Guyver's case......a CIVIL standard from Georgia and Virginia for determining civil liability and damages. Which you laughably insisted had to be be applied to criminal cases (spoiler alert: it doesn't) in Texas which doesn't recognize 'innocent trespass'.

You're a legal incompetent, Green. You don't even know the difference between civil and criminal law.

Worse, you insisted that the 'malice' standard of murder that you found on 'law.com' must be used by Texas; a State that doesn't us the 'malice' standard and doesn't even mention it in its entire statute on criminal homicide, INCLUDING murder.

You're a legal incompetent, Green. Which makes your pseudo-legal drivel all the more adorable. Say 'thus' again!

And astonishingly, it still gets worse. As you cited the Federal statute for Murder and then laughably insisted that a Texas State trial of a Texas State indictment was bound to it. Laughably and completely ignorant of the entire concept of 'concurrent jurisdiction'.

You're a legal incompetent, Green. You don't even know how jurisdiction works.
You're now you're insisting that Texas should have ignored its OWN legal definition of murder?

Laughing....oh, you poor, hapless soul you. I just want to make you a grilled cheese sandwich and call your mom to come pick you up.

You get more ridiculous every time you post....if a state has a criminal trespass law then by that very definition ....'innocent trespass' must exist...if not the law would not be titled 'criminal trespass' but merely trespass...is that beyond your ability to wrap your head around? Probably so.

Then show us the term 'innocent trespass' located anywhere in the entirity of Texas statutes.

You can't. As the standard simply doesn't exist. Its a TORT standard used in Georgia that you found at 'law.com'. And laughably insisted that Texas had to apply to Amber Guyger's case.

Alas, you didn't know what you were talking about....did you? And Texas didn't apply that standard to Amber's case....did they?

Yeah, sorry, Green....but 'law.com' doesn't override the Texas Legislatures on their own murder statutes.

I am very familiar with the Texas law on murder and how nonsensical it is...even you admit it is very different from most states. In fact if Texas goes strictly by their definition of murder...every policeman in texas that kills someone is guilty of murder no matter the circumstances...I notice that once again you are too cowardly to present the Texas Definition of Murder....because you know I am right about it.

The only one saying that Texas murder statutes are 'nonsensical' is you. Citing you.

The obvious problem being.....you're a legal incompetent that doesn't even know the difference between civil and criminal law, has no clue how jurisdiction works, and laughably tried to claim that Texas was bound to the 'malice' standard because they found it on 'law.com'.

Nope.

And now, laughably, you're insisting that Texas should have ignored their OWN State law on the definition of murder. Um.....because?

Again, nope.

Of course I'm not. You argued for *days* that 'innocent trespass' must be applied to Amber Guyver's case......a CIVIL standard from Georgia and Virginia for determining civil liability and damages. Which you laughably insisted had to be be applied to criminal cases (spoiler alert: it doesn't) in Texas which doesn't recognize 'innocent trespass'.

You're a legal incompetent, Green. You don't even know the difference between civil and criminal law.

Worse, you insisted that the 'malice' standard of murder that you found on 'law.com' must be used by Texas; a State that doesn't us the 'malice' standard and doesn't even mention it in its entire statute on criminal homicide, INCLUDING murder.

You're a legal incompetent, Green. Which makes your pseudo-legal drivel all the more adorable. Say 'thus' again!

And astonishingly, it still gets worse. As you cited the Federal statute for Murder and then laughably insisted that a Texas State trial of a Texas State indictment was bound to it. Laughably and completely ignorant of the entire concept of 'concurrent jurisdiction'.

You're a legal incompetent, Green. You don't even know how jurisdiction works.
You're now you're insisting that Texas should have ignored its OWN legal definition of murder?

Laughing....oh, you poor, hapless soul you. I just want to make you a grilled cheese sandwich and call your mom to come pick you up.

