Racist Black Judge Railroading Amber Guyger

[QuickHitCurepon]

If she lives along, the door being ajar means only one thing; someone is inside or has been. Because of that, she should have entered cautiously ready to immediately retreat back outside.

 

[Skylar]

Being racist has nothing to do with this thread....it is all about whether a white lady cop should have been in fear of her life...... believing she was in her own home and confronted with a nigha who refused to comply with her command of 'show me your hands' the nigha as is now known was smokin dope and in his state of mind he did not act rationally.

Nonsense. She had plenty of opportunities to de-escalate. She could have called for back up. She could have retreated into the hallway. She could have gone to the fire stairs. There were ample chances for her to defuse the situation and she had more than enough training to recognize them.

So many opportunities to de-escalate in fact, that her defense was left so desperate that they actually argued the Castle Doctrine in the closing arguments. That's how many chances she had to de-escalate.

Alas, shooting someone to death in their own home.....isn't how the Castle Doctrine works.

Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about.

Thus the two main factors in this case...a white police lady who mistakenly believed she was in her own residence confronted wid a nigha under the influence of marijuana refusing to obey a lawful police order.....these two factors are what caused the shooting.

Several problems with your pseudo-legal analysis:

First, she wasn't working as a cop. She was off duty. She can't give 'lawful orders as a police officer' when she's not working as a police officer. The Dallas PD *never* backed her claim that she gave a 'lawful order'. Instead, they fired her ass citing 'adverse conduct'. Even her lawyers never argued that she gave a 'lawful order'.

Second, two other witnesses to the event contradict Guyger's claim that she told Jean to 'put up his hands' in his own home.

Third, there was strong reason to believe that Amber Guyger lied her ass off. As she claimed to have given CPR to Jean. Yet there wasn't a drop of blood on her, her clothes, the gloves she was carrying, or even her shoes. Meanwhile, Jean's chest wound was spewing so much blood with chest compressions by the paramedics that the blood pooled in the stretcher and left a bloody trail behind it in the hallway.

So we have a woman who is contradicted by two witnesses and gave a statement that the evidence strongly indicates was a lie.

And yet you expect the jury to believe her?

Again my friend....you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Yeh a witness who just got killed in a drug deal. No credibility.

Says you, citing you. At this point you're just ignoring evidence that contradicts you.

The jury didn't ignore what you must to cling to your pseudo-legal gibberish.

A policeman is not a paramedic. The wound may not have even been bleeding when she tried cpr.

So your working theory is that gunshot wounds to the chest.....don't bleed? That's probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard this year.

She didn't have a drop of blood on her. Not on her skin, not on her clothing, not on the gloves, not even her shoes. Not a single drop. Despite Jean being found in a POOL of blood, with so much blood spewing from his chest wound with each chest compression that it left a pool in the stetcher that left a bloody trail on the floor behind it.

But per your meaningless, pseudo-legal gibberish, his chest wounds didn't bleed.

Surely you can see why the jury didn't buy that steaming pile of nonsense.

The evidence shows that Amber Guyger lied about the CPR. The prosecutor pointed it out repeatedly, even showing the jury her uniform without a drop of blood on it. The jury rightly believed the prosecutor, and the witnesses the contradicted Amber.

And all you can do is ignore the evidence, the witnesses, and make up the ludicrious fantasy that 'gunshot wounds to the chest don't bleed'.

No thank you. As I've said, you're irrational.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

If she lives along, the door being ajar means only one thing; someone is inside or has been. Because of that, she should have entered cautiously ready to immediately retreat back outside.

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaa Lookie here girl....when she started to put her key in-- the door swung open....she probably thought she either forgot to lock the door or there was a problem with the lock....and you as well as most do not understand how quickly all this went down...the door swung up and she took a couple of steps inside spotted what she thought was the intruder and the rest is history. All this took 3 or 4 seconds at most.

Police officers are trained to enforce the law....they are not trained to run from criminals.

Bottom line the jury got it wrong....all this second guessing is simply the result of hindsight. Amber did not have the benefit of hindsight. Being confronted with what she honestly believed to be an intruder she took the appropriate reaction....ordered him to show his hands and his refusal to do so brought about the shooting...because that convinced her he was a threat that had to be eliminated. Good shoot.

 

[Skylar]

If she lives along, the door being ajar means only one thing; someone is inside or has been. Because of that, she should have entered cautiously ready to immediately retreat back outside.

