Racist Black Judge Railroading Amber Guyger

[MarcATL]

Increasingly blacks are viewed by the judiciary as being above the law--the msm have been viewing them in that light for even longer....such being the result of the politics of blackvictimhood.

Black victimhood is a essential element of the liberal narrative.

The Liberal Media and the Ideology of Black Victimhood

Blacks Are Increasingly Above the Law - American Renaissance

LMBAO!

Sent from my SM-N976V using Tapatalk

 

[Skylar]

Increasingly blacks are viewed by the judiciary as being above the law--the msm have been viewing them in that light for even longer....such being the result of the politics of blackvictimhood.

Black victimhood is a essential element of the liberal narrative.

The Liberal Media and the Ideology of Black Victimhood

Blacks Are Increasingly Above the Law - American Renaissance

LMBAO!

Sent from my SM-N976V using Tapatalk

And how, pray tell, is a black man being murdered in his own apartment for doing nothing........'being above the law'?

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Increasingly blacks are viewed by the judiciary as being above the law--the msm have been viewing them in that light for even longer....such being the result of the politics of blackvictimhood.

Black victimhood is a essential element of the liberal narrative.

The Liberal Media and the Ideology of Black Victimhood

Blacks Are Increasingly Above the Law - American Renaissance

LMBAO!

Sent from my SM-N976V using Tapatalk

And how, pray tell, is a black man being murdered in his own apartment for doing nothing........'being above the law'?

who said he was?



Anyhow.....it was an excellent article. If anyone missed it...........Blacks Are Increasingly Above the Law - American Renaissance

 

[MarcATL]

She won't allow an opinion pass as fact. Trials should be about facts.

The expert in question is a 30 year veteran cop and an expert in police shootings. The judge decided she "didn't want the jury to hear that stuff"....incomprehensible.

30 years of bias.

The judge did a lot of wrong things in this case...that was not one of them.

Sent from my SM-N976V using Tapatalk

 

[Skylar]

Increasingly blacks are viewed by the judiciary as being above the law--the msm have been viewing them in that light for even longer....such being the result of the politics of blackvictimhood.

Black victimhood is a essential element of the liberal narrative.

The Liberal Media and the Ideology of Black Victimhood

Blacks Are Increasingly Above the Law - American Renaissance

LMBAO!

Sent from my SM-N976V using Tapatalk

And how, pray tell, is a black man being murdered in his own apartment for doing nothing........'being above the law'?

who said he was?

You're the one posting links titled 'Blacks are increasingly above the law' in response to a black man being shot to death in his own apartment for doing nothing.

That's irrational.

Just like your ludicrous claim that the Texas jury MUST apply the tort standard of 'innocent trespass' for a criminal homicide was irrational given that;

1) its a tort standard used to define civil liability and damages. Not criminal homicide.
2) its not a standard recognized in Texas
3) even Amber's own lawyers didn't claim 'innocent trespass' in her murder of an unarmed black man minding his own business in his own apartment.

Yet in defiance of reason, the law, and the evidence of this case.......you insist that your legal incompetence and laughable misapplication of the law supercedes the judgment of the judge, the prosecutor and the jury?

Um, no. It doesn't. You're being emotional and irrational.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Increasingly blacks are viewed by the judiciary as being above the law--the msm have been viewing them in that light for even longer....such being the result of the politics of blackvictimhood.

Black victimhood is a essential element of the liberal narrative.

The Liberal Media and the Ideology of Black Victimhood

Blacks Are Increasingly Above the Law - American Renaissance

LMBAO!

Sent from my SM-N976V using Tapatalk

And how, pray tell, is a black man being murdered in his own apartment for doing nothing........'being above the law'?

who said he was?

You're the one posting links titled 'Blacks are increasingly above the law' in response to a black man being shot to death in his own apartment for doing nothing.

That's irrational.

Just like your ludicrous claim that the Texas jury MUST apply the tort standard of 'innocent trespass' for a criminal homicide was irrational given that;

1) its a tort standard used to define civil liability and damages. Not criminal homicide.
2) its not a standard recognized in Texas
3) even Amber's own lawyers didn't claim 'innocent trespass' in her murder of an unarmed black man minding his own business in his own apartment.

Yet in defiance of reason, the law, and the evidence of this case.......you insist that your legal incompetence and laughable misapplication of the law supercedes the judgment of the judge, the prosecutor and the jury?

Um, no. It doesn't. You're being emotional and irrational.

You are ignoring the Texas Law on what constitutes criminal trespass.

Trespassing laws are not relegated strictly to Tort Law.

Trespassing is often an issue in criminal law as well.

You fail to recognize that juries often get it wrong.

Study: Juries often get it wrong. A new Northwestern University study shows that juries in criminal cases are reaching incorrect verdicts. ... The study assumed that judges are at least as likely as a jury to make a correct verdict, leading to the conclusion that juries are only correct 87 percent of the time or less.Jun 20, 2007
Study: Juries often get it wrong - Innocence Project

 

[Skylar]

Increasingly blacks are viewed by the judiciary as being above the law--the msm have been viewing them in that light for even longer....such being the result of the politics of blackvictimhood.

Black victimhood is a essential element of the liberal narrative.

The Liberal Media and the Ideology of Black Victimhood

Blacks Are Increasingly Above the Law - American Renaissance

LMBAO!

Sent from my SM-N976V using Tapatalk

And how, pray tell, is a black man being murdered in his own apartment for doing nothing........'being above the law'?

who said he was?

You're the one posting links titled 'Blacks are increasingly above the law' in response to a black man being shot to death in his own apartment for doing nothing.

That's irrational.

Just like your ludicrous claim that the Texas jury MUST apply the tort standard of 'innocent trespass' for a criminal homicide was irrational given that;

1) its a tort standard used to define civil liability and damages. Not criminal homicide.
2) its not a standard recognized in Texas
3) even Amber's own lawyers didn't claim 'innocent trespass' in her murder of an unarmed black man minding his own business in his own apartment.

Yet in defiance of reason, the law, and the evidence of this case.......you insist that your legal incompetence and laughable misapplication of the law supercedes the judgment of the judge, the prosecutor and the jury?

Um, no. It doesn't. You're being emotional and irrational.

You are ignoring the Texas Law on what constitutes criminal trespass.

Trespassing laws are not relegated strictly to Tort Law.

Trespassing is often an issue in criminal law as well.

You fail to recognize that juries often get it wrong.

Study: Juries often get it wrong. A new Northwestern University study shows that juries in criminal cases are reaching incorrect verdicts. ... The study assumed that judges are at least as likely as a jury to make a correct verdict, leading to the conclusion that juries are only correct 87 percent of the time or less.Jun 20, 2007
Study: Juries often get it wrong - Innocence Project

She wasn't charged with Criminal Trespass. She was charged and convicted of murder. Making your citation of a crime she was never charged with yet another demonstration of your legal incompetence.

All while you laughably also insisting that a texas jury MUST apply a tort standard of 'innocent trespass', used to determine civil liability.......a tort standand that Texas doesn't even recognize, to a criminal homicide trial.

Um, no.

Its not the judge, the prosecutors, the jury, and even Amber's own lawyers that didn't understand the law.

Its just you.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

LMBAO!

Sent from my SM-N976V using Tapatalk

And how, pray tell, is a black man being murdered in his own apartment for doing nothing........'being above the law'?

who said he was?

