Amber Guyger Guilty of Murder

[Vastator]

No matter her excuses, there must be accountability for entering someone's home and shooting them dead.

The most she should have been charged with would have been negligent homicide....definitely not murder.

Why should she get a slap on the wrist for killing a dude in his own home? I don't understand the logic here.

Because he cannot see past the length of his own pecker to notice that this stupid ***** is a disgrace. A disgrace to gun owners, a disgrace to women, and a disgrace, to the "profession" of law enforcement, and cumulatively a disgrace to whites. For he is too busy "White Knighting" for a piece of ass he'll never even get a sniff of.
If he had any vision, he would catapult this dumb ***** over the wall like a flaming bag of shit, thankful to be rid of her, lest her disgrace reflect poorly on him, or his people. But instead he's thinking with the head on the end of his pecker, rather than the one on top of his neck. Simple as that....

Is that his mental malfunction? Weird because she ain't what I'd call pretty... Seems to me what we have here is a major bootlicker who gives police the benefit of the doubt even when they screw up royally. Or just a dumb racist and that's not a word I use lightly considering I'm pretty "racist" myself.

Lefties will use people like this guy to paint everyone on the right as an idiot.

He’s making a perfect IM2,or PE sock of himself in this matter that’s for sure...

 

[impuretrash]

No matter her excuses, there must be accountability for entering someone's home and shooting them dead.

The most she should have been charged with would have been negligent homicide....definitely not murder.

Why should she get a slap on the wrist for killing a dude in his own home? I don't understand the logic here.

Because he cannot see past the length of his own pecker to notice that this stupid ***** is a disgrace. A disgrace to gun owners, a disgrace to women, and a disgrace, to the "profession" of law enforcement, and cumulatively a disgrace to whites. For he is too busy "White Knighting" for a piece of ass he'll never even get a sniff of.
If he had any vision, he would catapult this dumb ***** over the wall like a flaming bag of shit, thankful to be rid of her, lest her disgrace reflect poorly on him, or his people. But instead he's thinking with the head on the end of his pecker, rather than the one on top of his neck. Simple as that....

Is that his mental malfunction? Weird because she ain't what I'd call pretty... Seems to me what we have here is a major bootlicker who gives police the benefit of the doubt even when they screw up royally. Or just a dumb racist and that's not a word I use lightly considering I'm pretty "racist" myself.

Lefties will use people like this guy to paint everyone on the right as an idiot.

He’s making a perfect IM2,or PE sock of himself in this matter that’s for sure...

Pick your battles wisely. the rhetoric about racist cops white terrorizing black people is blown completely out of proportion and fatigue can set in when street protests break out every time some good for nothing criminal gets whats coming to him... but this is not one of those cases. By all accounts, Botham Jean was one of the genuinely decent black men and even if he wasnt, that doesn't give this dumb **** the right to just kill him in his own apartment. That's the worst breach of American freedom. Giving state officials a pass to commit crimes is Un-American as all hell.

If you must politicize everything, this Guyger situation makes a good case against women being in law enforcement.

 

[Vastator]

The most she should have been charged with would have been negligent homicide....definitely not murder.

Why should she get a slap on the wrist for killing a dude in his own home? I don't understand the logic here.

Because he cannot see past the length of his own pecker to notice that this stupid ***** is a disgrace. A disgrace to gun owners, a disgrace to women, and a disgrace, to the "profession" of law enforcement, and cumulatively a disgrace to whites. For he is too busy "White Knighting" for a piece of ass he'll never even get a sniff of.
If he had any vision, he would catapult this dumb ***** over the wall like a flaming bag of shit, thankful to be rid of her, lest her disgrace reflect poorly on him, or his people. But instead he's thinking with the head on the end of his pecker, rather than the one on top of his neck. Simple as that....

Is that his mental malfunction? Weird because she ain't what I'd call pretty... Seems to me what we have here is a major bootlicker who gives police the benefit of the doubt even when they screw up royally. Or just a dumb racist and that's not a word I use lightly considering I'm pretty "racist" myself.

Lefties will use people like this guy to paint everyone on the right as an idiot.

He’s making a perfect IM2,or PE sock of himself in this matter that’s for sure...

Pick your battles wisely. the rhetoric about racist cops white terrorizing black people is blown completely out of proportion and fatigue can set in when street protests break out every time some good for nothing criminal gets whats coming to him... but this is not one of those cases. By all accounts, Botham Jean was one of the genuinely decent black men and even if he wasnt, that doesn't give this dumb **** the right to just kill him in his own apartment. That's the worst breach of American freedom. Giving state officials a pass to commit crimes is Un-American as all hell.

If you must politicize everything, this Guyger situation makes a good case against women being in law enforcement.

