Racist Black Judge Railroading Amber Guyger

[TheGreenHornet]

Homicide is not murder.

The essential element of murder is malice.

Hearsay repeated ad nauseum. Murder is obviously homicide. You have nothing.

Nope homicide is not murder....a homicide does not require malice...murder does.

 

[Skylar]

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

None? Putting a bullet in his heart is rather malicious.

Murder does not require malice in Texas. In fact, the word 'malice' isn't used once in the entire section of Texas law on criminal homicide, including Murder.

 

[Vandalshandle]

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

None? Putting a bullet in his heart is rather malicious.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Homicide is not murder.

The essential element of murder is malice.

Hearsay repeated ad nauseum. Murder is obviously homicide. You have nothing.

Nope....homicide is not murder........
What's the difference between homicide, murder and manslaughter? - Murphy Law Office

Obviously you did not know I went to Harvard Law
School.

 

[Skylar]

Homicide is not murder.

The essential element of murder is malice.

Hearsay repeated ad nauseum. Murder is obviously homicide. You have nothing.

Nope homicide is not murder....a homicide does not require malice...murder does.

Not in Texas it doesn't. The word 'malice' is never used in the entire statute on criminal homicide. Nor is it a requirement for a murder per the statutes of Texas.

Your legal incompetence again hampers your argument.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

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

None? Putting a bullet in his heart is rather malicious.

Murder does not require malice in Texas. In fact, the word 'malice' isn't used once in the entire section of Texas law on criminal homicide, including Murder.

The Texas definition of murder is wrong...it needs to be re-written. Hopefully they will bring that up in the appeal....that in and of itself is a big reason this case should be taken to the
Supreme Court...that texas definition was probably written way back in the old days when politicians had little or no legal training.

All competent legal scholars today say malice is an essential element of murder.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Jury decisions are constantly over-turned for various reasons....using a incompetent definition of murder would be one good reason in this case.

Let's say it is overturned. They try her again and then find her guilty of manslaughter. How would you feel if they then gave her more than 10 years?

 

[Skylar]

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

None? Putting a bullet in his heart is rather malicious.

Murder does not require malice in Texas. In fact, the word 'malice' isn't used once in the entire section of Texas law on criminal homicide, including Murder.

The Texas definition of murder is wrong...it needs to be re-written. Hopefully they will bring that up in the appeal....that in and of itself is a big reason this case should be taken to the
Supreme Court...that texas definition was probably written way back in the old days when politicians had little or no legal training.

All competent legal scholars today say malice is an essential element of murder.

Says you, citing your imagination.

Again, Green.....you may believe that your imagination defines the law. But as Amber Guyger's conviction for murder demonstrates, your imagination has no legal relevance. Your 'feelings' don't change the statutes or the facts in the case.

And as Amber Guyger committed murder in Texas, she was subject to Texas law. Not the standards of 'law.com'.

You don't have the slightest clue how jurisdiction works at all, do you?

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Homicide is not murder.

The essential element of murder is malice.

Hearsay repeated ad nauseum. Murder is obviously homicide. You have nothing.

Nope homicide is not murder....a homicide does not require malice...murder does.

Not in Texas it doesn't. The word 'malice' is never used in the entire statute on criminal homicide. Nor is it a requirement for a murder per the statutes of Texas.

Your legal incompetence again hampers your argument.

Jury decisions are constantly over-turned for various reasons....using a incompetent definition of murder would be one good reason in this case.

Let's say it is overturned. They try her again and then find her guilty of manslaughter. How would you feel if they then gave her more than 10 years?

To tell you the truth from what I have seen and heard about this lady....I really do not like her but I am convinced she is innocent. Anyhow...the good guys do not always win...what will be will be.

The real damage done by this jury and others of a similar nature is to make it more difficult to engage in self defense without the possibility of going to prison.

These juries have too many politically correct people who have no understanding of the law and are easily controlled by the prosecutor whose main interest is not justice but to pursue the goals of the state...which in this case was to placate the blacks.

 

[Skylar]

Homicide is not murder.

The essential element of murder is malice.