You're the one posting links titled 'Blacks are increasingly above the law' in response to a black man being shot to death in his own apartment for doing nothing.

That's irrational.

Just like your ludicrous claim that the Texas jury MUST apply the tort standard of 'innocent trespass' for a criminal homicide was irrational given that;

1) its a tort standard used to define civil liability and damages. Not criminal homicide.
2) its not a standard recognized in Texas
3) even Amber's own lawyers didn't claim 'innocent trespass' in her murder of an unarmed black man minding his own business in his own apartment.

Yet in defiance of reason, the law, and the evidence of this case.......you insist that your legal incompetence and laughable misapplication of the law supercedes the judgment of the judge, the prosecutor and the jury?

Um, no. It doesn't. You're being emotional and irrational.

You are ignoring the Texas Law on what constitutes criminal trespass.

Trespassing laws are not relegated strictly to Tort Law.

Trespassing is often an issue in criminal law as well.

You fail to recognize that juries often get it wrong.

Study: Juries often get it wrong. A new Northwestern University study shows that juries in criminal cases are reaching incorrect verdicts. ... The study assumed that judges are at least as likely as a jury to make a correct verdict, leading to the conclusion that juries are only correct 87 percent of the time or less.Jun 20, 2007
Study: Juries often get it wrong - Innocence Project

She wasn't charged with Criminal Trespass. She was charged and convicted of murder. Making your citation of a crime she was never charged with yet another demonstration of your legal incompetence.

All while you laughably also insisting that a texas jury MUST apply a tort standard of 'innocent trespass', used to determine civil liability.......a tort standand that Texas doesn't even recognize, to a criminal homicide trial.

Um, no.

Its not the judge, the prosecutors, the jury, and even Amber's own lawyers that didn't understand the law.

Its just you.

Many on here have posted claiming Amber was guilty of trespassing.

Anyhow....Amber had no malice towards the black guy....murder requires malice.

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). Depending on the circumstances and state laws, murder in the first or second degree may be chargeable to a person who did not actually kill, but was involved in a crime with a partner who actually did the killing or someone died as the result of the crime. Example: In a liquor store stick-up in which the clerk shoots back at the hold-up man and kills a bystander, the armed robber can be convicted of at least second degree murder. A charge of murder requires that the victim must die within a year of the attack. Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. Example: Jack Violent shoots his pregnant girlfriend, killing the fetus. Manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, lacks the element of malice aforethought.

See also: first degree murder homicide malice aforethought manslaughter premeditation second degree murder

Legal Dictionary - Law.com

Also.................

How Defendants' Mental States Affect Their Responsibility for a Crime

 

[Skylar]

And how, pray tell, is a black man being murdered in his own apartment for doing nothing........'being above the law'?

who said he was?

You're the one posting links titled 'Blacks are increasingly above the law' in response to a black man being shot to death in his own apartment for doing nothing.

That's irrational.

Just like your ludicrous claim that the Texas jury MUST apply the tort standard of 'innocent trespass' for a criminal homicide was irrational given that;

1) its a tort standard used to define civil liability and damages. Not criminal homicide.
2) its not a standard recognized in Texas
3) even Amber's own lawyers didn't claim 'innocent trespass' in her murder of an unarmed black man minding his own business in his own apartment.

Yet in defiance of reason, the law, and the evidence of this case.......you insist that your legal incompetence and laughable misapplication of the law supercedes the judgment of the judge, the prosecutor and the jury?

Um, no. It doesn't. You're being emotional and irrational.

You are ignoring the Texas Law on what constitutes criminal trespass.

Trespassing laws are not relegated strictly to Tort Law.

Trespassing is often an issue in criminal law as well.

You fail to recognize that juries often get it wrong.

Study: Juries often get it wrong. A new Northwestern University study shows that juries in criminal cases are reaching incorrect verdicts. ... The study assumed that judges are at least as likely as a jury to make a correct verdict, leading to the conclusion that juries are only correct 87 percent of the time or less.Jun 20, 2007
Study: Juries often get it wrong - Innocence Project

She wasn't charged with Criminal Trespass. She was charged and convicted of murder. Making your citation of a crime she was never charged with yet another demonstration of your legal incompetence.

All while you laughably also insisting that a texas jury MUST apply a tort standard of 'innocent trespass', used to determine civil liability.......a tort standand that Texas doesn't even recognize, to a criminal homicide trial.

Um, no.

Its not the judge, the prosecutors, the jury, and even Amber's own lawyers that didn't understand the law.

Its just you.

Many on here have posted claiming Amber was guilty of trespassing.

Anyhow....Amber had no malice towards the black guy....murder requires malice.

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). Depending on the circumstances and state laws, murder in the first or second degree may be chargeable to a person who did not actually kill, but was involved in a crime with a partner who actually did the killing or someone died as the result of the crime. Example: In a liquor store stick-up in which the clerk shoots back at the hold-up man and kills a bystander, the armed robber can be convicted of at least second degree murder. A charge of murder requires that the victim must die within a year of the attack. Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. Example: Jack Violent shoots his pregnant girlfriend, killing the fetus. Manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, lacks the element of malice aforethought.

See also: first degree murder homicide malice aforethought manslaughter premeditation second degree murder

Legal Dictionary - Law.com

Again, exactly as you did with your comicly inept citation of the TORT standard of 'innocent trespass' that isn't recognized by Texas or in a criminal homicide in Texas........you're demonstrating your legal incompetence in the application of murder statutes in the case.

Amber was indicted under the murder laws of the state of Texas. Not the definitions of 'law.com'. As the crime occured in the State of Texas, it is subject to the laws of Texas. And it was the laws of Texas that the jury was obligated to apply.

Yet in your ignorance, you insist that the judge, the jury, the proecutors, and the State of Texas were obligated and bound by what you found on 'law.com'. And NOT the legislation written by their own legislature, signed into law by their governor by duly elected State officials under the Constitution of the State of Texas.

Um, no. Amber Guyger was subject to the laws of Texas.

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 19. CRIMINAL HOMICIDE

Not 'law.com'.

And under Texas law, malice is not a pre-requisite for an act of murder. In fact, 'malice' never mentioned once in the entire Texas Statute on all forms of Criminal Homicide, including Murder

You're simply an irrational legal incompetent that has no idea what they're talking about.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

who said he was?

You're the one posting links titled 'Blacks are increasingly above the law' in response to a black man being shot to death in his own apartment for doing nothing.

That's irrational.

Just like your ludicrous claim that the Texas jury MUST apply the tort standard of 'innocent trespass' for a criminal homicide was irrational given that;

1) its a tort standard used to define civil liability and damages. Not criminal homicide.
2) its not a standard recognized in Texas
3) even Amber's own lawyers didn't claim 'innocent trespass' in her murder of an unarmed black man minding his own business in his own apartment.

Yet in defiance of reason, the law, and the evidence of this case.......you insist that your legal incompetence and laughable misapplication of the law supercedes the judgment of the judge, the prosecutor and the jury?

Um, no. It doesn't. You're being emotional and irrational.

You are ignoring the Texas Law on what constitutes criminal trespass.

Trespassing laws are not relegated strictly to Tort Law.

Trespassing is often an issue in criminal law as well.

You fail to recognize that juries often get it wrong.

