Amber Guyger Guilty of Murder

[TheGreenHornet]

For those saying murder requires premeditation, she had that as well:

...............What is premeditated and deliberate conduct?

Premeditation requires that the defendant think out the act, no matter how quickly—it can be as simple deciding to pick up a hammer that is lying nearby and to use it as a weapon

So it was premeditated. She drew her gun and shot him. Same as picking up a hammer that's nearby.

Definition of Murder............

Legal Dictionary - Law.com

What is PREMEDITATED MURDER? definition of PREMEDITATED MURDER (Black's Law Dictionary)


Definition of PREMEDITATED MURDER • Law Dictionary • TheLaw.com

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Just as I predicted she would be:

Amber Guyger found guilty of murder at trial in fatal shooting of neighbor Botham Jean

Murder is defined as premeditated. A deliberate act of malice with forethought. This incident does not fit that definition. It was Manslaughter, an accident. That's it. This has become a political/racial issue, not a judicial one. I think of blacks doing drive bys shooting little kids or grannies, this is small potatoes.

NO!
This has been explained many times.
Extreme negligence can cause an act to be murder even without it being intentional or with malice.
Drunk driving accident deaths are often murder without any malice or intent.
There are also things that can elevate charges, and in this case Amber was in the commission of the crime of trespassing, while armed.
Which accelerates the charge.
When you are allowed to carry a gun by permit, you accept a higher standard for being careful about how you use that gun.
Simple mistakes then become crimes.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaa here you are again trying to spread your ill-informed opinions on the law after you have been discredited on the other forum

.
For murder to exist there must be malice.
Legal Dictionary - Law.com

Then you say she was guilty of criminal trespass ...wrong again. She was a innocent trespasser.

What is INNOCENT TRESPASSER? definition of INNOCENT TRESPASSER (Black's Law Dictionary)

Then you further confuse yourself by claiming drunk drivers that kill someone are charged with murder.

In very rare cases some drunk drivers have been charged with 2nd degree murder....but there is a huge difference between 2nd degree murder and murder.

Murder requires malice...but 2nd degree murder does not. Thus drunk drivers are never charged with murder because it requires malice.

There is no 2nd degree murder in Texas.

Then you blather on about how carrying a gun obligates someone to a higher standard of conduct...maybe you learned that from some podunk class on concealed and carry but there is no law on the books requiring a higher standard of conduct by anyone...all citizens are under the same laws whether you carry a weapon or not.

Geeez....have you ever been right about anything?

 

[TheGreenHornet]

The justice system is broken and some preach about how Americans are free...
Thos criminal went on to kill a man in his house with cold blood and she gets only 10 years ?

She was a innocent trespasser...the door to the apartment was open....she walked in thinking she was in her own apartment and immediately spotted a silhouette of a person...who she naturally thought was either a intruder or burglar....reasonable for her to believe that since she thought she was in her own apartment....she became very frightened...only natural....issued a order for the person to show his hands....he failed to comply...then she shot twice hitting him once.

A tragedy for all concerned but what she did was not murder....for murder to occurr there must be malice...she had no malice.

The most she should have been charged with would be negligent homicide.

This case is being appealed and should result in a new trial....otherwise it is a miscarriage of justice.

So she cant tell her house from a neighbour"s house? Sounds to me she is a danger to society...she deserves a death sentence for killing an innocent human in his house....intrusion, trespassing and premeditated killing ...she deserves the death penalty IMHO.

10 years in the pen is too light of a sentence for murder. I agree she should have gotten the death penalty, or life in prison at the very least.

If it were me I would have fried her sorry ass and smashed her ******* phone.

Hate women much? hehheh

Do not fret too much --this case will be appealed and over-turned.

It was a legal mistake to charge her with murder...which requires malice...the most she should have been charged with was negligent homicide.