Hearsay repeated ad nauseum. Murder is obviously homicide. You have nothing.

Nope homicide is not murder....a homicide does not require malice...murder does.

Not in Texas it doesn't. The word 'malice' is never used in the entire statute on criminal homicide. Nor is it a requirement for a murder per the statutes of Texas.

Your legal incompetence again hampers your argument.

Jury decisions are constantly over-turned for various reasons....using a incompetent definition of murder would be one good reason in this case.

Let's say it is overturned. They try her again and then find her guilty of manslaughter. How would you feel if they then gave her more than 10 years?

To tell you the truth from what I have seen and heard about this lady....I really do not like her but I am convinced she is innocent. Anyhow...the good guys do not always win...what will be will be.

The real damage done by this jury and others of a similar nature is to make it more difficult to engage in self defense without the possibility of going to prison.

These juries have too many politically correct people who have no understanding of the law and are easily controlled by the prosecutor

Shooting an unarmed man to death in his own home for committing no crime isn't 'self defense'.

Which might explain why Amber Guyger was convicted of murder for doing it.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Which link are you referring to?

A current, authoritative source saying for “criminal trespass” in Texas:
"

• You must have acted intentionally
• There must have been some notice posted or you were asked to leave
• You must be physically present on the property"

Exactly....as in .........'you must have acted intentionally' meaning you must have intended to trespass....she had no such intent....she simply made a mistake.....and that is all there is to it...she made a mistake....a very big mistake she went to someone elses apartment...a tragic mistake for both parties. But that is all it was a huge tragic mistake....yet the state wants to send her to prison because she made a mistake.....who said it? To err is human.

Deadly mistakes happen all the time...usually in traffic cases but other ways also...look up the stats on accidental deaths each year....shit happens.....get over it. Do not try to rectify the death of one innocent person by jailing another innocent person.

His brother had it right....he did not want her to go to jail....if the victims brother can say that...it should be very easy for everyone else to say the same.

Unfortunately, too many folks on here are consumed with hatred...mostly negroes i think but a good share of misguided white folk also.

Noted. No link. More blather.

 

[Skylar]

Which link are you referring to?

A current, authoritative source saying for “criminal trespass” in Texas:
"

• You must have acted intentionally
• There must have been some notice posted or you were asked to leave
• You must be physically present on the property"

Exactly....as in .........'you must have acted intentionally' meaning you must have intended to trespass....she had no such intent....she simply made a mistake.....and that is all there is to it...she made a mistake....a very big mistake she went to someone elses apartment...a tragic mistake for both parties. But that is all it was a huge tragic mistake....yet the state wants to send her to prison because she made a mistake.....who said it? To err is human.

Deadly mistakes happen all the time...usually in traffic cases but other ways also...look up the stats on accidental deaths each year....shit happens.....get over it. Do not try to rectify the death of one innocent person by jailing another innocent person.

His brother had it right....he did not want her to go to jail....if the victims brother can say that...it should be very easy for everyone else to say the same.

Unfortunately, too many folks on here are consumed with hatred...mostly negroes i think but a good share of misguided white folk also.

Noted. No link. More blather.

Yup

Green is convinced that his emotions and feelings about Amber Guyger's murder override Texas state law, the judge, the jury and the prosecutors.

As Amber sitting in prison orange demonstrate, Green's 'feelings' don't amount to much.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

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

None? Putting a bullet in his heart is rather malicious.

Murder does not require malice in Texas. In fact, the word 'malice' isn't used once in the entire section of Texas law on criminal homicide, including Murder.

The Texas definition of murder is wrong...it needs to be re-written. Hopefully they will bring that up in the appeal....that in and of itself is a big reason this case should be taken to the
Supreme Court...that texas definition was probably written way back in the old days when politicians had little or no legal training.

All competent legal scholars today say malice is an essential element of murder.

Says you, citing your imagination.

Again, Green.....you may believe that your imagination defines the law. But as Amber Guyger's conviction for murder demonstrates, your imagination has no legal relevance. Your 'feelings' don't change the statutes or the facts in the case.

And as Amber Guyger committed murder in Texas, she was subject to Texas law. Not the standards of 'law.com'.

