Amber Guyger Guilty of Murder

[MarcATL]

Her defense should have requested a change of venue.

I've always opposed the change of venue practice. Ones guilt, or innocence is supposed to be decided by a jury of ones own peers. Not someone else's peers...

Black judges and jurists aren't exactly peers of a white female in the shooting of a black male.

Why not?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

That was a pretty quick trial seems like.

That tells you it was clear for all to see that she was in the wrong.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

I wonder if the governor will pardon Guyger for her "mistake."

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

10 years....they may not have charged her like manslaughter..but they sentenced her like it:

Jury Sentences Amber Guyger To 10 Years In Prison

"A jury sentenced former Dallas police officer Amber Guyger, who was convicted of murdering her neighbor, Bothem Shem Jean in his own home to ten years in prison."

 

[Defiant1]

Railroaded.

Scapegoat for hands up don't shoot.

Yes and No.
She was prevented from getting off easy due to the heightened publicity surrounding this case of a death caused by a race based reaction to Botham as a BLACK male figure.

But instead of "reckless homicide" which seems to be more accurate, this was pushed as a "Murder" when there was no such intent proven.

"Reckless homicide is a crime in which the perpetrator was aware that their act (or failure to act when there is a legal duty to act) creates significant risk of death or grievous bodily harm in the victim, but ignores the risk and continues to act (or fail to act), and a human death results."

Guyger was sex-texting plans to hookup illicitly with a married police partner, which might explain her distraction and shows she acted with reckless disregard for saving Botham after the shooting.

She had no intent of killing Botham, but made a deadly mistake because she was doing the wrong thing with a fellow officer knowing this would cost them both their jobs, careers and reputations.

That's not intent to kill Botham, but acting with reckless disregard for him and his life while scrambling to deal with her problems she got into herself. That's not murder, but in order to punish her for her culpability, it was raised to that level of charges instead of going with reckless homicide which would still not appease the family and public aggrieved over this injustice. There should have been counseling to help the family and public to understand why this is reckless homicide and not murder. So they wouldn't need murder charges to feel that the wrong was acknowledged and punished. It was wrong and it cost a man his life, but by reckless homicide because she had no intent.

Uhm, she stated in court the other day, when asked, that she intended to kill him.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

If you carry a weapon you don't draw it unless you intend to shoot.
When you shoot, you shoot to kill.

 

[whitehall]

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.

 

[Astrostar]

If she was black she’d be out on probation in a few years. Then again if she was black she never would had been charged.

Good point. Throughout American history blacks were not charged, for the most part; they were just lynched by whites.

 

[SavannahMann]

If she was black she’d be out on probation in a few years. Then again if she was black she never would had been charged.

I want to live in your mind. Just for a day. Just one day. Because it must be so nice to be so colossally ignorant of any facts.

Report to the United Nations on Racial Disparities in the U.S. Criminal Justice System | The Sentencing Project

If statistics supported you. I bet you would be able to quote them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...act-same-crime-as-a-white-person-study-finds/

Of course. A racist doesn’t need statistics or evidence. His irrational hatred is more than enough.

 

[SavannahMann]

Funny take. Sadly I am sure that a lot of cops feel this way.

Legal Experts Warn Amber Guyger Verdict Could Set Dangerous Precedent Of Police Officers Not Being Allowed To Shoot Anyone They Want

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, due to being in the Navy for over 20 years, I moved around a lot, about once every 3 1/2 years on the average. And, because of that, I always rented where I lived, and there were several times I lived in cookie cutter apartments and they all looked alike.

Know how I solved the problem of knowing which door was mine, as well as giving friends something to distinguish my place from every one elses? That's right, I put something on the door, or got some kind of entry mat that made my place stand out. This guy did the same thing with the red rug he had outside his door. He did that so he could make sure he went to the right apartment.

Based on that alone, I think she should have been more observant. I know that if there is something in front of my door that wasn't there when I left, I'd stop and look around to make sure of my bearings. She didn't. She entered the apartment without paying attention, and shot a man in cold blood.

10 years is what she got. I think she should have gotten at least 15.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Railroaded.

Scapegoat for hands up don't shoot.

Yes and No.
She was prevented from getting off easy due to the heightened publicity surrounding this case of a death caused by a race based reaction to Botham as a BLACK male figure.