Study: Juries often get it wrong. A new Northwestern University study shows that juries in criminal cases are reaching incorrect verdicts. ... The study assumed that judges are at least as likely as a jury to make a correct verdict, leading to the conclusion that juries are only correct 87 percent of the time or less.Jun 20, 2007
Study: Juries often get it wrong - Innocence Project

She wasn't charged with Criminal Trespass. She was charged and convicted of murder. Making your citation of a crime she was never charged with yet another demonstration of your legal incompetence.

All while you laughably also insisting that a texas jury MUST apply a tort standard of 'innocent trespass', used to determine civil liability.......a tort standand that Texas doesn't even recognize, to a criminal homicide trial.

Um, no.

Its not the judge, the prosecutors, the jury, and even Amber's own lawyers that didn't understand the law.

Its just you.

Many on here have posted claiming Amber was guilty of trespassing.

Anyhow....Amber had no malice towards the black guy....murder requires malice.

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). Depending on the circumstances and state laws, murder in the first or second degree may be chargeable to a person who did not actually kill, but was involved in a crime with a partner who actually did the killing or someone died as the result of the crime. Example: In a liquor store stick-up in which the clerk shoots back at the hold-up man and kills a bystander, the armed robber can be convicted of at least second degree murder. A charge of murder requires that the victim must die within a year of the attack. Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. Example: Jack Violent shoots his pregnant girlfriend, killing the fetus. Manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, lacks the element of malice aforethought.

See also: first degree murder homicide malice aforethought manslaughter premeditation second degree murder

Legal Dictionary - Law.com

Again, exactly as you did with your comicly inept citation of the TORT standard of 'innocent trespass' that isn't recognized by Texas or in a criminal homicide in Texas........you're demonstrating your legal incompetence in the application of murder statutes in the case.

Amber was indicted under the murder laws of the state of Texas. Not the definitions of 'law.com'. As the crime occured in the State of Texas, it is subject to the laws of Texas. And it was the laws of Texas that the jury was obligated to apply.

Yet in your ignorance, you insist that the judge, the jury, the proecutors, and the State of Texas were obligated and bound by what you found on 'law.com'. And NOT the legislation written by their own legislature, signed into law by their governor by duly elected State officials under the Constitution of the State of Texas.

Um, no. Amber Guyger was subject to the laws of Texas.

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 19. CRIMINAL HOMICIDE

Not 'law.com'.

And under Texas law, malice is not a pre-requisite for an act of murder. In fact, 'malice' never mentioned once in the entire Texas Statute on all forms of Criminal Homicide, including Murder

You're simply an irrational legal incompetent that has no idea what they're talking about.

I am well aware of The Texas law on murder.

The Texas definition of murder:

'1. Murder: You commit murder when you intentionally and knowingly take someone else’s life, or when you intend to commit an act that is clearly extremely dangerous to human life and in effect, causes death to another person. Murder is usually a felony of the first degree'

Amber was engaged in self defense not in an act of murder.

By the above Texas definition of murder-- alone.....it could be construed in order to claim anytime a police officer in texas kills someone it is murder.

Not even to mention abortionists....by the Texas definition of murder any doctor pereforming an abortion is a murderer.

That is obviously what many on here want to believe in this case.

Nonsense.

Lets get real here Amber was not guilty of murder...period!

 

[Skylar]

You're the one posting links titled 'Blacks are increasingly above the law' in response to a black man being shot to death in his own apartment for doing nothing.

That's irrational.

Just like your ludicrous claim that the Texas jury MUST apply the tort standard of 'innocent trespass' for a criminal homicide was irrational given that;

1) its a tort standard used to define civil liability and damages. Not criminal homicide.
2) its not a standard recognized in Texas
3) even Amber's own lawyers didn't claim 'innocent trespass' in her murder of an unarmed black man minding his own business in his own apartment.

Yet in defiance of reason, the law, and the evidence of this case.......you insist that your legal incompetence and laughable misapplication of the law supercedes the judgment of the judge, the prosecutor and the jury?

Um, no. It doesn't. You're being emotional and irrational.

You are ignoring the Texas Law on what constitutes criminal trespass.

Trespassing laws are not relegated strictly to Tort Law.

Trespassing is often an issue in criminal law as well.

You fail to recognize that juries often get it wrong.

Study: Juries often get it wrong. A new Northwestern University study shows that juries in criminal cases are reaching incorrect verdicts. ... The study assumed that judges are at least as likely as a jury to make a correct verdict, leading to the conclusion that juries are only correct 87 percent of the time or less.Jun 20, 2007
Study: Juries often get it wrong - Innocence Project

She wasn't charged with Criminal Trespass. She was charged and convicted of murder. Making your citation of a crime she was never charged with yet another demonstration of your legal incompetence.

All while you laughably also insisting that a texas jury MUST apply a tort standard of 'innocent trespass', used to determine civil liability.......a tort standand that Texas doesn't even recognize, to a criminal homicide trial.

Um, no.

Its not the judge, the prosecutors, the jury, and even Amber's own lawyers that didn't understand the law.

Its just you.

Many on here have posted claiming Amber was guilty of trespassing.

Anyhow....Amber had no malice towards the black guy....murder requires malice.

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). Depending on the circumstances and state laws, murder in the first or second degree may be chargeable to a person who did not actually kill, but was involved in a crime with a partner who actually did the killing or someone died as the result of the crime. Example: In a liquor store stick-up in which the clerk shoots back at the hold-up man and kills a bystander, the armed robber can be convicted of at least second degree murder. A charge of murder requires that the victim must die within a year of the attack. Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. Example: Jack Violent shoots his pregnant girlfriend, killing the fetus. Manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, lacks the element of malice aforethought.

See also: first degree murder homicide malice aforethought manslaughter premeditation second degree murder

Legal Dictionary - Law.com

Again, exactly as you did with your comicly inept citation of the TORT standard of 'innocent trespass' that isn't recognized by Texas or in a criminal homicide in Texas........you're demonstrating your legal incompetence in the application of murder statutes in the case.

Amber was indicted under the murder laws of the state of Texas. Not the definitions of 'law.com'. As the crime occured in the State of Texas, it is subject to the laws of Texas. And it was the laws of Texas that the jury was obligated to apply.

Yet in your ignorance, you insist that the judge, the jury, the proecutors, and the State of Texas were obligated and bound by what you found on 'law.com'. And NOT the legislation written by their own legislature, signed into law by their governor by duly elected State officials under the Constitution of the State of Texas.

Um, no. Amber Guyger was subject to the laws of Texas.

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 19. CRIMINAL HOMICIDE

Not 'law.com'.

And under Texas law, malice is not a pre-requisite for an act of murder. In fact, 'malice' never mentioned once in the entire Texas Statute on all forms of Criminal Homicide, including Murder

You're simply an irrational legal incompetent that has no idea what they're talking about.

I am well aware of The Texas law on murder.

Laughing....which is why quoted Law.com and applying the 'malice' standard to Amber's case.....when Texas doesn't use the Malice standard?

Either you didn't know that Texas didn't use the Malice standard......in which case you're incompetent.

Or you did know that Texas didn't use the Malice standard, and intentionally tried to mislead us. In which case you're dishonest.

Either way, you're unreliable and an an utterly inadequate 'source' on the law.

The Texas definition of murder:

'1. Murder: You commit murder when you intentionally and knowingly take someone else’s life, or when you intend to commit an act that is clearly extremely dangerous to human life and in effect, causes death to another person. Murder is usually a felony of the first degree'

Amber was engaged in self defense not in an act of murder.

