: 66394"]If I came home after working 13 hours to my own home found the door I locked earlier unlocked I believe I would call 911 prior to entering and they would advices me not to enter. Now say I didn’t call 911 but retrieved my weapon from my vehicle console and entered my own home. I then find a man drinking my beer on my couch can I shoot him?, when I startle him and he get off my couch. Legally I cannot shoot him until he presents a threat. She was in the wrong home and did not prove he presented a threat.
Under the law of self defense in most states one only has to be in reasonable fear of their life...they are not required to prove a threat.....though they must be able to convince a jury that they were in reasonable fear of their life or of serious bodily injury.
Due to a lot of recent decisions on self defense by juries that are basically incompetent/ obsessed with political correctness.....especially when a unarmed black is shot ---the capability to conduct a successful self defense is being diminished.
A lot of gun owners are not aware of this...and thus they are placing themselves in harms way....especially if they carry a concealed weapon...lots of juries now do not like that at all...having been indoctrinated by the msm into believing it is wrong if not criminal to walk around with a concealed weapon.
Shooting a man to death who is sitting in his own apartment, minding his own business isn't 'self defense'.
Which is why the jury rejected it as a defense when presented with it by Amber's own lawyers.[/QUOTE
The key to whether the defendant w
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.
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.
Anyone who thinks that a woman coming home to find a nigha sitting on her couch could not possibly be in fear of her life and or of getting raped is beyond my comprehension. Being a police officer she knew how blacks are prone to rape white women....even though a minority they comitt over half of all violent crime in America....most do not know this but the police have to deal with blacks all the time and they well understand their propensity for violence...our jails are full of them
The add to that....da nigha had to know she was a police officer because she was still in uniform and yet when she yells at him to show his hands he refuses....why?
Perhaps because the mariujana he was smoking prevented him from understanding that a police officer pointing a gun at him might actually shoot him if he did not show his hands.
Bottom Line it is very reasonable she was in fear of her life and any reasonable person would recognize that.
Unfortunately black jurors will always refuse to judge white cops fairly....their hatred of white folks is only superseded by their hatred of police officers....that is the reality and that is why Amber was convicted...they could not have cared less whether or not she was in fear of her life.