But instead of "reckless homicide" which seems to be more accurate, this was pushed as a "Murder" when there was no such intent proven.

"Reckless homicide is a crime in which the perpetrator was aware that their act (or failure to act when there is a legal duty to act) creates significant risk of death or grievous bodily harm in the victim, but ignores the risk and continues to act (or fail to act), and a human death results."

Guyger was sex-texting plans to hookup illicitly with a married police partner, which might explain her distraction and shows she acted with reckless disregard for saving Botham after the shooting.

She had no intent of killing Botham, but made a deadly mistake because she was doing the wrong thing with a fellow officer knowing this would cost them both their jobs, careers and reputations.

That's not intent to kill Botham, but acting with reckless disregard for him and his life while scrambling to deal with her problems she got into herself. That's not murder, but in order to punish her for her culpability, it was raised to that level of charges instead of going with reckless homicide which would still not appease the family and public aggrieved over this injustice. There should have been counseling to help the family and public to understand why this is reckless homicide and not murder. So they wouldn't need murder charges to feel that the wrong was acknowledged and punished. It was wrong and it cost a man his life, but by reckless homicide because she had no intent.

Uhm, she stated in court the other day, when asked, that she intended to kill him.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Link...

 

[JimBowie1958]

Also found out:
the reason she got the murder conviction - when asked about applying her training to shoot,
she did answer that she shot in the areas that would kill (I think the head and chest area)
so they got her to admit on the stand that she shot to kill, and that's how they got murder out of what she said.

Never say you shoot a kill area.

Shoot center of body and insist that your only goal was to stop the predator.

Anything else is putting your own damned head in the noose.

As to this woman, she couldn't tell the difference between her white female run and owned home from a black male owned home?

She should have never been a cop.

I think there was a love interest and she was frustrated somehow.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If you carry a weapon you don't draw it unless you intend to shoot.
When you shoot, you shoot to kill.

But NEVER say that in a courtroom. Nothing good will ever come from it and only possibly bad.

 

[theHawk]

If she was black she’d be out on probation in a few years. Then again if she was black she never would had been charged.

I want to live in your mind. Just for a day. Just one day. Because it must be so nice to be so colossally ignorant of any facts.

Report to the United Nations on Racial Disparities in the U.S. Criminal Justice System | The Sentencing Project

If statistics supported you. I bet you would be able to quote them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...act-same-crime-as-a-white-person-study-finds/

Of course. A racist doesn’t need statistics or evidence. His irrational hatred is more than enough.

“Racial disparities” are just an excuse for the fact that negroes commit crimes many times that of whites.

 

[SavannahMann]

If she was black she’d be out on probation in a few years. Then again if she was black she never would had been charged.

I want to live in your mind. Just for a day. Just one day. Because it must be so nice to be so colossally ignorant of any facts.

Report to the United Nations on Racial Disparities in the U.S. Criminal Justice System | The Sentencing Project

If statistics supported you. I bet you would be able to quote them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...act-same-crime-as-a-white-person-study-finds/

Of course. A racist doesn’t need statistics or evidence. His irrational hatred is more than enough.

“Racial disparities” are just an excuse for the fact that negroes commit crimes many times that of whites.

And the fact that they are policed more doesn’t contribute to that? Or the fact that they tend to get longer sentences? No disparity in your mind. Phooey.

When Stop and Frisk was ruled unconstitutional, the Cops should have stopped. Instead, like most authoritarian jackasses, they decided they could create an excuse to search everyone they wanted.



They sent in an informant with a gun, and then after searching him, and finding the gun, used that as an excuse to violate the civil rights of everyone nearby. When that truth came out, all charges were dropped. I’m sure you feel great that none of the cops were fired, so they’re out there violating the constitution right now.

Tell me again how the Constitution is the highest law in the land? Because the law and order types really don’t seem to like it very much.

 

[MarcATL]

Railroaded.

Scapegoat for hands up don't shoot.

Yes and No.
She was prevented from getting off easy due to the heightened publicity surrounding this case of a death caused by a race based reaction to Botham as a BLACK male figure.

But instead of "reckless homicide" which seems to be more accurate, this was pushed as a "Murder" when there was no such intent proven.