You don't have the slightest clue how jurisdiction works at all, do you?

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

None? Putting a bullet in his heart is rather malicious.

Murder does not require malice in Texas. In fact, the word 'malice' isn't used once in the entire section of Texas law on criminal homicide, including Murder.

The Texas definition of murder is wrong...it needs to be re-written. Hopefully they will bring that up in the appeal....that in and of itself is a big reason this case should be taken to the
Supreme Court...that texas definition was probably written way back in the old days when politicians had little or no legal training.

All competent legal scholars today say malice is an essential element of murder.

Says you, citing your imagination.

Again, Green.....you may believe that your imagination defines the law. But as Amber Guyger's conviction for murder demonstrates, your imagination has no legal relevance. Your 'feelings' don't change the statutes or the facts in the case.

And as Amber Guyger committed murder in Texas, she was subject to Texas law. Not the standards of 'law.com'.

You don't have the slightest clue how jurisdiction works at all, do you?

I have cited competent legal authorities like Blacks Law Dictionary........

Black's Law is the most widely used law dictionary in the United States. It was founded by Henry Campbell Black (1860–1927). It is the reference of choice for terms in legal briefs and court opinions and has been cited as a secondary legal authority in many U.S. Supreme Court cases

 

[Skylar]

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

None? Putting a bullet in his heart is rather malicious.

Murder does not require malice in Texas. In fact, the word 'malice' isn't used once in the entire section of Texas law on criminal homicide, including Murder.

The Texas definition of murder is wrong...it needs to be re-written. Hopefully they will bring that up in the appeal....that in and of itself is a big reason this case should be taken to the
Supreme Court...that texas definition was probably written way back in the old days when politicians had little or no legal training.

All competent legal scholars today say malice is an essential element of murder.

Says you, citing your imagination.

Again, Green.....you may believe that your imagination defines the law. But as Amber Guyger's conviction for murder demonstrates, your imagination has no legal relevance. Your 'feelings' don't change the statutes or the facts in the case.

And as Amber Guyger committed murder in Texas, she was subject to Texas law. Not the standards of 'law.com'.

You don't have the slightest clue how jurisdiction works at all, do you?

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

None? Putting a bullet in his heart is rather malicious.

Murder does not require malice in Texas. In fact, the word 'malice' isn't used once in the entire section of Texas law on criminal homicide, including Murder.

The Texas definition of murder is wrong...it needs to be re-written. Hopefully they will bring that up in the appeal....that in and of itself is a big reason this case should be taken to the
Supreme Court...that texas definition was probably written way back in the old days when politicians had little or no legal training.

All competent legal scholars today say malice is an essential element of murder.

Says you, citing your imagination.

Again, Green.....you may believe that your imagination defines the law. But as Amber Guyger's conviction for murder demonstrates, your imagination has no legal relevance. Your 'feelings' don't change the statutes or the facts in the case.

And as Amber Guyger committed murder in Texas, she was subject to Texas law. Not the standards of 'law.com'.

You don't have the slightest clue how jurisdiction works at all, do you?

I have cited competent legal authorities like Blacks Law Dictionary........

On TORT law from Georgia. Which isn't recognized in Texas. And isn't applied to criminal homicides if it was. You laughably conflate civil and criminal law, and insist that state ruling from OUTSIDE Texas override Texas state law.

Um, no. They don't.

Worse, you've ignored the Texas Statutes on Murder, insisting that Texas is bound to the 'malice standard'.......when it isn't. 'Malice' isn't mentioned once in the entire Texas statute on criminal homicides, including murder.

Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about. It tends to hamper your arguments.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

None? Putting a bullet in his heart is rather malicious.

Murder does not require malice in Texas. In fact, the word 'malice' isn't used once in the entire section of Texas law on criminal homicide, including Murder.

The Texas definition of murder is wrong...it needs to be re-written. Hopefully they will bring that up in the appeal....that in and of itself is a big reason this case should be taken to the
Supreme Court...that texas definition was probably written way back in the old days when politicians had little or no legal training.

All competent legal scholars today say malice is an essential element of murder.