Says you, the same pseudo-legal incompetent that just tried to fallaciously apply the 'malice' standard to this case when Texas didn't use the Malice standard.

And the same pseudo-legal incompetent that laughably insisted that the jury was bound to the TORT standard of 'innocent trespass' which is used to determine civil liability. And NOT recognized in Texas civil law. Nor applied to Texas criminal homicides.

And yet after these two comic blunders on the BASIC application of Texas law, you're again trying to insist that your judgment supercedes the the judge, jury and prosecutors?

Laughing.....nope.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

You are ignoring the Texas Law on what constitutes criminal trespass.

Trespassing laws are not relegated strictly to Tort Law.

Trespassing is often an issue in criminal law as well.

You fail to recognize that juries often get it wrong.

Study: Juries often get it wrong. A new Northwestern University study shows that juries in criminal cases are reaching incorrect verdicts. ... The study assumed that judges are at least as likely as a jury to make a correct verdict, leading to the conclusion that juries are only correct 87 percent of the time or less.Jun 20, 2007
Study: Juries often get it wrong - Innocence Project

She wasn't charged with Criminal Trespass. She was charged and convicted of murder. Making your citation of a crime she was never charged with yet another demonstration of your legal incompetence.

All while you laughably also insisting that a texas jury MUST apply a tort standard of 'innocent trespass', used to determine civil liability.......a tort standand that Texas doesn't even recognize, to a criminal homicide trial.

Um, no.

Its not the judge, the prosecutors, the jury, and even Amber's own lawyers that didn't understand the law.

Its just you.

Many on here have posted claiming Amber was guilty of trespassing.

Anyhow....Amber had no malice towards the black guy....murder requires malice.

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). Depending on the circumstances and state laws, murder in the first or second degree may be chargeable to a person who did not actually kill, but was involved in a crime with a partner who actually did the killing or someone died as the result of the crime. Example: In a liquor store stick-up in which the clerk shoots back at the hold-up man and kills a bystander, the armed robber can be convicted of at least second degree murder. A charge of murder requires that the victim must die within a year of the attack. Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. Example: Jack Violent shoots his pregnant girlfriend, killing the fetus. Manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, lacks the element of malice aforethought.

See also: first degree murder homicide malice aforethought manslaughter premeditation second degree murder

Legal Dictionary - Law.com

Again, exactly as you did with your comicly inept citation of the TORT standard of 'innocent trespass' that isn't recognized by Texas or in a criminal homicide in Texas........you're demonstrating your legal incompetence in the application of murder statutes in the case.

Amber was indicted under the murder laws of the state of Texas. Not the definitions of 'law.com'. As the crime occured in the State of Texas, it is subject to the laws of Texas. And it was the laws of Texas that the jury was obligated to apply.

Yet in your ignorance, you insist that the judge, the jury, the proecutors, and the State of Texas were obligated and bound by what you found on 'law.com'. And NOT the legislation written by their own legislature, signed into law by their governor by duly elected State officials under the Constitution of the State of Texas.

Um, no. Amber Guyger was subject to the laws of Texas.

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 19. CRIMINAL HOMICIDE

Not 'law.com'.

And under Texas law, malice is not a pre-requisite for an act of murder. In fact, 'malice' never mentioned once in the entire Texas Statute on all forms of Criminal Homicide, including Murder

You're simply an irrational legal incompetent that has no idea what they're talking about.

I am well aware of The Texas law on murder.

Laughing....which is why quoted Law.com and applying the 'malice' standard to Amber's case.....when Texas doesn't use the Malice standard?

Either you didn't know that Texas didn't use the Malice standard......in which case you're incompetent.

Or you did know that Texas didn't use the Malice standard, and intentionally tried to mislead us. In which case you're dishonest.

Either way, you're unreliable and an an utterly inadequate 'source' on the law.

The Texas definition of murder:

'1. Murder: You commit murder when you intentionally and knowingly take someone else’s life, or when you intend to commit an act that is clearly extremely dangerous to human life and in effect, causes death to another person. Murder is usually a felony of the first degree'

Amber was engaged in self defense not in an act of murder.

Says you, the same pseudo-legal incompetent that just tried to fallaciously apply the 'malice' standard to this case when Texas didn't use the Malice standard.

And the same pseudo-legal incompetent that laughably insisted that the jury was bound to the TORT standard of 'innocent trespass' which is used to determine civil liability. And NOT recognized in Texas civil law. Nor applied to Texas criminal homicides.

And yet after these two comic blunders on the BASIC application of Texas law, you're again trying to insist that your judgment supercedes the the judge, jury and prosecutors?

Laughing.....nope.

The Texas definition of murder is enough reason alone to appeal this miscarriage of justice to the U.S. Supreme ct.

Do you believe anytime a police officer in Texas kills someone it is murder?

Do you believe a doctor in Texas performing an abortion is guilty of murder?

Do you believe someone in reasonable fear of their life is entitled to use lethal force?

A Texas lawyers comment on:

What happens if the police raid the wrong house and kill an innocent person?
1 Answer

Dominique Picou, JD Law, The University of Texas at Austin (2002)
Answered Apr 19, 2019


Given the lack of intent, the officers could be charged with negligent homicide, perhaps manslaughter, depending upon the state.

They and their employer could also be sued for whatever tort relief is provided in their state.

My question is, do you know any completely “innocent “ people? The question is better phrased as “kill the WRONG person,” I think!

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Looks like the legal expert has taken the fifth amendment. He refuses to answer any questions. hehheh

 

[Skylar]

She wasn't charged with Criminal Trespass. She was charged and convicted of murder. Making your citation of a crime she was never charged with yet another demonstration of your legal incompetence.

All while you laughably also insisting that a texas jury MUST apply a tort standard of 'innocent trespass', used to determine civil liability.......a tort standand that Texas doesn't even recognize, to a criminal homicide trial.

Um, no.

Its not the judge, the prosecutors, the jury, and even Amber's own lawyers that didn't understand the law.

Its just you.

Many on here have posted claiming Amber was guilty of trespassing.

Anyhow....Amber had no malice towards the black guy....murder requires malice.

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). Depending on the circumstances and state laws, murder in the first or second degree may be chargeable to a person who did not actually kill, but was involved in a crime with a partner who actually did the killing or someone died as the result of the crime. Example: In a liquor store stick-up in which the clerk shoots back at the hold-up man and kills a bystander, the armed robber can be convicted of at least second degree murder. A charge of murder requires that the victim must die within a year of the attack. Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. Example: Jack Violent shoots his pregnant girlfriend, killing the fetus. Manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, lacks the element of malice aforethought.

See also: first degree murder homicide malice aforethought manslaughter premeditation second degree murder

Legal Dictionary - Law.com

Again, exactly as you did with your comicly inept citation of the TORT standard of 'innocent trespass' that isn't recognized by Texas or in a criminal homicide in Texas........you're demonstrating your legal incompetence in the application of murder statutes in the case.

Amber was indicted under the murder laws of the state of Texas. Not the definitions of 'law.com'. As the crime occured in the State of Texas, it is subject to the laws of Texas. And it was the laws of Texas that the jury was obligated to apply.

Yet in your ignorance, you insist that the judge, the jury, the proecutors, and the State of Texas were obligated and bound by what you found on 'law.com'. And NOT the legislation written by their own legislature, signed into law by their governor by duly elected State officials under the Constitution of the State of Texas.