Or called for back up. By her own story, she had a door between her and Jean. The idea that she had 'no choice' to be murder the man behind that door is nonsense. She could have called back up. She could have retreated down the hall. She could have gone to the fire stairs and left the door unopen.

The opportunities to de-escalate were abundant and she had more than enough training to recognize them.

In fact, there were so many opportunities to deescalate that her lawyers were forced to go with a hail mary pass of the Castle Doctrine.

Alas, murdering someone in THEIR home isn't how the Castle Doctrine works.

Which is why Amber Guyger was rightly convicted of murder for intentionally shooting to death an innocent, unarmed man in his own apartment who was minding his own business. And she deserves her prison sentence of 10 years.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

If she lives along, the door being ajar means only one thing; someone is inside or has been. Because of that, she should have entered cautiously ready to immediately retreat back outside.

I agree, but she isnt under any obligation to retreat. Still, it would have been the wise move.

 

[Skylar]

If she lives along, the door being ajar means only one thing; someone is inside or has been. Because of that, she should have entered cautiously ready to immediately retreat back outside.

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaa Lookie here girl....when she started to put her key in-- the door swung open....she probably thought she either forgot to lock the door or there was a problem with the lock....and you as well as most do not understand how quickly all this went down...the door swung up and she took a couple of steps inside spotted what she thought was the intruder and the rest is history. All this took 3 or 4 seconds at most.

Again, she could have called for back up. She could have retreated farther down the hallway. She could have used the fire stairs. She had opportunities galore to de-escalate the situation. And more than the training enough to recognize those opportunities.

Worse, the only one to corroborate Ambers story.......is Amber Guyger. Both witnesses that heard the confrontation contradict Amber's account. And Amber obliterated her credibility by claiming she did CPR on a man whose chest wounds spewed pools of blood....and yet Amber didn't have a drop of blood on her.

Not even on her shoes. All points hammered home by the prosecutor who even showed her pristinely blood free uniform to the jury. Despite the pools of blood on the floor, in the stetcher, and the blood trail down the hall.

The jury rightly didn't find Amber's testimony persuasive or credible.

In fact the case had gone so poorly for Amber that her lawyers were forced into the desperation move of citing the Castle Doctrine as her defense in the closing arguments. Which, of course, is just nonsense. Shooting a man to death in HIS home isn't how the Castle Doctrine works.

Amber was rightly convicted and rightly imprisoned. She earned her 10 year sentence in Texas State prison

 

[Grumblenuts]

Legal Authority of Off-Duty Cops

Again, you don't even read your own links:

Off-Duty Liability

While cops retain much of their legal authority while off-duty, some critics claim they are not held to the same legal standards when working a second job or off-the-clock entirely. Private security companies are not bound by the same regulations, constitutional protections, or civil liberties concerns as public police departments. And, while some cities will accept civil liability for off-duty police behavior, it's an open question whether an officer will be civilly or criminally liable for acts committed when they're not on the clock.

But the Ninth Circuit, however, recently ruled that off-duty police officers working private security jobs are not entitled to the same qualified immunity as they would be if they were working on behalf of the government. So, in some cases, legal protections for officers may be limited to their on-duty conduct.

If you've had an interaction with an off-duty cop and want to know your rights, contact an experienced criminal defense attorney in your area.

Amber wasn't even working in a private security capacity. Face it, you gotta lotta nothin' burgers.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Being racist has nothing to do with this thread....it is all about whether a white lady cop should have been in fear of her life...... believing she was in her own home and confronted with a nigha who refused to comply with her command of 'show me your hands' the nigha as is now known was smokin dope and in his state of mind he did not act rationally.

Nonsense. She had plenty of opportunities to de-escalate. She could have called for back up. She could have retreated into the hallway. She could have gone to the fire stairs. There were ample chances for her to defuse the situation and she had more than enough training to recognize them.

So many opportunities to de-escalate in fact, that her defense was left so desperate that they actually argued the Castle Doctrine in the closing arguments. That's how many chances she had to de-escalate.

Alas, shooting someone to death in their own home.....isn't how the Castle Doctrine works.

Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about.

Thus the two main factors in this case...a white police lady who mistakenly believed she was in her own residence confronted wid a nigha under the influence of marijuana refusing to obey a lawful police order.....these two factors are what caused the shooting.

Several problems with your pseudo-legal analysis:

First, she wasn't working as a cop. She was off duty. She can't give 'lawful orders as a police officer' when she's not working as a police officer. The Dallas PD *never* backed her claim that she gave a 'lawful order'. Instead, they fired her ass citing 'adverse conduct'. Even her lawyers never argued that she gave a 'lawful order'.