In truth this was a political show trial to appease the Negroes. Even the police chief said it was just an accident.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Just as I predicted she would be:

Amber Guyger found guilty of murder at trial in fatal shooting of neighbor Botham Jean

Murder is defined as premeditated. A deliberate act of malice with forethought. This incident does not fit that definition. It was Manslaughter, an accident. That's it. This has become a political/racial issue, surpassing a judicial one. I think of blacks doing drive by shootings murdering little kids or grannies who's names are long forgotten like casualties of war as if they disposable, and then THIS....What was the name of the victim? Botham Jean.

You nailed it.

 

[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.

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.

Absolute nonsense....it really is amazing that anyone can miscontrue the law to such a degree.

Answer me this .....say you are a police officer had an apt. in that building and one night you return to your apartment....you open your door and the lights are off but you discern a figure or silouhette of a man in your apartment.

Remember the lights are off. Unbeknownst to you this guy has just escaped from prison...tracked down your address...and on this night had came in through a window waiting for you to return as he wanted to kill you because someone told him you were responsible for sending him to jail.

Though you could not see it he had a machette and intended to use it on you.

Now of course you did not know who this guy was, you did know he was armed...so thinking he was probably just a maintenance guy sent to work on something in your apartment ...you close the door saunter in and say whas up bro......then you turn on the lights and see he has a machette...would you........ even at this point fear your life was in danger?


Anyhow...show me anywhere in the texas law on self defense where one is required to be trapped and your attacker must have some kind of weapon before you are entitled to use lethal force.

Now, I know you cannot do that...but I can just see you searching and searching. hehheh

What state do you live in?...you sound like someone from one of those states that requires a person to flee if threatened. Probably what has got you so confused.

Irregardless...of all the above....as some recent cases have demonstrated the law on self defense is being radically changed by pc juries....believing and coerced by the state and the media to believe blacks have extra protection because they are a minority...the well known double standard regarding blacks....they(blacks) even though a minority commit over half of all violent crimes in America including rape yet the media would have you believe they are the victims.

What I am saying essentially is this: If you shoot a unarmed black no matter what they are doing you are in a shit-load of trouble...especially if you do it in a big city where democrats rule.

As police officers and others have found out...so in regards to blacks your assertion above about how the perp must have a weapon does carry some weight....because these pc juries do not follow the law...they folllow the doctrine of political correctness where blacks are always the victim no matter what they are doing.

In a nutshell what we are seeing now is how politidal correctnes trumps the law....if you folks have no problem with that keep voting democratic.

P.S. I advise anyone with a concealed/carry permit to turn in your pistol and buy a knife...very effective at close range...and you will have much better luck with a jury if you have to kill someone in self defense.

A lot of juries now believe if anyone carries a concealed weapon they are automatically guilty as in only gun nuts carry weapons and they are out there relentlessly hunting for blacks to murder...so it goes.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

A serial killer could have been sitting there eating ice cream...eating ice cream means nothing...completely irrelevant...it is idiotic to think anyone would have remained sitting and continues to eat ice cream when they see a police officer coming through their door.

The sight of him eating ice cream or eating it then stopping should have been a sign to her that something innocent was going on.

 

[Common Sense Dude]

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.

Absolute nonsense....it really is amazing that anyone can miscontrue the law to such a degree.

Answer me this .....say you are a police officer had an apt. in that building and one night you return to your apartment....you open your door and the lights are off but you discern a figure or silouhette of a man in your apartment.

Remember the lights are off. Unbeknownst to you this guy has just escaped from prison...tracked down your address...and on this night had came in through a window waiting for you to return as he wanted to kill you because someone told him you were responsible for sending him to jail.

Though you could not see it he had a machette and intended to use it on you.

Now of course you did not know who this guy was, you did know he was armed...so thinking he was probably just a maintenance guy sent to work on something in your apartment ...you close the door saunter in and say whas up bro......then you turn on the lights and see he has a machette...would you........ even at this point fear your life was in danger?