Um, no. Amber Guyger was subject to the laws of Texas.

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 19. CRIMINAL HOMICIDE

Not 'law.com'.

And under Texas law, malice is not a pre-requisite for an act of murder. In fact, 'malice' never mentioned once in the entire Texas Statute on all forms of Criminal Homicide, including Murder

You're simply an irrational legal incompetent that has no idea what they're talking about.

I am well aware of The Texas law on murder.

Laughing....which is why quoted Law.com and applying the 'malice' standard to Amber's case.....when Texas doesn't use the Malice standard?

Either you didn't know that Texas didn't use the Malice standard......in which case you're incompetent.

Or you did know that Texas didn't use the Malice standard, and intentionally tried to mislead us. In which case you're dishonest.

Either way, you're unreliable and an an utterly inadequate 'source' on the law.

The Texas definition of murder:

'1. Murder: You commit murder when you intentionally and knowingly take someone else’s life, or when you intend to commit an act that is clearly extremely dangerous to human life and in effect, causes death to another person. Murder is usually a felony of the first degree'

Amber was engaged in self defense not in an act of murder.

Says you, the same pseudo-legal incompetent that just tried to fallaciously apply the 'malice' standard to this case when Texas didn't use the Malice standard.

And the same pseudo-legal incompetent that laughably insisted that the jury was bound to the TORT standard of 'innocent trespass' which is used to determine civil liability. And NOT recognized in Texas civil law. Nor applied to Texas criminal homicides.

And yet after these two comic blunders on the BASIC application of Texas law, you're again trying to insist that your judgment supercedes the the judge, jury and prosecutors?

Laughing.....nope.

The Texas definition of murder is enough reason alone to appeal this miscarriage of justice to the U.S. Supreme ct.

Nope. As you've demonstrated repeatedly, you're legal judgment is meaningless. You don't understand jurisdiction, you conflate civil and criminal law, you insist that the jury is bound to requirements that don't even exist in Texas law. At every stage, you're clueless.

And your demonstrated incompetence certainly doesn't override the lawful judgment of a jury.

 

[pknopp]

She wasn't charged with Criminal Trespass. She was charged and convicted of murder. Making your citation of a crime she was never charged with yet another demonstration of your legal incompetence.

All while you laughably also insisting that a texas jury MUST apply a tort standard of 'innocent trespass', used to determine civil liability.......a tort standand that Texas doesn't even recognize, to a criminal homicide trial.

Um, no.

Its not the judge, the prosecutors, the jury, and even Amber's own lawyers that didn't understand the law.

Its just you.

Many on here have posted claiming Amber was guilty of trespassing.

Anyhow....Amber had no malice towards the black guy....murder requires malice.

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). Depending on the circumstances and state laws, murder in the first or second degree may be chargeable to a person who did not actually kill, but was involved in a crime with a partner who actually did the killing or someone died as the result of the crime. Example: In a liquor store stick-up in which the clerk shoots back at the hold-up man and kills a bystander, the armed robber can be convicted of at least second degree murder. A charge of murder requires that the victim must die within a year of the attack. Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. Example: Jack Violent shoots his pregnant girlfriend, killing the fetus. Manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, lacks the element of malice aforethought.

See also: first degree murder homicide malice aforethought manslaughter premeditation second degree murder

Legal Dictionary - Law.com

Again, exactly as you did with your comicly inept citation of the TORT standard of 'innocent trespass' that isn't recognized by Texas or in a criminal homicide in Texas........you're demonstrating your legal incompetence in the application of murder statutes in the case.

Amber was indicted under the murder laws of the state of Texas. Not the definitions of 'law.com'. As the crime occured in the State of Texas, it is subject to the laws of Texas. And it was the laws of Texas that the jury was obligated to apply.

Yet in your ignorance, you insist that the judge, the jury, the proecutors, and the State of Texas were obligated and bound by what you found on 'law.com'. And NOT the legislation written by their own legislature, signed into law by their governor by duly elected State officials under the Constitution of the State of Texas.

Um, no. Amber Guyger was subject to the laws of Texas.

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 19. CRIMINAL HOMICIDE

Not 'law.com'.

And under Texas law, malice is not a pre-requisite for an act of murder. In fact, 'malice' never mentioned once in the entire Texas Statute on all forms of Criminal Homicide, including Murder

You're simply an irrational legal incompetent that has no idea what they're talking about.

I am well aware of The Texas law on murder.

Laughing....which is why quoted Law.com and applying the 'malice' standard to Amber's case.....when Texas doesn't use the Malice standard?

Either you didn't know that Texas didn't use the Malice standard......in which case you're incompetent.

Or you did know that Texas didn't use the Malice standard, and intentionally tried to mislead us. In which case you're dishonest.

Either way, you're unreliable and an an utterly inadequate 'source' on the law.

The Texas definition of murder:

'1. Murder: You commit murder when you intentionally and knowingly take someone else’s life, or when you intend to commit an act that is clearly extremely dangerous to human life and in effect, causes death to another person. Murder is usually a felony of the first degree'

Amber was engaged in self defense not in an act of murder.

Says you, the same pseudo-legal incompetent that just tried to fallaciously apply the 'malice' standard to this case when Texas didn't use the Malice standard.

And the same pseudo-legal incompetent that laughably insisted that the jury was bound to the TORT standard of 'innocent trespass' which is used to determine civil liability. And NOT recognized in Texas civil law. Nor applied to Texas criminal homicides.

And yet after these two comic blunders on the BASIC application of Texas law, you're again trying to insist that your judgment supercedes the the judge, jury and prosecutors?

Laughing.....nope.

The Texas definition of murder is enough reason alone to appeal this miscarriage of justice to the U.S. Supreme ct.

Do you believe anytime a police officer in Texas kills someone it is murder?

The odds of that are very high when the dead person is not guilty of anything.

 

[Skylar]

Looks like the legal expert has taken the fifth amendment. He refuses to answer any questions. hehheh

Says the legal incompetent that offered us the 'innocent trespasser' defense, a TORT standard for defining civil liability and damages in States like Georgia and Virginia.

And isn't recognized in Texas at all. With Tort laws not applied to criiminal homicide even if Texas did recognize 'innocent trespass'. Which again, it doesn't.

Then you laughably cited the 'malice' standard from 'law.com' as applying to Amber's murder conviction, a standard that Texas doesn't use.

Again, you just don't know what you're talking about. And we're not overturning the lawful findings of a jury because you insist your pseudo-legal incompetence overrides them.

Get used to the idea.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Many on here have posted claiming Amber was guilty of trespassing.

Anyhow....Amber had no malice towards the black guy....murder requires malice.

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). Depending on the circumstances and state laws, murder in the first or second degree may be chargeable to a person who did not actually kill, but was involved in a crime with a partner who actually did the killing or someone died as the result of the crime. Example: In a liquor store stick-up in which the clerk shoots back at the hold-up man and kills a bystander, the armed robber can be convicted of at least second degree murder. A charge of murder requires that the victim must die within a year of the attack. Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. Example: Jack Violent shoots his pregnant girlfriend, killing the fetus. Manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, lacks the element of malice aforethought.

See also: first degree murder homicide malice aforethought manslaughter premeditation second degree murder

Legal Dictionary - Law.com

Again, exactly as you did with your comicly inept citation of the TORT standard of 'innocent trespass' that isn't recognized by Texas or in a criminal homicide in Texas........you're demonstrating your legal incompetence in the application of murder statutes in the case.