My thoughts exactly. Of all hills worth dying on; this sure as **** isn't one of them. It's not even worth fighting for. This dumb broads ineptitude is an embarrassment to us all.

 

[Rigby5]

What was the motive?

Self defense....she had a rasonable belief her life was in danger.

What danger? There was no danger in the apartment.

She did not know that at the time....she believed she was in her apartment and there was an intruder...thus it was reasonable for her to be in fear of her life.

She did not know the apartment was not hers until after she shot the guy and turned the lights on...it was very dark in the apartment...for some reason blacks like to keep it dark.

Even if it were her apartment, shooting some one who is not in the process of preparing to harm you with a weapon, can not be shot without it being murder.
A belief you may be at risk is not sufficient.
Risks have to be monitored until there is reasonable suspicion to believe you are about to be harmed.
A guy sitting on the couch with a bowl of ice cream is NOT a threat at all.
If she came home to a plumber eating ice cream on her couch, and she shot him, it would still be murder.
Being scared does NOT equal an actual threat to life.
You can not shoot just because you got scared.
She lied when she said he moved towards her, but even if he did, that would not justify shooting.

 

[Rigby5]

If she were so scared, she could have retreated.

If I walked into my apartment and realized someone foreign was inside, the absolute only thing I would want to do is go back outside lickety-split.

Would you have called the police....wait....she was the police...no need to call herself...she was there already.

So then with her police training, she should have not been afraid and felt no threat or danger, and instead should have asked him questions, to find out what was happening.

I really hope you are not so stupid.....police are human being they have human emotions like fear etc.

Anyone that goes into their apartment and it is dark and another presence is noted...most will then be fearful...facing an unknown presence and assuming he is most likely a burglar. Being a cop does not give one super man status. get real.

Keeping the racial issue going by claiming she is a victim doesn't do anybody any good. She shot and killed a innocent guy who thought he was safe in his own apartment. It wasn't racially motivated but she is surely guilty of murder. I'm surprised the prosecutor didn't offer her a deal on manslaughter or something like negligent homicide. Maybe he did and she refused to take it.

It was not murder.
For murder to exist there must be malice.............Legal Dictionary - Law.com




I

From your own link.
{...
murder

n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first degree murder. By statute, many states consider a killing in which there is torture, movement of the person before the killing (kidnapping) or the death of a police officer or prison guard, or it was as an incident to another crime (as during a hold-up or rape), to be first degree murder, with or without premeditation and with malice presumed. Second degree murder is such a killing without premeditation, as in the heat of passion or in a sudden quarrel or fight. Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life of others (such as firing a gun into a crowd or bashing someone with any deadly weapon).
...}

It says, "Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life of others (such as firing a gun into a crowd or bashing someone with any deadly weapon)."

This is supported by the fact she should have recognized the apt differences, she shot twice, and aimed at kill zones.

It was dark in the apartment...she did not know it was her apartment until she turned the lights on. Police are trained to shoot to kill...most defense courses teach the same thing...shoot twice at center mass...which is what she did...because she was in reasonable fear of her life.

If police are trained to kill illegally, that does not make them any less criminal, but simply makes the trainer complicit.
The goal of legal punishment is to protect society, and it does not matter what caused her to be a danger to society, she still has to be put away until it sinks in how wrong her actions were.

Darkness is no excuse.
She had a flashlight, knew where the switch was, and could have backed out the door.

Any defense course that teaches to shoot twice at the center of mass is illegal except in a battlefield in a state of declared war.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

What was the motive?

Self defense....she had a rasonable belief her life was in danger.

What danger? There was no danger in the apartment.

She did not know that at the time....she believed she was in her apartment and there was an intruder...thus it was reasonable for her to be in fear of her life.

She did not know the apartment was not hers until after she shot the guy and turned the lights on...it was very dark in the apartment...for some reason blacks like to keep it dark.

Even if it were her apartment, shooting some one who is not in the process of preparing to harm you with a weapon, can not be shot without it being murder.
A belief you may be at risk is not sufficient.
Risks have to be monitored until there is reasonable suspicion to believe you are about to be harmed.
A guy sitting on the couch with a bowl of ice cream is NOT a threat at all.
If she came home to a plumber eating ice cream on her couch, and she shot him, it would still be murder.
Being scared does NOT equal an actual threat to life.
You can not shoot just because you got scared.
She lied when she said he moved towards her, but even if he did, that would not justify shooting.

that’s the law in MA. Are you certain that’s the law in TX?

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Did they ever present a motive?....I didn't really follow this trial...

She was in reasonable fear of her life and thus entitled to use lethal force.