You get more ridiculous every time you post....if a state has a criminal trespass law then by that very definition ....'innocent trespass' must exist...if not the law would not be titled 'criminal trespass' but merely trespass...is that beyond your ability to wrap your head around? Probably so.

Then show us the term 'innocent trespass' located anywhere in the entirity of Texas statutes.

You can't. As the standard simply doesn't exist. Its a TORT standard used in Georgia that you found at 'law.com'. And laughably insisted that Texas had to apply to Amber Guyger's case.

Alas, you didn't know what you were talking about....did you? And Texas didn't apply that standard to Amber's case....did they?

Yeah, sorry, Green....but 'law.com' doesn't override the Texas Legislatures on their own murder statutes.

I am very familiar with the Texas law on murder and how nonsensical it is...even you admit it is very different from most states. In fact if Texas goes strictly by their definition of murder...every policeman in texas that kills someone is guilty of murder no matter the circumstances...I notice that once again you are too cowardly to present the Texas Definition of Murder....because you know I am right about it.

The only one saying that Texas murder statutes are 'nonsensical' is you. Citing you.

The obvious problem being.....you're a legal incompetent that doesn't even know the difference between civil and criminal law, has no clue how jurisdiction works, and laughably tried to claim that Texas was bound to the 'malice' standard because they found it on 'law.com'.

Nope.

And now, laughably, you're insisting that Texas should have ignored their OWN State law on the definition of murder. Um.....because?

Again, nope.

Laughable....as said before...you are a shallow thinker.

And by 'shallow thinker', you mean I use the ACTUAL law, the ACTUAL jurisdiction, and the ACTUAL facts of the case rather than whatever hapless pseudo-legal fantasy you make up?

I'm *so* happy to disappoint you.

As I'll gladly stick with the actual law and evidence over your comic blunders about even the most basic legal concepts involved in this case.

But say 'thus' again. Its adorable!

You are a coward and intellectually dishonest....case closed. Until you answer my questions I will place you on ignore.

Nope. I'm someone using the ACTUAL law and ACTUAL evidence rather than the pseudo-legal fantasy you invent.

Which is what puts us at odds. I use the law. You use your imagination. Alas, the trial was about law....which doens't really have much use for your fantasies.

And you don't need an excuse to run, Green. Just tuck that tail between your legs and flee. Ignoring me doesn't magically change Texas law, change the evidence of the case or make your laughably misunderstandings of the law magically disappear.

It merely robs you of any chance to defend your arguments as I gleefully eviscerate them with better reasoning, a firmer command of the law, and a clearer understanding of the evidence of the case.

While you can ignore the law and the evidence.......you can't make us ignore the law and the evidence. Or make the the jury ignore them. Or Texas. Or even Amber Guyger, who is sitting in prison orange as we speak.

Which is why you fail.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Interesting in light of myriad previous comments to the contrary: {from Texas Penal Code Chapter 9}:

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Again, according to Texas law:

consideration of intent is not required to charge murder here.

And? {... crickets ...}

 

[Grumblenuts]

I really was looking forward to some more discussion of the above. Back two pages Greeny was (again) pushing his "innocent" 'cause she thought she home defense, claiming her intent was everything. I then, again, submitted that her intent was irrelevant because of Texas law involving illegal entry. Skylar seemed to agree then didn't, claiming her admitting right away to purposely shooting Jean, her "intent" then, was the actual reason for the murder charge. I didn't/don't disagree, it just didn't actually address my point which was that it wasn't necessary to go there. There was no need for even Amber to guess or argue about what was going on in her own head. All unnecessary in this case according to Texas law. The explanation is here. Burglary amounts to felony trespass in Texas. Combine with homicide and "intent" becomes a superfluous consideration.

Of course either path will work. I'd say neither really goes to intent because regardless of anything the argument was always fundamentally about being a cop and having the privilege to shoot any people they professionally deem shootworthy... Automatically... According to the training... because they're just that worthy. Off-duty, sexting, wrong floor, whatever.