Anyhow...show me anywhere in the texas law on self defense where one is required to be trapped and your attacker must have some kind of weapon before you are entitled to use lethal force.

Now, I know you cannot do that...but I can just see you searching and searching. hehheh

What state do you live in?...you sound like someone from one of those states that requires a person to flee if threatened. Probably what has got you so confused.

Irregardless...of all the above....as some recent cases have demonstrated the law on self defense is being radically changed by pc juries....believing and coerced by the state and the media to believe blacks have extra protection because they are a minority...the well known double standard regarding blacks....they(blacks) even though a minority commit over half of all violent crimes in America including rape yet the media would have you believe they are the victims.

What I am saying essentially is this: If you shoot a unarmed black no matter what they are doing you are in a shit-load of trouble...especially if you do it in a big city where democrats rule.

As police officers and others have found out...so in regards to blacks your assertion above about how the perp must have a weapon does carry some weight....because these pc juries do not follow the law...they folllow the doctrine of political correctness where blacks are always the victim no matter what they are doing.

In a nutshell what we are seeing now is how politidal correctnes trumps the law....if you folks have no problem with that keep voting democratic.

P.S. I advise anyone with a concealed/carry permit to turn in your pistol and buy a knife...very effective at close range...and you will have much better luck with a jury if you have to kill someone in self defense.

A lot of juries now believe if anyone carries a concealed weapon they are automatically guilty as in only gun nuts carry weapons and they are out there relentlessly hunting for blacks to murder...so it goes.

The scenario you so creatively conjured up has absolutely nothing to do with Guyger's situation.

You are apparently so paranoid, one-sided, and biased against blacks that you can't see it any other way. Forget that she was a cop. She was perfectly legal in carrying a gun, but what she did was totally in the wrong. Being an officer in uniform is no excuse for her actions.

Irregardless? politidal correctnes? Obviously you need to learn proper spelling & grammar. What's the matter? Your smart phone's auto-correct wasn't working?

 

[Common Sense Dude]

A serial killer could have been sitting there eating ice cream...eating ice cream means nothing...completely irrelevant...it is idiotic to think anyone would have remained sitting and continues to eat ice cream when they see a police officer coming through their door.

The sight of him eating ice cream or eating it then stopping should have been a sign to her that something innocent was going on.

If she had been paying attention and wasn't distracted by her sexually-oriented text messages with another officer - a conduct code violation in itself - this whole matter could have been avoided.

She's a slut, and obviously unfit to be in law enforcement after all this. I'm glad justice was served.

 

[Vastator]

A serial killer could have been sitting there eating ice cream...eating ice cream means nothing...completely irrelevant...it is idiotic to think anyone would have remained sitting and continues to eat ice cream when they see a police officer coming through their door.

The sight of him eating ice cream or eating it then stopping should have been a sign to her that something innocent was going on.

If she had been paying attention and wasn't distracted by her sexually-oriented text messages with another officer - a conduct code violation in itself - this whole matter could have been avoided.

She's a slut, and obviously unfit to be in law enforcement after all this. I'm glad justice was served.

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....

 

[TheGreenHornet]

A serial killer could have been sitting there eating ice cream...eating ice cream means nothing...completely irrelevant...it is idiotic to think anyone would have remained sitting and continues to eat ice cream when they see a police officer coming through their door.

The sight of him eating ice cream or eating it then stopping should have been a sign to her that something innocent was going on.

That was the prosecutors tale which has been debunked. He was advancing on here and refused to comply to her lawful order of show me your hands.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

A serial killer could have been sitting there eating ice cream...eating ice cream means nothing...completely irrelevant...it is idiotic to think anyone would have remained sitting and continues to eat ice cream when they see a police officer coming through their door.

The sight of him eating ice cream or eating it then stopping should have been a sign to her that something innocent was going on.

If she had been paying attention and wasn't distracted by her sexually-oriented text messages with another officer - a conduct code violation in itself - this whole matter could have been avoided.