Do you even realize what such a paltry standard for use of force would result in applied equally? As all laws in our country should be... Can you imagine how many people would walk after gunning down cops?
"He approached me with a gun out of its holster... I was afeared for my life..."

So ridiculous....another member of the moron club opens his pie hole and spews incoherent idiocy.

So many seem unable to understand the law on self defense which is basically the same in most states....why do they lack the ability to understand the law...it is very simple actually...as in one has to be in 'reasonable' fear of their life or of great bodily harm to use lethal force in their defense.

Amber....was definitely in fear of her life.

Was it reasonable? To judge that one has to remember she believed she was in her own apartment and confronted with an intruder.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

If she were so scared, she could have retreated.

If I walked into my apartment and realized someone foreign was inside, the absolute only thing I would want to do is go back outside lickety-split.

Would you have called the police....wait....she was the police...no need to call herself...she was there already.

So then with her police training, she should have not been afraid and felt no threat or danger, and instead should have asked him questions, to find out what was happening.

I really hope you are not so stupid.....police are human being they have human emotions like fear etc.

Anyone that goes into their apartment and it is dark and another presence is noted...most will then be fearful...facing an unknown presence and assuming he is most likely a burglar. Being a cop does not give one super man status. get real.

Keeping the racial issue going by claiming she is a victim doesn't do anybody any good. She shot and killed a innocent guy who thought he was safe in his own apartment. It wasn't racially motivated but she is surely guilty of murder. I'm surprised the prosecutor didn't offer her a deal on manslaughter or something like negligent homicide. Maybe he did and she refused to take it.

It was not murder.
For murder to exist there must be malice.............Legal Dictionary - Law.com




I

From your own link.
{...
murder

n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first degree murder. By statute, many states consider a killing in which there is torture, movement of the person before the killing (kidnapping) or the death of a police officer or prison guard, or it was as an incident to another crime (as during a hold-up or rape), to be first degree murder, with or without premeditation and with malice presumed. Second degree murder is such a killing without premeditation, as in the heat of passion or in a sudden quarrel or fight. Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life of others (such as firing a gun into a crowd or bashing someone with any deadly weapon).
...}

It says, "Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life of others (such as firing a gun into a crowd or bashing someone with any deadly weapon)."

This is supported by the fact she should have recognized the apt differences, she shot twice, and aimed at kill zones.

It was dark in the apartment...she did not know it was her apartment until she turned the lights on. Police are trained to shoot to kill...most defense courses teach the same thing...shoot twice at center mass...which is what she did...because she was in reasonable fear of her life.

If police are trained to kill illegally, that does not make them any less criminal, but simply makes the trainer complicit.
The goal of legal punishment is to protect society, and it does not matter what caused her to be a danger to society, she still has to be put away until it sinks in how wrong her actions were.

Darkness is no excuse.
She had a flashlight, knew where the switch was, and could have backed out the door.

Any defense course that teaches to shoot twice at the center of mass is illegal except in a battlefield in a state of declared war.

Utter nonsense....a danger to society?
The above post is one of the more ridiculous you will see on here and there have been a bunch of them.... claiming the police are trained to illegally ...what ridiculous biased claims we see on here.

I really do not know where such stupidity comes from other than a hatred of police. Blacks are well known for that....it would be interesting to know how many of these idiotic posts are made by blacks. I am sure some are but there are a lot of whites who are not much smarter.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

What was the motive?

Self defense....she had a rasonable belief her life was in danger.

What danger? There was no danger in the apartment.

She did not know that at the time....she believed she was in her apartment and there was an intruder...thus it was reasonable for her to be in fear of her life.

She did not know the apartment was not hers until after she shot the guy and turned the lights on...it was very dark in the apartment...for some reason blacks like to keep it dark.

Even if it were her apartment, shooting some one who is not in the process of preparing to harm you with a weapon, can not be shot without it being murder.
A belief you may be at risk is not sufficient.
Risks have to be monitored until there is reasonable suspicion to believe you are about to be harmed.
A guy sitting on the couch with a bowl of ice cream is NOT a threat at all.
If she came home to a plumber eating ice cream on her couch, and she shot him, it would still be murder.
Being scared does NOT equal an actual threat to life.
You can not shoot just because you got scared.
She lied when she said he moved towards her, but even if he did, that would not justify shooting.

that’s the law in MA. Are you certain that’s the law in TX?

That is not the law anywhere except in your feeble mind.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Self defense....she had a rasonable belief her life was in danger.

What danger? There was no danger in the apartment.

She did not know that at the time....she believed she was in her apartment and there was an intruder...thus it was reasonable for her to be in fear of her life.

She did not know the apartment was not hers until after she shot the guy and turned the lights on...it was very dark in the apartment...for some reason blacks like to keep it dark.