Says you, citing your imagination.

Again, Green.....you may believe that your imagination defines the law. But as Amber Guyger's conviction for murder demonstrates, your imagination has no legal relevance. Your 'feelings' don't change the statutes or the facts in the case.

And as Amber Guyger committed murder in Texas, she was subject to Texas law. Not the standards of 'law.com'.

You don't have the slightest clue how jurisdiction works at all, do you?

None? Putting a bullet in his heart is rather malicious.

Murder does not require malice in Texas. In fact, the word 'malice' isn't used once in the entire section of Texas law on criminal homicide, including Murder.

The Texas definition of murder is wrong...it needs to be re-written. Hopefully they will bring that up in the appeal....that in and of itself is a big reason this case should be taken to the
Supreme Court...that texas definition was probably written way back in the old days when politicians had little or no legal training.

All competent legal scholars today say malice is an essential element of murder.

Says you, citing your imagination.

Again, Green.....you may believe that your imagination defines the law. But as Amber Guyger's conviction for murder demonstrates, your imagination has no legal relevance. Your 'feelings' don't change the statutes or the facts in the case.

And as Amber Guyger committed murder in Texas, she was subject to Texas law. Not the standards of 'law.com'.

You don't have the slightest clue how jurisdiction works at all, do you?

I have cited competent legal authorities like Blacks Law Dictionary........

On TORT law from Georgia. Which isn't recognized in Texas. And isn't applied to criminal homicides if it was. You laughably conflate civil and criminal law, and insist that state ruling from OUTSIDE Texas override Texas state law.

Um, no. They don't.

Worse, you've ignored the Texas Statutes on Murder, insisting that Texas is bound to the 'malice standard'.......when it isn't. 'Malice' isn't mentioned once in the entire Texas statute o


18 U.S. Code § 1111.Murder

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev | next
arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse,child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree.

Any other murder is murder in the second degree.

18 U.S. Code § 1111 - Murder

 

[Skylar]

Murder does not require malice in Texas. In fact, the word 'malice' isn't used once in the entire section of Texas law on criminal homicide, including Murder.

The Texas definition of murder is wrong...it needs to be re-written. Hopefully they will bring that up in the appeal....that in and of itself is a big reason this case should be taken to the
Supreme Court...that texas definition was probably written way back in the old days when politicians had little or no legal training.

All competent legal scholars today say malice is an essential element of murder.

Says you, citing your imagination.

Again, Green.....you may believe that your imagination defines the law. But as Amber Guyger's conviction for murder demonstrates, your imagination has no legal relevance. Your 'feelings' don't change the statutes or the facts in the case.

And as Amber Guyger committed murder in Texas, she was subject to Texas law. Not the standards of 'law.com'.

You don't have the slightest clue how jurisdiction works at all, do you?

Murder does not require malice in Texas. In fact, the word 'malice' isn't used once in the entire section of Texas law on criminal homicide, including Murder.

The Texas definition of murder is wrong...it needs to be re-written. Hopefully they will bring that up in the appeal....that in and of itself is a big reason this case should be taken to the
Supreme Court...that texas definition was probably written way back in the old days when politicians had little or no legal training.

All competent legal scholars today say malice is an essential element of murder.

Says you, citing your imagination.

Again, Green.....you may believe that your imagination defines the law. But as Amber Guyger's conviction for murder demonstrates, your imagination has no legal relevance. Your 'feelings' don't change the statutes or the facts in the case.

And as Amber Guyger committed murder in Texas, she was subject to Texas law. Not the standards of 'law.com'.

You don't have the slightest clue how jurisdiction works at all, do you?

I have cited competent legal authorities like Blacks Law Dictionary........

On TORT law from Georgia. Which isn't recognized in Texas. And isn't applied to criminal homicides if it was. You laughably conflate civil and criminal law, and insist that state ruling from OUTSIDE Texas override Texas state law.

Um, no. They don't.

Worse, you've ignored the Texas Statutes on Murder, insisting that Texas is bound to the 'malice standard'.......when it isn't. 'Malice' isn't mentioned once in the entire Texas statute o


18 U.S. Code § 1111.Murder

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev | next
arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse,child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree.