Amber was indicted under the murder laws of the state of Texas. Not the definitions of 'law.com'. As the crime occured in the State of Texas, it is subject to the laws of Texas. And it was the laws of Texas that the jury was obligated to apply.

Yet in your ignorance, you insist that the judge, the jury, the proecutors, and the State of Texas were obligated and bound by what you found on 'law.com'. And NOT the legislation written by their own legislature, signed into law by their governor by duly elected State officials under the Constitution of the State of Texas.

Um, no. Amber Guyger was subject to the laws of Texas.

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 19. CRIMINAL HOMICIDE

Not 'law.com'.

And under Texas law, malice is not a pre-requisite for an act of murder. In fact, 'malice' never mentioned once in the entire Texas Statute on all forms of Criminal Homicide, including Murder

You're simply an irrational legal incompetent that has no idea what they're talking about.

I am well aware of The Texas law on murder.

Laughing....which is why quoted Law.com and applying the 'malice' standard to Amber's case.....when Texas doesn't use the Malice standard?

Either you didn't know that Texas didn't use the Malice standard......in which case you're incompetent.

Or you did know that Texas didn't use the Malice standard, and intentionally tried to mislead us. In which case you're dishonest.

Either way, you're unreliable and an an utterly inadequate 'source' on the law.

The Texas definition of murder:

'1. Murder: You commit murder when you intentionally and knowingly take someone else’s life, or when you intend to commit an act that is clearly extremely dangerous to human life and in effect, causes death to another person. Murder is usually a felony of the first degree'

Amber was engaged in self defense not in an act of murder.

Says you, the same pseudo-legal incompetent that just tried to fallaciously apply the 'malice' standard to this case when Texas didn't use the Malice standard.

And the same pseudo-legal incompetent that laughably insisted that the jury was bound to the TORT standard of 'innocent trespass' which is used to determine civil liability. And NOT recognized in Texas civil law. Nor applied to Texas criminal homicides.

And yet after these two comic blunders on the BASIC application of Texas law, you're again trying to insist that your judgment supercedes the the judge, jury and prosecutors?

Laughing.....nope.

The Texas definition of murder is enough reason alone to appeal this miscarriage of justice to the U.S. Supreme ct.

Nope. As you've demonstrated repeatedly, you're legal judgment is meaningless. You don't understand jurisdiction, you conflate civil and criminal law, you insist that the jury is bound to requirements that don't even exist in Texas law. At every stage, you're clueless.

And your demonstrated incompetence certainly doesn't override the lawful judgment of a jury.

Many on here have posted claiming Amber was guilty of trespassing.

Anyhow....Amber had no malice towards the black guy....murder requires malice.

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). Depending on the circumstances and state laws, murder in the first or second degree may be chargeable to a person who did not actually kill, but was involved in a crime with a partner who actually did the killing or someone died as the result of the crime. Example: In a liquor store stick-up in which the clerk shoots back at the hold-up man and kills a bystander, the armed robber can be convicted of at least second degree murder. A charge of murder requires that the victim must die within a year of the attack. Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. Example: Jack Violent shoots his pregnant girlfriend, killing the fetus. Manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, lacks the element of malice aforethought.

See also: first degree murder homicide malice aforethought manslaughter premeditation second degree murder

Legal Dictionary - Law.com

Again, exactly as you did with your comicly inept citation of the TORT standard of 'innocent trespass' that isn't recognized by Texas or in a criminal homicide in Texas........you're demonstrating your legal incompetence in the application of murder statutes in the case.

Amber was indicted under the murder laws of the state of Texas. Not the definitions of 'law.com'. As the crime occured in the State of Texas, it is subject to the laws of Texas. And it was the laws of Texas that the jury was obligated to apply.

Yet in your ignorance, you insist that the judge, the jury, the proecutors, and the State of Texas were obligated and bound by what you found on 'law.com'. And NOT the legislation written by their own legislature, signed into law by their governor by duly elected State officials under the Constitution of the State of Texas.

Um, no. Amber Guyger was subject to the laws of Texas.

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 19. CRIMINAL HOMICIDE

Not 'law.com'.

And under Texas law, malice is not a pre-requisite for an act of murder. In fact, 'malice' never mentioned once in the entire Texas Statute on all forms of Criminal Homicide, including Murder

You're simply an irrational legal incompetent that has no idea what they're talking about.

I am well aware of The Texas law on murder.

Laughing....which is why quoted Law.com and applying the 'malice' standard to Amber's case.....when Texas doesn't use the Malice standard?

Either you didn't know that Texas didn't use the Malice standard......in which case you're incompetent.

Or you did know that Texas didn't use the Malice standard, and intentionally tried to mislead us. In which case you're dishonest.

Either way, you're unreliable and an an utterly inadequate 'source' on the law.

The Texas definition of murder:

'1. Murder: You commit murder when you intentionally and knowingly take someone else’s life, or when you intend to commit an act that is clearly extremely dangerous to human life and in effect, causes death to another person. Murder is usually a felony of the first degree'

Amber was engaged in self defense not in an act of murder.

Says you, the same pseudo-legal incompetent that just tried to fallaciously apply the 'malice' standard to this case when Texas didn't use the Malice standard.

And the same pseudo-legal incompetent that laughably insisted that the jury was bound to the TORT standard of 'innocent trespass' which is used to determine civil liability. And NOT recognized in Texas civil law. Nor applied to Texas criminal homicides.

And yet after these two comic blunders on the BASIC application of Texas law, you're again trying to insist that your judgment supercedes the the judge, jury and prosecutors?

Laughing.....nope.

The Texas definition of murder is enough reason alone to appeal this miscarriage of justice to the U.S. Supreme ct.

Do you believe anytime a police officer in Texas kills someone it is murder?

The odds of that are very high when the dead person is not guilty of anything.

Since the legal expert avoids questions...perhaps you can stand in for him: Do you believe doctors performing abortions in Texas are guilty of murder?

There have been instances before of police officers going to the wrong address and killing a innocent person...none have ever been charged with murder.

Yet....this case is very unique....perhaps the only case of a police officer thinking she is entering her own apartment but goes to anothers apartment by mistake and then as a result of what she perceives as an intruder in her apartment shoots and kills the innocent guy.

This case definitely needs to be appealed as the jury neglected to consider the state of mind of the defendant which is critical in a case of self defense.

Not even to mention the Texas definition of murder which is a disaster...and if followed strictly would mean anytime a police officer kills someone in texas it is murder or any doctor that performs an abortion in texas would be guilty of murder.....outrageous.

Hopefully on appeal saner minds will prevail.

Mens Rea

 

[Skylar]

Again, exactly as you did with your comicly inept citation of the TORT standard of 'innocent trespass' that isn't recognized by Texas or in a criminal homicide in Texas........you're demonstrating your legal incompetence in the application of murder statutes in the case.

Amber was indicted under the murder laws of the state of Texas. Not the definitions of 'law.com'. As the crime occured in the State of Texas, it is subject to the laws of Texas. And it was the laws of Texas that the jury was obligated to apply.

Yet in your ignorance, you insist that the judge, the jury, the proecutors, and the State of Texas were obligated and bound by what you found on 'law.com'. And NOT the legislation written by their own legislature, signed into law by their governor by duly elected State officials under the Constitution of the State of Texas.