Even if it were her apartment, shooting some one who is not in the process of preparing to harm you with a weapon, can not be shot without it being murder.
A belief you may be at risk is not sufficient.
Risks have to be monitored until there is reasonable suspicion to believe you are about to be harmed.
A guy sitting on the couch with a bowl of ice cream is NOT a threat at all.
If she came home to a plumber eating ice cream on her couch, and she shot him, it would still be murder.
Being scared does NOT equal an actual threat to life.
You can not shoot just because you got scared.
She lied when she said he moved towards her, but even if he did, that would not justify shooting.

that’s the law in MA. Are you certain that’s the law in TX?

That is not the law anywhere except in your feeble mind.

That is the law in MA. It’s stupid.

 

[Rigby5]

What was the motive?

Self defense....she had a rasonable belief her life was in danger.

What danger? There was no danger in the apartment.

She did not know that at the time....she believed she was in her apartment and there was an intruder...thus it was reasonable for her to be in fear of her life.

She did not know the apartment was not hers until after she shot the guy and turned the lights on...it was very dark in the apartment...for some reason blacks like to keep it dark.

Even if it were her apartment, shooting some one who is not in the process of preparing to harm you with a weapon, can not be shot without it being murder.
A belief you may be at risk is not sufficient.
Risks have to be monitored until there is reasonable suspicion to believe you are about to be harmed.
A guy sitting on the couch with a bowl of ice cream is NOT a threat at all.
If she came home to a plumber eating ice cream on her couch, and she shot him, it would still be murder.
Being scared does NOT equal an actual threat to life.
You can not shoot just because you got scared.
She lied when she said he moved towards her, but even if he did, that would not justify shooting.

that’s the law in MA. Are you certain that’s the law in TX?

States do not have options that would violate basic inherent rights.
All law in a democratic republic are based on the same principles of inherent rights.
All laws can do is balance between the conflicting rights of multiple individuals.
So state legislators have little options in situations like this.
They are required to do the most then can to avoid needless loss of life like this.
Otherwise it is the legislators who would be breaking the law.
All states have a pretty strong set of legal doctrines that are intended to make you feel secure in your own home.
But this was not Amber's home, and she was the trespasser, so I doubt there is any state that would not rule against her.

 

[Rigby5]

Did they ever present a motive?....I didn't really follow this trial...

She was in reasonable fear of her life and thus entitled to use lethal force.

Do you even realize what such a paltry standard for use of force would result in applied equally? As all laws in our country should be... Can you imagine how many people would walk after gunning down cops?
"He approached me with a gun out of its holster... I was afeared for my life..."

So ridiculous....another member of the moron club opens his pie hole and spews incoherent idiocy.

So many seem unable to understand the law on self defense which is basically the same in most states....why do they lack the ability to understand the law...it is very simple actually...as in one has to be in 'reasonable' fear of their life or of great bodily harm to use lethal force in their defense.

Amber....was definitely in fear of her life.

Was it reasonable? To judge that one has to remember she believed she was in her own apartment and confronted with an intruder.

NO!
She was not at all in fear of her life.
In order for her to be in fear of her life, an attacker would need a weapon, and she would need to be trapped, with no means of escape.
Until then, it is murder.

Being confronted with an unknown person in your own apartment is NOT at all life threatening.
Happens all the time is the building superintendent orders a repair.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Self defense....she had a rasonable belief her life was in danger.

What danger? There was no danger in the apartment.

She did not know that at the time....she believed she was in her apartment and there was an intruder...thus it was reasonable for her to be in fear of her life.

She did not know the apartment was not hers until after she shot the guy and turned the lights on...it was very dark in the apartment...for some reason blacks like to keep it dark.

Even if it were her apartment, shooting some one who is not in the process of preparing to harm you with a weapon, can not be shot without it being murder.
A belief you may be at risk is not sufficient.
Risks have to be monitored until there is reasonable suspicion to believe you are about to be harmed.
A guy sitting on the couch with a bowl of ice cream is NOT a threat at all.
If she came home to a plumber eating ice cream on her couch, and she shot him, it would still be murder.
Being scared does NOT equal an actual threat to life.
You can not shoot just because you got scared.
She lied when she said he moved towards her, but even if he did, that would not justify shooting.

that’s the law in MA. Are you certain that’s the law in TX?

States do not have options that would violate basic inherent rights.
All law in a democratic republic are based on the same principles of inherent rights.
All laws can do is balance between the conflicting rights of multiple individuals.
So state legislators have little options in situations like this.
They are required to do the most then can to avoid needless loss of life like this.
Otherwise it is the legislators who would be breaking the law.
All states have a pretty strong set of legal doctrines that are intended to make you feel secure in your own home.
But this was not Amber's home, and she was the trespasser, so I doubt there is any state that would not rule against her.