Any other murder is murder in the second degree.

18 U.S. Code § 1111 - Murder

That's a federal statute. This was a state crime.

Your incompetence regarding jurisdiction is against hampering your argument.

Try again.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

she simply made a mistake.....and that is all there is to it...she made a mistake....a very big mistake she went to someone elses apartment...a tragic mistake for both parties. But that is all it was a huge tragic mistake....yet the state wants to send her to prison because she made a mistake.....who said it? To err is human.

All murders are a huge tragic mistake.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Which link are you referring to?

A current, authoritative source saying for “criminal trespass” in Texas:
"

• You must have acted intentionally
• There must have been some notice posted or you were asked to leave
• You must be physically present on the property"

Exactly....as in .........'you must have acted intentionally' meaning you must have intended to trespass....she had no such intent....she simply made a mistake.....and that is all there is to it...she made a mistake....a very big mistake she went to someone elses apartment...a tragic mistake for both parties. But that is all it was a huge tragic mistake....yet the state wants to send her to prison because she made a mistake.....who said it? To err is human.

Nope. 'Innocent Trespass' is a tort standard for determining civil liability in States like Georgia and Virginia.

Texas doesn't recognize 'innocent trespass'. And it certainly doesn't apply a tort standard from another State to criminal proceedings on homicide.

Remember, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Nonsense it can be a tort or criminal in nature....aka a burglar

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 30. BURGLARY AND CRIMINAL TRESPASS

OMG, a link at long last, Texas even, let's see now,.. oap, there it is!:

Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:

(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or

(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.

Look mom, no "intent" mentioned! Oopsies! Time you grew up!

 

[TheGreenHornet]

The Texas definition of murder is wrong...it needs to be re-written. Hopefully they will bring that up in the appeal....that in and of itself is a big reason this case should be taken to the
Supreme Court...that texas definition was probably written way back in the old days when politicians had little or no legal training.

All competent legal scholars today say malice is an essential element of murder.

Says you, citing your imagination.

Again, Green.....you may believe that your imagination defines the law. But as Amber Guyger's conviction for murder demonstrates, your imagination has no legal relevance. Your 'feelings' don't change the statutes or the facts in the case.

And as Amber Guyger committed murder in Texas, she was subject to Texas law. Not the standards of 'law.com'.

You don't have the slightest clue how jurisdiction works at all, do you?

The Texas definition of murder is wrong...it needs to be re-written. Hopefully they will bring that up in the appeal....that in and of itself is a big reason this case should be taken to the
Supreme Court...that texas definition was probably written way back in the old days when politicians had little or no legal training.

All competent legal scholars today say malice is an essential element of murder.

Says you, citing your imagination.

Again, Green.....you may believe that your imagination defines the law. But as Amber Guyger's conviction for murder demonstrates, your imagination has no legal relevance. Your 'feelings' don't change the statutes or the facts in the case.

And as Amber Guyger committed murder in Texas, she was subject to Texas law. Not the standards of 'law.com'.

You don't have the slightest clue how jurisdiction works at all, do you?

I have cited competent legal authorities like Blacks Law Dictionary........

On TORT law from Georgia. Which isn't recognized in Texas. And isn't applied to criminal homicides if it was. You laughably conflate civil and criminal law, and insist that state ruling from OUTSIDE Texas override Texas state law.

Um, no. They don't.

Worse, you've ignored the Texas Statutes on Murder, insisting that Texas is bound to the 'malice standard'.......when it isn't. 'Malice' isn't mentioned once in the entire Texas statute o


18 U.S. Code § 1111.Murder

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev | next
arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse,child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree.

Any other murder is murder in the second degree.

18 U.S. Code § 1111 - Murder

That's a federal statute. This was a state crime.

Your incompetence regarding jurisdiction is against hampering your argument.

Try again.

The feds rule over all state courts...they are the ultimate deciders....thus if this case goes to the supreme court....it will be over turned.

any you think you are legally competent? bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

The Texas definition of murder is wrong

Of course it is.