Um, no. Amber Guyger was subject to the laws of Texas.

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 19. CRIMINAL HOMICIDE

Not 'law.com'.

And under Texas law, malice is not a pre-requisite for an act of murder. In fact, 'malice' never mentioned once in the entire Texas Statute on all forms of Criminal Homicide, including Murder

You're simply an irrational legal incompetent that has no idea what they're talking about.

I am well aware of The Texas law on murder.

Laughing....which is why quoted Law.com and applying the 'malice' standard to Amber's case.....when Texas doesn't use the Malice standard?

Either you didn't know that Texas didn't use the Malice standard......in which case you're incompetent.

Or you did know that Texas didn't use the Malice standard, and intentionally tried to mislead us. In which case you're dishonest.

Either way, you're unreliable and an an utterly inadequate 'source' on the law.

The Texas definition of murder:

'1. Murder: You commit murder when you intentionally and knowingly take someone else’s life, or when you intend to commit an act that is clearly extremely dangerous to human life and in effect, causes death to another person. Murder is usually a felony of the first degree'

Amber was engaged in self defense not in an act of murder.

Says you, the same pseudo-legal incompetent that just tried to fallaciously apply the 'malice' standard to this case when Texas didn't use the Malice standard.

And the same pseudo-legal incompetent that laughably insisted that the jury was bound to the TORT standard of 'innocent trespass' which is used to determine civil liability. And NOT recognized in Texas civil law. Nor applied to Texas criminal homicides.

And yet after these two comic blunders on the BASIC application of Texas law, you're again trying to insist that your judgment supercedes the the judge, jury and prosecutors?

Laughing.....nope.

The Texas definition of murder is enough reason alone to appeal this miscarriage of justice to the U.S. Supreme ct.

Nope. As you've demonstrated repeatedly, you're legal judgment is meaningless. You don't understand jurisdiction, you conflate civil and criminal law, you insist that the jury is bound to requirements that don't even exist in Texas law. At every stage, you're clueless.

And your demonstrated incompetence certainly doesn't override the lawful judgment of a jury.

Again, exactly as you did with your comicly inept citation of the TORT standard of 'innocent trespass' that isn't recognized by Texas or in a criminal homicide in Texas........you're demonstrating your legal incompetence in the application of murder statutes in the case.

Amber was indicted under the murder laws of the state of Texas. Not the definitions of 'law.com'. As the crime occured in the State of Texas, it is subject to the laws of Texas. And it was the laws of Texas that the jury was obligated to apply.

Yet in your ignorance, you insist that the judge, the jury, the proecutors, and the State of Texas were obligated and bound by what you found on 'law.com'. And NOT the legislation written by their own legislature, signed into law by their governor by duly elected State officials under the Constitution of the State of Texas.

Um, no. Amber Guyger was subject to the laws of Texas.

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 19. CRIMINAL HOMICIDE

Not 'law.com'.

And under Texas law, malice is not a pre-requisite for an act of murder. In fact, 'malice' never mentioned once in the entire Texas Statute on all forms of Criminal Homicide, including Murder

You're simply an irrational legal incompetent that has no idea what they're talking about.

I am well aware of The Texas law on murder.

Laughing....which is why quoted Law.com and applying the 'malice' standard to Amber's case.....when Texas doesn't use the Malice standard?

Either you didn't know that Texas didn't use the Malice standard......in which case you're incompetent.

Or you did know that Texas didn't use the Malice standard, and intentionally tried to mislead us. In which case you're dishonest.

Either way, you're unreliable and an an utterly inadequate 'source' on the law.

The Texas definition of murder:

'1. Murder: You commit murder when you intentionally and knowingly take someone else’s life, or when you intend to commit an act that is clearly extremely dangerous to human life and in effect, causes death to another person. Murder is usually a felony of the first degree'

Amber was engaged in self defense not in an act of murder.

Says you, the same pseudo-legal incompetent that just tried to fallaciously apply the 'malice' standard to this case when Texas didn't use the Malice standard.

And the same pseudo-legal incompetent that laughably insisted that the jury was bound to the TORT standard of 'innocent trespass' which is used to determine civil liability. And NOT recognized in Texas civil law. Nor applied to Texas criminal homicides.

And yet after these two comic blunders on the BASIC application of Texas law, you're again trying to insist that your judgment supercedes the the judge, jury and prosecutors?

Laughing.....nope.

The Texas definition of murder is enough reason alone to appeal this miscarriage of justice to the U.S. Supreme ct.

Do you believe anytime a police officer in Texas kills someone it is murder?

The odds of that are very high when the dead person is not guilty of anything.

Since the legal expert avoids questions...perhaps you can stand in for him: Do you believe doctors performing abortions in Texas are guilty of murder.

Unless you're arguing that Amber Guyger was performing an abortion, your latest attempt to ignore the facts of the case are as meaningless as your other attempts to ignore the facts of the case.

Remember.....your argument is deeply hampered by the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[pknopp]

Again, exactly as you did with your comicly inept citation of the TORT standard of 'innocent trespass' that isn't recognized by Texas or in a criminal homicide in Texas........you're demonstrating your legal incompetence in the application of murder statutes in the case.

Amber was indicted under the murder laws of the state of Texas. Not the definitions of 'law.com'. As the crime occured in the State of Texas, it is subject to the laws of Texas. And it was the laws of Texas that the jury was obligated to apply.

Yet in your ignorance, you insist that the judge, the jury, the proecutors, and the State of Texas were obligated and bound by what you found on 'law.com'. And NOT the legislation written by their own legislature, signed into law by their governor by duly elected State officials under the Constitution of the State of Texas.

Um, no. Amber Guyger was subject to the laws of Texas.

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 19. CRIMINAL HOMICIDE

Not 'law.com'.

And under Texas law, malice is not a pre-requisite for an act of murder. In fact, 'malice' never mentioned once in the entire Texas Statute on all forms of Criminal Homicide, including Murder

You're simply an irrational legal incompetent that has no idea what they're talking about.

I am well aware of The Texas law on murder.

Laughing....which is why quoted Law.com and applying the 'malice' standard to Amber's case.....when Texas doesn't use the Malice standard?

Either you didn't know that Texas didn't use the Malice standard......in which case you're incompetent.

Or you did know that Texas didn't use the Malice standard, and intentionally tried to mislead us. In which case you're dishonest.

Either way, you're unreliable and an an utterly inadequate 'source' on the law.

The Texas definition of murder:

'1. Murder: You commit murder when you intentionally and knowingly take someone else’s life, or when you intend to commit an act that is clearly extremely dangerous to human life and in effect, causes death to another person. Murder is usually a felony of the first degree'

Amber was engaged in self defense not in an act of murder.

Says you, the same pseudo-legal incompetent that just tried to fallaciously apply the 'malice' standard to this case when Texas didn't use the Malice standard.

And the same pseudo-legal incompetent that laughably insisted that the jury was bound to the TORT standard of 'innocent trespass' which is used to determine civil liability. And NOT recognized in Texas civil law. Nor applied to Texas criminal homicides.

And yet after these two comic blunders on the BASIC application of Texas law, you're again trying to insist that your judgment supercedes the the judge, jury and prosecutors?

Laughing.....nope.

The Texas definition of murder is enough reason alone to appeal this miscarriage of justice to the U.S. Supreme ct.