You’re so long winded. In MA you have to make every attempt to escape prior to attacking a robber. In TX you may shoot if they put their toe on your property.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Why should she get a slap on the wrist for killing a dude in his own home? I don't understand the logic here.

Because he cannot see past the length of his own pecker to notice that this stupid ***** is a disgrace. A disgrace to gun owners, a disgrace to women, and a disgrace, to the "profession" of law enforcement, and cumulatively a disgrace to whites. For he is too busy "White Knighting" for a piece of ass he'll never even get a sniff of.
If he had any vision, he would catapult this dumb ***** over the wall like a flaming bag of shit, thankful to be rid of her, lest her disgrace reflect poorly on him, or his people. But instead he's thinking with the head on the end of his pecker, rather than the one on top of his neck. Simple as that....

Is that his mental malfunction? Weird because she ain't what I'd call pretty... Seems to me what we have here is a major bootlicker who gives police the benefit of the doubt even when they screw up royally. Or just a dumb racist and that's not a word I use lightly considering I'm pretty "racist" myself.

Lefties will use people like this guy to paint everyone on the right as an idiot.

He’s making a perfect IM2,or PE sock of himself in this matter that’s for sure...

Pick your battles wisely. the rhetoric about racist cops white terrorizing black people is blown completely out of proportion and fatigue can set in when street protests break out every time some good for nothing criminal gets whats coming to him... but this is not one of those cases. By all accounts, Botham Jean was one of the genuinely decent black men and even if he wasnt, that doesn't give this dumb **** the right to just kill him in his own apartment. That's the worst breach of American freedom. Giving state officials a pass to commit crimes is Un-American as all hell.

If you must politicize everything, this Guyger situation makes a good case against women being in law enforcement.

My thoughts exactly. Of all hills worth dying on; this sure as **** isn't one of them. It's not even worth fighting for. This dumb broads ineptitude is an embarrassment to us all.

It is a tragedy for all concerned....embarassment? I do not think that is the correct term to refer to this case.

I am against women police because they are physically not strong enough to deal with a lot of criminals and thus are a burden to their partner who if in a physical altercation with a perp cannot depend on his partner for much help .....women simply are not strong enough for such situations.

Thus it is quite understandable Amber was in fear of her life...confronted with someone bigger and stronger.

I would not call her inept....this tragedy the result of her innocent trespassing and a unlocked front door thus a combination of mistakes....what are the odds that someone going to the wrong apartment finds one with a unlocked front door? I think Karma comes into play here.

Also we must remember that this mistake of going to the wrong apartment was quite common in that complex.....so whilst folks should always be more focused to avoid such mistakes....they do happen and in all areas of life. We all make mistakes....sometimes very big ones...it is just human to do so.

I think the apartment complex is more to blame than anyone for this tragedy...they knew about people in their complex getting confused and going to the wrong apartment but they took no action...they had inadequate signs up to prevent people from getting confused...when all the apartments look alike a easy mistake to make.

The serious error we see people make on here regarding this incident is basically to attack the law on self defense....most of them do not even know what the law on self defense or if they do ...they fail to comprehend it correctly.

Also it needs to be understood the state turned this into a racial matter....if the victim had been white there would have been no charges.

 

[Rigby5]

If she were so scared, she could have retreated.

If I walked into my apartment and realized someone foreign was inside, the absolute only thing I would want to do is go back outside lickety-split.

Would you have called the police....wait....she was the police...no need to call herself...she was there already.

So then with her police training, she should have not been afraid and felt no threat or danger, and instead should have asked him questions, to find out what was happening.

I really hope you are not so stupid.....police are human being they have human emotions like fear etc.

Anyone that goes into their apartment and it is dark and another presence is noted...most will then be fearful...facing an unknown presence and assuming he is most likely a burglar. Being a cop does not give one super man status. get real.

Keeping the racial issue going by claiming she is a victim doesn't do anybody any good. She shot and killed a innocent guy who thought he was safe in his own apartment. It wasn't racially motivated but she is surely guilty of murder. I'm surprised the prosecutor didn't offer her a deal on manslaughter or something like negligent homicide. Maybe he did and she refused to take it.

It was not murder.
For murder to exist there must be malice.............Legal Dictionary - Law.com




I

From your own link.
{...
murder

n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first degree murder. By statute, many states consider a killing in which there is torture, movement of the person before the killing (kidnapping) or the death of a police officer or prison guard, or it was as an incident to another crime (as during a hold-up or rape), to be first degree murder, with or without premeditation and with malice presumed. Second degree murder is such a killing without premeditation, as in the heat of passion or in a sudden quarrel or fight. Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life of others (such as firing a gun into a crowd or bashing someone with any deadly weapon).
...}

It says, "Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life of others (such as firing a gun into a crowd or bashing someone with any deadly weapon)."