Second, two other witnesses to the event contradict Guyger's claim that she told Jean to 'put up his hands' in his own home.

Third, there was strong reason to believe that Amber Guyger lied her ass off. As she claimed to have given CPR to Jean. Yet there wasn't a drop of blood on her, her clothes, the gloves she was carrying, or even her shoes. Meanwhile, Jean's chest wound was spewing so much blood with chest compressions by the paramedics that the blood pooled in the stretcher and left a bloody trail behind it in the hallway.

So we have a woman who is contradicted by two witnesses and gave a statement that the evidence strongly indicates was a lie.

And yet you expect the jury to believe her?

Again my friend....you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Yeh a witness who just got killed in a drug deal. No credibility.

Says you, citing you. At this point you're just ignoring evidence that contradicts you.

The jury didn't ignore what you must to cling to your pseudo-legal gibberish.

A policeman is not a paramedic. The wound may not have even been bleeding when she tried cpr.

So your working theory is that gunshot wounds to the chest.....don't bleed? That's probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard this year.

She didn't have a drop of blood on her. Not on her skin, not on her clothing, not on the gloves, not even her shoes. Not a single drop. Despite Jean being found in a POOL of blood, with so much blood spewing from his chest wound with each chest compression that it left a pool in the stetcher that left a bloody trail on the floor behind it.

But per your meaningless, pseudo-legal gibberish, his chest wounds didn't bleed.

Surely you can see why the jury didn't buy that steaming pile of nonsense.

The evidence shows that Amber Guyger lied about the CPR. The prosecutor pointed it out repeatedly, even showing the jury her uniform without a drop of blood on it. The jury rightly believed the prosecutor, and the witnesses the contradicted Amber.

And all you can do is ignore the evidence, the witnesses, and make up the ludicrious fantasy that 'gunshot wounds to the chest don't bleed'.

No thank you. As I've said, you're irrational.

Obviously you know little about gunshot wounds............it is quite common where a person bleeds out internally, but the wound remains pretty much blood free. ... or it may take a little while for the wound to start bleeding profusely.

 

[Skylar]

If she lives along, the door being ajar means only one thing; someone is inside or has been. Because of that, she should have entered cautiously ready to immediately retreat back outside.

I agree, but she isnt under any obligation to retreat. Still, it would have been the wise move.

The 'Castle Doctrine' doesn't apply when you're breaking into someone ELSE'S apartment and shooting them to death.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

waaaaaaaaaaaaa Lookie here girl....when she started to put her key in-- the door swung open....she probably thought she either forgot to lock the door or there was a problem with the lock..

How does a door swing open from inserting a key? If it doesn't fit, you take pause. And a police officer cannot figure this out? Give me a break.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Legal Authority of Off-Duty Cops

Again, you don't even read your own links:

Off-Duty Liability

While cops retain much of their legal authority while off-duty, some critics claim they are not held to the same legal standards when working a second job or off-the-clock entirely. Private security companies are not bound by the same regulations, constitutional protections, or civil liberties concerns as public police departments. And, while some cities will accept civil liability for off-duty police behavior, it's an open question whether an officer will be civilly or criminally liable for acts committed when they're not on the clock.

But the Ninth Circuit, however, recently ruled that off-duty police officers working private security jobs are not entitled to the same qualified immunity as they would be if they were working on behalf of the government. So, in some cases, legal protections for officers may be limited to their on-duty conduct.

If you've had an interaction with an off-duty cop and want to know your rights, contact an experienced criminal defense attorney in your area.

Amber wasn't even working in a private security capacity. Face it, you gotta lotta nothin' burgers.

Dont like that one ....here is another one......................The Incredible Power Of ‘Off Duty’ Cops

 

[Carl in Michigan]

If she lives along, the door being ajar means only one thing; someone is inside or has been. Because of that, she should have entered cautiously ready to immediately retreat back outside.

I agree, but she isnt under any obligation to retreat. Still, it would have been the wise move.

The 'Castle Doctrine' doesn't apply when you're breaking into someone ELSE'S apartment and shooting them to death.

Except that's NOT really what happened. But nobody can convince you of anything you're unwilling to accept.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

waaaaaaaaaaaaa Lookie here girl....when she started to put her key in-- the door swung open....she probably thought she either forgot to lock the door or there was a problem with the lock..