Nope. As you've demonstrated repeatedly, you're legal judgment is meaningless. You don't understand jurisdiction, you conflate civil and criminal law, you insist that the jury is bound to requirements that don't even exist in Texas law. At every stage, you're clueless.

And your demonstrated incompetence certainly doesn't override the lawful judgment of a jury.

Again, exactly as you did with your comicly inept citation of the TORT standard of 'innocent trespass' that isn't recognized by Texas or in a criminal homicide in Texas........you're demonstrating your legal incompetence in the application of murder statutes in the case.

Amber was indicted under the murder laws of the state of Texas. Not the definitions of 'law.com'. As the crime occured in the State of Texas, it is subject to the laws of Texas. And it was the laws of Texas that the jury was obligated to apply.

Yet in your ignorance, you insist that the judge, the jury, the proecutors, and the State of Texas were obligated and bound by what you found on 'law.com'. And NOT the legislation written by their own legislature, signed into law by their governor by duly elected State officials under the Constitution of the State of Texas.

Um, no. Amber Guyger was subject to the laws of Texas.

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 19. CRIMINAL HOMICIDE

Not 'law.com'.

And under Texas law, malice is not a pre-requisite for an act of murder. In fact, 'malice' never mentioned once in the entire Texas Statute on all forms of Criminal Homicide, including Murder

You're simply an irrational legal incompetent that has no idea what they're talking about.

I am well aware of The Texas law on murder.

Laughing....which is why quoted Law.com and applying the 'malice' standard to Amber's case.....when Texas doesn't use the Malice standard?

Either you didn't know that Texas didn't use the Malice standard......in which case you're incompetent.

Or you did know that Texas didn't use the Malice standard, and intentionally tried to mislead us. In which case you're dishonest.

Either way, you're unreliable and an an utterly inadequate 'source' on the law.

The Texas definition of murder:

'1. Murder: You commit murder when you intentionally and knowingly take someone else’s life, or when you intend to commit an act that is clearly extremely dangerous to human life and in effect, causes death to another person. Murder is usually a felony of the first degree'

Amber was engaged in self defense not in an act of murder.

Says you, the same pseudo-legal incompetent that just tried to fallaciously apply the 'malice' standard to this case when Texas didn't use the Malice standard.

And the same pseudo-legal incompetent that laughably insisted that the jury was bound to the TORT standard of 'innocent trespass' which is used to determine civil liability. And NOT recognized in Texas civil law. Nor applied to Texas criminal homicides.

And yet after these two comic blunders on the BASIC application of Texas law, you're again trying to insist that your judgment supercedes the the judge, jury and prosecutors?

Laughing.....nope.

The Texas definition of murder is enough reason alone to appeal this miscarriage of justice to the U.S. Supreme ct.

Do you believe anytime a police officer in Texas kills someone it is murder?

The odds of that are very high when the dead person is not guilty of anything.

Since the legal expert avoids questions...perhaps you can stand in for him: Do you believe doctors performing abortions in Texas are guilty of murder.

Murder is a legal concept. Abortion is legal in Texas, so no.

There have been instances before of police officers going to the wrong address and killing a innocent person...none have ever been charged with murder.

Which is the issue. That has to change. That can no longer be simply excused away.

Yet....this case is very unique....perhaps the only case of a police officer thinking she is entering her own apartment but goes to anothers apartment by mistake and then as a result of what she perceives as an intruder in her apartment shoots and kills the innocent guy.

This case definitely nees to be appealed as the jury neglected to consider the state of mind of the defendant which is critical in a case of self defense.

Mens Rea

They considered it. It was a part of the case presented. They simply did not believe it an excuse. The person texting and driving didn't mean to kill anyone either. They are going to be charged with killing someone if their actions end up doing that.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

I am well aware of The Texas law on murder.

Laughing....which is why quoted Law.com and applying the 'malice' standard to Amber's case.....when Texas doesn't use the Malice standard?

Either you didn't know that Texas didn't use the Malice standard......in which case you're incompetent.

Or you did know that Texas didn't use the Malice standard, and intentionally tried to mislead us. In which case you're dishonest.

Either way, you're unreliable and an an utterly inadequate 'source' on the law.

The Texas definition of murder:

'1. Murder: You commit murder when you intentionally and knowingly take someone else’s life, or when you intend to commit an act that is clearly extremely dangerous to human life and in effect, causes death to another person. Murder is usually a felony of the first degree'

Amber was engaged in self defense not in an act of murder.

Says you, the same pseudo-legal incompetent that just tried to fallaciously apply the 'malice' standard to this case when Texas didn't use the Malice standard.

And the same pseudo-legal incompetent that laughably insisted that the jury was bound to the TORT standard of 'innocent trespass' which is used to determine civil liability. And NOT recognized in Texas civil law. Nor applied to Texas criminal homicides.

And yet after these two comic blunders on the BASIC application of Texas law, you're again trying to insist that your judgment supercedes the the judge, jury and prosecutors?

Laughing.....nope.

The Texas definition of murder is enough reason alone to appeal this miscarriage of justice to the U.S. Supreme ct.

Nope. As you've demonstrated repeatedly, you're legal judgment is meaningless. You don't understand jurisdiction, you conflate civil and criminal law, you insist that the jury is bound to requirements that don't even exist in Texas law. At every stage, you're clueless.

And your demonstrated incompetence certainly doesn't override the lawful judgment of a jury.

I am well aware of The Texas law on murder.

Laughing....which is why quoted Law.com and applying the 'malice' standard to Amber's case.....when Texas doesn't use the Malice standard?

Either you didn't know that Texas didn't use the Malice standard......in which case you're incompetent.

Or you did know that Texas didn't use the Malice standard, and intentionally tried to mislead us. In which case you're dishonest.

Either way, you're unreliable and an an utterly inadequate 'source' on the law.

The Texas definition of murder:

'1. Murder: You commit murder when you intentionally and knowingly take someone else’s life, or when you intend to commit an act that is clearly extremely dangerous to human life and in effect, causes death to another person. Murder is usually a felony of the first degree'

Amber was engaged in self defense not in an act of murder.

Says you, the same pseudo-legal incompetent that just tried to fallaciously apply the 'malice' standard to this case when Texas didn't use the Malice standard.

And the same pseudo-legal incompetent that laughably insisted that the jury was bound to the TORT standard of 'innocent trespass' which is used to determine civil liability. And NOT recognized in Texas civil law. Nor applied to Texas criminal homicides.

And yet after these two comic blunders on the BASIC application of Texas law, you're again trying to insist that your judgment supercedes the the judge, jury and prosecutors?

Laughing.....nope.

The Texas definition of murder is enough reason alone to appeal this miscarriage of justice to the U.S. Supreme ct.

Do you believe anytime a police officer in Texas kills someone it is murder?

The odds of that are very high when the dead person is not guilty of anything.

Since the legal expert avoids questions...perhaps you can stand in for him: Do you believe doctors performing abortions in Texas are guilty of murder.

Unless you're arguing that Amber Guyger was performing an abortion, your latest attempt to ignore the facts of the case are as meaningless as your other attempts to ignore the facts of the case.

Remember.....your argument is deeply hampered by the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.

You are guilty of shallow thinking not understanding the implications of The Texas definition of murder.

Your refusal to answer questions about the Texas definition of murder indicates poor thinking are an attempt to obfusicate.