This is supported by the fact she should have recognized the apt differences, she shot twice, and aimed at kill zones.

It was dark in the apartment...she did not know it was her apartment until she turned the lights on. Police are trained to shoot to kill...most defense courses teach the same thing...shoot twice at center mass...which is what she did...because she was in reasonable fear of her life.

If police are trained to kill illegally, that does not make them any less criminal, but simply makes the trainer complicit.
The goal of legal punishment is to protect society, and it does not matter what caused her to be a danger to society, she still has to be put away until it sinks in how wrong her actions were.

Darkness is no excuse.
She had a flashlight, knew where the switch was, and could have backed out the door.

Any defense course that teaches to shoot twice at the center of mass is illegal except in a battlefield in a state of declared war.

Utter nonsense....a danger to society?
The above post is one of the more ridiculous you will see on here and there have been a bunch of them.... claiming the police are trained to illegally ...what ridiculous biased claims we see on here.

I really do not know where such stupidity comes from other than a hatred of police. Blacks are well known for that....it would be interesting to know how many of these idiotic posts are made by blacks. I am sure some are but there are a lot of whites who are not much smarter.

Liar.
The standard of one shot was established by ALL the previous generations of police, and it is THEY who established that things like double taps by police are criminal.
And it is also obvious how police came to be illegally trained, because military personnel have taken over the police departments and their training.

Anyone who would shoot to kill when confronted with an unknown person who has not brandished a weapon, is a clear and present danger to society, and needs to be locked up.
Amber would have murdered a plumber, electrician, or any Black person who happened to be in her apartment legally when she got home.
That is criminally reckless.

 

[Rigby5]

What danger? There was no danger in the apartment.

She did not know that at the time....she believed she was in her apartment and there was an intruder...thus it was reasonable for her to be in fear of her life.

She did not know the apartment was not hers until after she shot the guy and turned the lights on...it was very dark in the apartment...for some reason blacks like to keep it dark.

Even if it were her apartment, shooting some one who is not in the process of preparing to harm you with a weapon, can not be shot without it being murder.
A belief you may be at risk is not sufficient.
Risks have to be monitored until there is reasonable suspicion to believe you are about to be harmed.
A guy sitting on the couch with a bowl of ice cream is NOT a threat at all.
If she came home to a plumber eating ice cream on her couch, and she shot him, it would still be murder.
Being scared does NOT equal an actual threat to life.
You can not shoot just because you got scared.
She lied when she said he moved towards her, but even if he did, that would not justify shooting.

that’s the law in MA. Are you certain that’s the law in TX?

States do not have options that would violate basic inherent rights.
All law in a democratic republic are based on the same principles of inherent rights.
All laws can do is balance between the conflicting rights of multiple individuals.
So state legislators have little options in situations like this.
They are required to do the most then can to avoid needless loss of life like this.
Otherwise it is the legislators who would be breaking the law.
All states have a pretty strong set of legal doctrines that are intended to make you feel secure in your own home.
But this was not Amber's home, and she was the trespasser, so I doubt there is any state that would not rule against her.

You’re so long winded. In MA you have to make every attempt to escape prior to attacking a robber. In TX you may shoot if they put their toe on your property.

Neither of those is exactly right.
The extreme is that in some states you have to retreat if possible, while in other states you can stay to defend your property.
But no state requires you to abandon your home.
The disagreement between states is only over property outside the home, like your car.
And the trend is that you do or will have the right to protect property, with deadly force if necessary.

In MA, you do not have to abandon your home, and in TX you can not shoot someone on the porch who is not threatening.
The disparity is not nearly as large as you seem to think.

{...
The self-defense laws in Massachusetts include the castle doctrine, meaning that when defending yourself in your "dwelling," you aren't required to first try to retreat. But, in other circumstances, a person is required to retreat before using force.

It's important to note that under the law, dwelling is defined as a building that's a permanent or temporary residence, which means that tents, motor homes, and boats may not qualify as a dwelling where the doctrine would apply. It's also important to be aware that common areas of building - such as the hall of an apartment - doesn't fall under the castle doctrine. Finally, as with virtually all self-defense laws, the force used must be "reasonably necessary" under the circumstances and if deadly force is used, the person must have "reasonably and actually believe that they were in "immediate danger of great bodily harm or death."
...}
Massachusetts Self-Defense Laws - FindLaw

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Would you have called the police....wait....she was the police...no need to call herself...she was there already.

So then with her police training, she should have not been afraid and felt no threat or danger, and instead should have asked him questions, to find out what was happening.