She's a slut, and obviously unfit to be in law enforcement after all this. I'm glad justice was served.

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....

Typical negro ....full of hatred.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

A serial killer could have been sitting there eating ice cream...eating ice cream means nothing...completely irrelevant...it is idiotic to think anyone would have remained sitting and continues to eat ice cream when they see a police officer coming through their door.

The sight of him eating ice cream or eating it then stopping should have been a sign to her that something innocent was going on.

If she had been paying attention and wasn't distracted by her sexually-oriented text messages with another officer - a conduct code violation in itself - this whole matter could have been avoided.

She's a slut, and obviously unfit to be in law enforcement after all this. I'm glad justice was served.

That was heresay circulated to try and demonize Amber. She was not sexting.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

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.

Absolute nonsense....it really is amazing that anyone can miscontrue the law to such a degree.

Answer me this .....say you are a police officer had an apt. in that building and one night you return to your apartment....you open your door and the lights are off but you discern a figure or silouhette of a man in your apartment.

Remember the lights are off. Unbeknownst to you this guy has just escaped from prison...tracked down your address...and on this night had came in through a window waiting for you to return as he wanted to kill you because someone told him you were responsible for sending him to jail.

Though you could not see it he had a machette and intended to use it on you.

Now of course you did not know who this guy was, you did know he was armed...so thinking he was probably just a maintenance guy sent to work on something in your apartment ...you close the door saunter in and say whas up bro......then you turn on the lights and see he has a machette...would you........ even at this point fear your life was in danger?


Anyhow...show me anywhere in the texas law on self defense where one is required to be trapped and your attacker must have some kind of weapon before you are entitled to use lethal force.

Now, I know you cannot do that...but I can just see you searching and searching. hehheh

What state do you live in?...you sound like someone from one of those states that requires a person to flee if threatened. Probably what has got you so confused.

Irregardless...of all the above....as some recent cases have demonstrated the law on self defense is being radically changed by pc juries....believing and coerced by the state and the media to believe blacks have extra protection because they are a minority...the well known double standard regarding blacks....they(blacks) even though a minority commit over half of all violent crimes in America including rape yet the media would have you believe they are the victims.

What I am saying essentially is this: If you shoot a unarmed black no matter what they are doing you are in a shit-load of trouble...especially if you do it in a big city where democrats rule.

As police officers and others have found out...so in regards to blacks your assertion above about how the perp must have a weapon does carry some weight....because these pc juries do not follow the law...they folllow the doctrine of political correctness where blacks are always the victim no matter what they are doing.

In a nutshell what we are seeing now is how politidal correctnes trumps the law....if you folks have no problem with that keep voting democratic.

P.S. I advise anyone with a concealed/carry permit to turn in your pistol and buy a knife...very effective at close range...and you will have much better luck with a jury if you have to kill someone in self defense.

A lot of juries now believe if anyone carries a concealed weapon they are automatically guilty as in only gun nuts carry weapons and they are out there relentlessly hunting for blacks to murder...so it goes.

The scenario you so creatively conjured up has absolutely nothing to do with Guyger's situation.

You are apparently so paranoid, one-sided, and biased against blacks that you can't see it any other way. Forget that she was a cop. She was perfectly legal in carrying a gun, but what she did was totally in the wrong. Being an officer in uniform is no excuse for her actions.

Irregardless? politidal correctnes? Obviously you need to learn proper spelling & grammar. What's the matter? Your smart phone's auto-correct wasn't working?

Amber did nothing illegal...she followed departmental guidelines .....the tragedy was the result of a honest mistake....and perhaps bad karma.

The court destroyed an innocent life in order to placate blacks.

 

[Vastator]

A serial killer could have been sitting there eating ice cream...eating ice cream means nothing...completely irrelevant...it is idiotic to think anyone would have remained sitting and continues to eat ice cream when they see a police officer coming through their door.