"Reckless homicide is a crime in which the perpetrator was aware that their act (or failure to act when there is a legal duty to act) creates significant risk of death or grievous bodily harm in the victim, but ignores the risk and continues to act (or fail to act), and a human death results."

Guyger was sex-texting plans to hookup illicitly with a married police partner, which might explain her distraction and shows she acted with reckless disregard for saving Botham after the shooting.

She had no intent of killing Botham, but made a deadly mistake because she was doing the wrong thing with a fellow officer knowing this would cost them both their jobs, careers and reputations.

That's not intent to kill Botham, but acting with reckless disregard for him and his life while scrambling to deal with her problems she got into herself. That's not murder, but in order to punish her for her culpability, it was raised to that level of charges instead of going with reckless homicide which would still not appease the family and public aggrieved over this injustice. There should have been counseling to help the family and public to understand why this is reckless homicide and not murder. So they wouldn't need murder charges to feel that the wrong was acknowledged and punished. It was wrong and it cost a man his life, but by reckless homicide because she had no intent.

Uhm, she stated in court the other day, when asked, that she intended to kill him.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

If you carry a weapon you don't draw it unless you intend to shoot.
When you shoot, you shoot to kill.

There you have it folks.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Uncensored2008]

Just as I predicted she would be:

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

GoodT!!

I hope cops across the nation are paying attention...their days of killing unarmed black people for sport, are OVER!

Unless of course, they want to rot in jail for doing so.

Justice is served.

You're a bigot, a racist, and a retard.

If you really think she killed him "for sport," you're not just a scumbag, but ******* insane.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Also found out:
the reason she got the murder conviction - when asked about applying her training to shoot,
she did answer that she shot in the areas that would kill (I think the head and chest area)
so they got her to admit on the stand that she shot to kill, and that's how they got murder out of what she said.

This is still taken out of the context that she THOUGHT she was in her own apt.
so it wasn't the same as KNOWING she was in someone else's apt and shooting to kill.

That's a gray area and not the same context, but given the pressure to answer for this injustice
in a way commensurate with the suffering caused, that's the best they could do. She might win on appeal
if they ask for reckless homicide, but would have to answer to the need for meaningful correction
or restitution that is proportional to the grievances caused instead of trying to use "murder" charges to compensate.
setting up a community outreach program to help prevent these problems
might compensate better for the pain and prejudice stirred by this case, and not require a murder charge to feel vindicated.

There is some other factor here, so that could addressed in more constructive ways
instead of turning a reckless homicide into murder to try to make a statement that way.

Bottom line, she had no reason to shoot. None. Even if it had been her apartment, she had no reason to shoot. She was armed, he was not.

 

[theHawk]

If she was black she’d be out on probation in a few years. Then again if she was black she never would had been charged.

I want to live in your mind. Just for a day. Just one day. Because it must be so nice to be so colossally ignorant of any facts.

Report to the United Nations on Racial Disparities in the U.S. Criminal Justice System | The Sentencing Project

If statistics supported you. I bet you would be able to quote them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...act-same-crime-as-a-white-person-study-finds/

Of course. A racist doesn’t need statistics or evidence. His irrational hatred is more than enough.

“Racial disparities” are just an excuse for the fact that negroes commit crimes many times that of whites.

And the fact that they are policed more doesn’t contribute to that? Or the fact that they tend to get longer sentences? No disparity in your mind. Phooey.

When Stop and Frisk was ruled unconstitutional, the Cops should have stopped. Instead, like most authoritarian jackasses, they decided they could create an excuse to search everyone they wanted.



They sent in an informant with a gun, and then after searching him, and finding the gun, used that as an excuse to violate the civil rights of everyone nearby. When that truth came out, all charges were dropped. I’m sure you feel great that none of the cops were fired, so they’re out there violating the constitution right now.

Tell me again how the Constitution is the highest law in the land? Because the law and order types really don’t seem to like it very much.

They are policed more because they commit crimes so much more.

The constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches. It’s perfectly reasonable to search a black man looking and acting like a thug.

 

[Defiant1]

If you carry a weapon you don't draw it unless you intend to shoot.
When you shoot, you shoot to kill.

But NEVER say that in a courtroom. Nothing good will ever come from it and only possibly bad.

I know. I was saying that for Marc.

I would say shoot until there is no longer a threat.