I really hope you are not so stupid.....police are human being they have human emotions like fear etc.

Anyone that goes into their apartment and it is dark and another presence is noted...most will then be fearful...facing an unknown presence and assuming he is most likely a burglar. Being a cop does not give one super man status. get real.

It was not murder.
For murder to exist there must be malice.............Legal Dictionary - Law.com




I

From your own link.
{...
murder

n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first degree murder. By statute, many states consider a killing in which there is torture, movement of the person before the killing (kidnapping) or the death of a police officer or prison guard, or it was as an incident to another crime (as during a hold-up or rape), to be first degree murder, with or without premeditation and with malice presumed. Second degree murder is such a killing without premeditation, as in the heat of passion or in a sudden quarrel or fight. Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life of others (such as firing a gun into a crowd or bashing someone with any deadly weapon).
...}

It says, "Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life of others (such as firing a gun into a crowd or bashing someone with any deadly weapon)."

This is supported by the fact she should have recognized the apt differences, she shot twice, and aimed at kill zones.

It was dark in the apartment...she did not know it was her apartment until she turned the lights on. Police are trained to shoot to kill...most defense courses teach the same thing...shoot twice at center mass...which is what she did...because she was in reasonable fear of her life.

If police are trained to kill illegally, that does not make them any less criminal, but simply makes the trainer complicit.
The goal of legal punishment is to protect society, and it does not matter what caused her to be a danger to society, she still has to be put away until it sinks in how wrong her actions were.

Darkness is no excuse.
She had a flashlight, knew where the switch was, and could have backed out the door.

Any defense course that teaches to shoot twice at the center of mass is illegal except in a battlefield in a state of declared war.

Utter nonsense....a danger to society?
The above post is one of the more ridiculous you will see on here and there have been a bunch of them.... claiming the police are trained to illegally ...what ridiculous biased claims we see on here.

I really do not know where such stupidity comes from other than a hatred of police. Blacks are well known for that....it would be interesting to know how many of these idiotic posts are made by blacks. I am sure some are but there are a lot of whites who are not much smarter.

Liar.
The standard of one shot was established by ALL the previous generations of police, and it is THEY who established that things like double taps by police are criminal.
And it is also obvious how police came to be illegally trained, because military personnel have taken over the police departments and their training.

Anyone who would shoot to kill when confronted with an unknown person who has not brandished a weapon, is a clear and present danger to society, and needs to be locked up.
Amber would have murdered a plumber, electrician, or any Black person who happened to be in her apartment legally when she got home.
That is criminally reckless.

 

[Rigby5]

Because he cannot see past the length of his own pecker to notice that this stupid ***** is a disgrace. A disgrace to gun owners, a disgrace to women, and a disgrace, to the "profession" of law enforcement, and cumulatively a disgrace to whites. For he is too busy "White Knighting" for a piece of ass he'll never even get a sniff of.
If he had any vision, he would catapult this dumb ***** over the wall like a flaming bag of shit, thankful to be rid of her, lest her disgrace reflect poorly on him, or his people. But instead he's thinking with the head on the end of his pecker, rather than the one on top of his neck. Simple as that....

Is that his mental malfunction? Weird because she ain't what I'd call pretty... Seems to me what we have here is a major bootlicker who gives police the benefit of the doubt even when they screw up royally. Or just a dumb racist and that's not a word I use lightly considering I'm pretty "racist" myself.

Lefties will use people like this guy to paint everyone on the right as an idiot.

He’s making a perfect IM2,or PE sock of himself in this matter that’s for sure...

Pick your battles wisely. the rhetoric about racist cops white terrorizing black people is blown completely out of proportion and fatigue can set in when street protests break out every time some good for nothing criminal gets whats coming to him... but this is not one of those cases. By all accounts, Botham Jean was one of the genuinely decent black men and even if he wasnt, that doesn't give this dumb **** the right to just kill him in his own apartment. That's the worst breach of American freedom. Giving state officials a pass to commit crimes is Un-American as all hell.

If you must politicize everything, this Guyger situation makes a good case against women being in law enforcement.

My thoughts exactly. Of all hills worth dying on; this sure as **** isn't one of them. It's not even worth fighting for. This dumb broads ineptitude is an embarrassment to us all.

It is a tragedy for all concerned....embarassment? I do not think that is the correct term to refer to this case.

I am against women police because they are physically not strong enough to deal with a lot of criminals and thus are a burden to their partner who if in a physical altercation with a perp cannot depend on his partner for much help .....women simply are not strong enough for such situations.

Thus it is quite understandable Amber was in fear of her life...confronted with someone bigger and stronger.

I would not call her inept....this tragedy the result of her innocent trespassing and a unlocked front door thus a combination of mistakes....what are the odds that someone going to the wrong apartment finds one with a unlocked front door? I think Karma comes into play here.