The sight of him eating ice cream or eating it then stopping should have been a sign to her that something innocent was going on.

If she had been paying attention and wasn't distracted by her sexually-oriented text messages with another officer - a conduct code violation in itself - this whole matter could have been avoided.

She's a slut, and obviously unfit to be in law enforcement after all this. I'm glad justice was served.

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....

Typical negro ....full of hatred.

If typical negros were as white as me; you’d have no boogeyman to fear...

 

[Vastator]

A serial killer could have been sitting there eating ice cream...eating ice cream means nothing...completely irrelevant...it is idiotic to think anyone would have remained sitting and continues to eat ice cream when they see a police officer coming through their door.

The sight of him eating ice cream or eating it then stopping should have been a sign to her that something innocent was going on.

If she had been paying attention and wasn't distracted by her sexually-oriented text messages with another officer - a conduct code violation in itself - this whole matter could have been avoided.

She's a slut, and obviously unfit to be in law enforcement after all this. I'm glad justice was served.

That was heresay circulated to try and demonize Amber. She was not sexting.

Here ya go... Go on now... get it outta yer system...

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

A serial killer could have been sitting there eating ice cream...eating ice cream means nothing...completely irrelevant...it is idiotic to think anyone would have remained sitting and continues to eat ice cream when they see a police officer coming through their door.

The sight of him eating ice cream or eating it then stopping should have been a sign to her that something innocent was going on.

That was the prosecutors tale which has been debunked. He was advancing on here and refused to comply to her lawful order of show me your hands.

You are pursuing a lost cause.

 

[airplanemechanic]

A serial killer could have been sitting there eating ice cream...eating ice cream means nothing...completely irrelevant...it is idiotic to think anyone would have remained sitting and continues to eat ice cream when they see a police officer coming through their door.

The sight of him eating ice cream or eating it then stopping should have been a sign to her that something innocent was going on.

That was the prosecutors tale which has been debunked. He was advancing on here and refused to comply to her lawful order of show me your hands.

He has no legal obligation to show any armed trespasser his hands.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Just as I predicted she would be:

Amber Guyger found guilty of murder at trial in fatal shooting of neighbor Botham Jean

Murder is defined as premeditated. A deliberate act of malice with forethought. This incident does not fit that definition. It was Manslaughter, an accident. That's it. This has become a political/racial issue, not a judicial one. I think of blacks doing drive bys shooting little kids or grannies, this is small potatoes.

NO!
This has been explained many times.
Extreme negligence can cause an act to be murder even without it being intentional or with malice.
Drunk driving accident deaths are often murder without any malice or intent.
There are also things that can elevate charges, and in this case Amber was in the commission of the crime of trespassing, while armed.
Which accelerates the charge.
When you are allowed to carry a gun by permit, you accept a higher standard for being careful about how you use that gun.
Simple mistakes then become crimes.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaa here you are again trying to spread your ill-informed opinions on the law after you have been discredited on the other forum

.
For murder to exist there must be malice.
Legal Dictionary - Law.com

Then you say she was guilty of criminal trespass ...wrong again. She was a innocent trespasser.

What is INNOCENT TRESPASSER? definition of INNOCENT TRESPASSER (Black's Law Dictionary)

Then you further confuse yourself by claiming drunk drivers that kill someone are charged with murder.

In very rare cases some drunk drivers have been charged with 2nd degree murder....but there is a huge difference between 2nd degree murder and murder.

Murder requires malice...but 2nd degree murder does not. Thus drunk drivers are never charged with murder because it requires malice.

There is no 2nd degree murder in Texas.

Then you blather on about how carrying a gun obligates someone to a higher standard of conduct...maybe you learned that from some podunk class on concealed and carry but there is no law on the books requiring a higher standard of conduct by anyone...all citizens are under the same laws whether you carry a weapon or not.

Geeez....have you ever been right about anything?