Also we must remember that this mistake of going to the wrong apartment was quite common in that complex.....so whilst folks should always be more focused to avoid such mistakes....they do happen and in all areas of life. We all make mistakes....sometimes very big ones...it is just human to do so.

I think the apartment complex is more to blame than anyone for this tragedy...they knew about people in their complex getting confused and going to the wrong apartment but they took no action...they had inadequate signs up to prevent people from getting confused...when all the apartments look alike a easy mistake to make.

The serious error we see people make on here regarding this incident is basically to attack the law on self defense....most of them do not even know what the law on self defense or if they do ...they fail to comprehend it correctly.

Also it needs to be understood the state turned this into a racial matter....if the victim had been white there would have been no charges.

Completely wrong.
First of all, there was nothing to establish that the guy was bigger or stronger than Amber.
He was sitting down, never got up, and for all Amber knew, he could have been a paraplegic.
The coroner established he was shot while sitting on the couch, not approaching as Amber claimed.
Amber also had the options of retreating, taser, warning shot, aiming at extremities, etc.
The law on self defense is very clear, in that there has to be proof of a threat first.
No one has the right to harm others just because they are scared.
Being free from fear is not a right.
Being free from being shot and killed by Amber is a right.

 

[Rambunctious]

I know what happened...she pushed the door open and saw him eating her rock road...a killing offense if there ever was one.....

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Would you have called the police....wait....she was the police...no need to call herself...she was there already.

So then with her police training, she should have not been afraid and felt no threat or danger, and instead should have asked him questions, to find out what was happening.

I really hope you are not so stupid.....police are human being they have human emotions like fear etc.

Anyone that goes into their apartment and it is dark and another presence is noted...most will then be fearful...facing an unknown presence and assuming he is most likely a burglar. Being a cop does not give one super man status. get real.

It was not murder.
For murder to exist there must be malice.............Legal Dictionary - Law.com




I

From your own link.
{...
murder

n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first degree murder. By statute, many states consider a killing in which there is torture, movement of the person before the killing (kidnapping) or the death of a police officer or prison guard, or it was as an incident to another crime (as during a hold-up or rape), to be first degree murder, with or without premeditation and with malice presumed. Second degree murder is such a killing without premeditation, as in the heat of passion or in a sudden quarrel or fight. Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life of others (such as firing a gun into a crowd or bashing someone with any deadly weapon).
...}

It says, "Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life of others (such as firing a gun into a crowd or bashing someone with any deadly weapon)."

This is supported by the fact she should have recognized the apt differences, she shot twice, and aimed at kill zones.

It was dark in the apartment...she did not know it was her apartment until she turned the lights on. Police are trained to shoot to kill...most defense courses teach the same thing...shoot twice at center mass...which is what she did...because she was in reasonable fear of her life.

If police are trained to kill illegally, that does not make them any less criminal, but simply makes the trainer complicit.
The goal of legal punishment is to protect society, and it does not matter what caused her to be a danger to society, she still has to be put away until it sinks in how wrong her actions were.

Darkness is no excuse.
She had a flashlight, knew where the switch was, and could have backed out the door.

Any defense course that teaches to shoot twice at the center of mass is illegal except in a battlefield in a state of declared war.

Utter nonsense....a danger to society?
The above post is one of the more ridiculous you will see on here and there have been a bunch of them.... claiming the police are trained to illegally ...what ridiculous biased claims we see on here.

I really do not know where such stupidity comes from other than a hatred of police. Blacks are well known for that....it would be interesting to know how many of these idiotic posts are made by blacks. I am sure some are but there are a lot of whites who are not much smarter.

Liar.
The standard of one shot was established by ALL the previous generations of police, and it is THEY who established that things like double taps by police are criminal.
And it is also obvious how police came to be illegally trained, because military personnel have taken over the police departments and their training.

Anyone who would shoot to kill when confronted with an unknown person who has not brandished a weapon, is a clear and present danger to society, and needs to be locked up.
Amber would have murdered a plumber, electrician, or any Black person who happened to be in her apartment legally when she got home.
That is criminally reckless.

Bullshitt....you want to do away with law on self defense because?

You then work your imagination over time and make suprious claims of what she might have done. Nonsense.

This belief you and many others have of an unarmed person not being a possible threat is contradicted by real life...people are strangled and beaten to death by unarmed perps. Just a sad reaility of life. A smaller weaker person is in much more danger from an unarmed perp...thus they are more prone to use a equalizer. Thus a woman in the situation of confronting an intruder in a dark apartment who refuses to follow commands is more likely to use lethal force...and it is certainly reasonable for them to do so.