Wrong. An innocent trespasser is someone who believes they have a right to be on someone else's land and they don't.

Innocent Trespasser Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

An innocent trespasser is a person who enters on to another’s land unlawfully, but either inadvertently or under the mistaken belief that s/he has a right to enter the other person’s land.

Not someone who walks into someone else's home and shoots the occupant.

 

[airplanemechanic]

For those saying murder requires premeditation, she had that as well:

...............What is premeditated and deliberate conduct?

Premeditation requires that the defendant think out the act, no matter how quickly—it can be as simple deciding to pick up a hammer that is lying nearby and to use it as a weapon

So it was premeditated. She drew her gun and shot him. Same as picking up a hammer that's nearby.

Definition of Murder............

Legal Dictionary - Law.com

What is PREMEDITATED MURDER? definition of PREMEDITATED MURDER (Black's Law Dictionary)


Definition of PREMEDITATED MURDER • Law Dictionary • TheLaw.com

You quoted me and then proved me right.

Planned in advance doesn't mean you must take days or weeks to plan it.

Premeditation requires that the defendant think out the act, no matter how quickly—it can be as simple deciding to pick up a hammer that is lying nearby and to use it as a weapon. There is NO MINIMUM AMOUNT OF TIME NECESSARY TO MAKE IT PREMEDITATED.

Look at the definition of premeditated that I supplied. I'm right. You're wrong. Live with it.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Just as I predicted she would be:

Amber Guyger found guilty of murder at trial in fatal shooting of neighbor Botham Jean

Murder is defined as premeditated. A deliberate act of malice with forethought. This incident does not fit that definition. It was Manslaughter, an accident. That's it. This has become a political/racial issue, not a judicial one. I think of blacks doing drive bys shooting little kids or grannies, this is small potatoes.

NO!
This has been explained many times.
Extreme negligence can cause an act to be murder even without it being intentional or with malice.
Drunk driving accident deaths are often murder without any malice or intent.
There are also things that can elevate charges, and in this case Amber was in the commission of the crime of trespassing, while armed.
Which accelerates the charge.
When you are allowed to carry a gun by permit, you accept a higher standard for being careful about how you use that gun.
Simple mistakes then become crimes.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaa here you are again trying to spread your ill-informed opinions on the law after you have been discredited on the other forum

.
For murder to exist there must be malice.
Legal Dictionary - Law.com

Then you say she was guilty of criminal trespass ...wrong again. She was a innocent trespasser.

What is INNOCENT TRESPASSER? definition of INNOCENT TRESPASSER (Black's Law Dictionary)

Then you further confuse yourself by claiming drunk drivers that kill someone are charged with murder.

In very rare cases some drunk drivers have been charged with 2nd degree murder....but there is a huge difference between 2nd degree murder and murder.

Murder requires malice...but 2nd degree murder does not. Thus drunk drivers are never charged with murder because it requires malice.

There is no 2nd degree murder in Texas.

Then you blather on about how carrying a gun obligates someone to a higher standard of conduct...maybe you learned that from some podunk class on concealed and carry but there is no law on the books requiring a higher standard of conduct by anyone...all citizens are under the same laws whether you carry a weapon or not.

Geeez....have you ever been right about anything?

You need to go back to law school and look up the definition of the word "Malice" before you use it to defend yourself.

Walking into someone's home that you have no right to be in, drawing a weapon and shooting them twice in the chest IS MALICE AND FORETHOUGHT. And it doubles as malice when the defendant herself stated she shot him to kill him.

She CANNOT claim self defense I don't care what the guy did. She had no right to be in there. Just like a bank robber can't shoot someone and say they were in fear for their life when they saw someone point a gun at them. They're committing a felony so self defense does not apply. Her being a cop is irrelevant. She is just another armed intruder and I wish he could have shot her dead.

She went down for murder rightly so but didn't get sentenced NEARLY high enough. She should get life without.