How does a door swing open from inserting a key? If it doesn't fit, you take pause. And a police officer cannot figure this out? Give me a break.

I THINK it was a key card. It didnt work, buy "the door was ajar"

Although Guyger said that she used her electronic key fob in the lock, the door pushed open, and she immediately drew her service weapon once inside.

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

 

[TheGreenHornet]

waaaaaaaaaaaaa Lookie here girl....when she started to put her key in-- the door swung open....she probably thought she either forgot to lock the door or there was a problem with the lock..

How does a door swing open from inserting a key? If it doesn't fit, you take pause. And a police officer cannot figure this out? Give me a break.

She never inserted a key.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Again, she could have called for back up. She could have retreated farther down the hallway. She could have used the fire stairs. She had opportunities galore to de-escalate the situation. And more than the training enough to recognize those opportunities.

If she retreats back outside, that would almost guarantee success and her safety. That's why police always enter looking for suspect/suspects with lots of backup.

 

[Skylar]

Being racist has nothing to do with this thread....it is all about whether a white lady cop should have been in fear of her life...... believing she was in her own home and confronted with a nigha who refused to comply with her command of 'show me your hands' the nigha as is now known was smokin dope and in his state of mind he did not act rationally.

Nonsense. She had plenty of opportunities to de-escalate. She could have called for back up. She could have retreated into the hallway. She could have gone to the fire stairs. There were ample chances for her to defuse the situation and she had more than enough training to recognize them.

So many opportunities to de-escalate in fact, that her defense was left so desperate that they actually argued the Castle Doctrine in the closing arguments. That's how many chances she had to de-escalate.

Alas, shooting someone to death in their own home.....isn't how the Castle Doctrine works.

Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about.

Thus the two main factors in this case...a white police lady who mistakenly believed she was in her own residence confronted wid a nigha under the influence of marijuana refusing to obey a lawful police order.....these two factors are what caused the shooting.

Several problems with your pseudo-legal analysis:

First, she wasn't working as a cop. She was off duty. She can't give 'lawful orders as a police officer' when she's not working as a police officer. The Dallas PD *never* backed her claim that she gave a 'lawful order'. Instead, they fired her ass citing 'adverse conduct'. Even her lawyers never argued that she gave a 'lawful order'.

Second, two other witnesses to the event contradict Guyger's claim that she told Jean to 'put up his hands' in his own home.

Third, there was strong reason to believe that Amber Guyger lied her ass off. As she claimed to have given CPR to Jean. Yet there wasn't a drop of blood on her, her clothes, the gloves she was carrying, or even her shoes. Meanwhile, Jean's chest wound was spewing so much blood with chest compressions by the paramedics that the blood pooled in the stretcher and left a bloody trail behind it in the hallway.

So we have a woman who is contradicted by two witnesses and gave a statement that the evidence strongly indicates was a lie.

And yet you expect the jury to believe her?

Again my friend....you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Yeh a witness who just got killed in a drug deal. No credibility.

Says you, citing you. At this point you're just ignoring evidence that contradicts you.

The jury didn't ignore what you must to cling to your pseudo-legal gibberish.

A policeman is not a paramedic. The wound may not have even been bleeding when she tried cpr.

So your working theory is that gunshot wounds to the chest.....don't bleed? That's probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard this year.

She didn't have a drop of blood on her. Not on her skin, not on her clothing, not on the gloves, not even her shoes. Not a single drop. Despite Jean being found in a POOL of blood, with so much blood spewing from his chest wound with each chest compression that it left a pool in the stetcher that left a bloody trail on the floor behind it.

But per your meaningless, pseudo-legal gibberish, his chest wounds didn't bleed.

Surely you can see why the jury didn't buy that steaming pile of nonsense.

The evidence shows that Amber Guyger lied about the CPR. The prosecutor pointed it out repeatedly, even showing the jury her uniform without a drop of blood on it. The jury rightly believed the prosecutor, and the witnesses the contradicted Amber.

And all you can do is ignore the evidence, the witnesses, and make up the ludicrious fantasy that 'gunshot wounds to the chest don't bleed'.

No thank you. As I've said, you're irrational.

Obviously you know little about gunshot wounds............it is quite common where a person bleeds out internally, but the wound remains pretty much blood free. ... or it may take a little while for the wound to start bleeding profusely.

Says you, citing you. And you have no idea what you're talking about.

Back in reality, his wound *wasn't' blood free. There were pools of blood on the floor, blood spewing from his wounds during chest compressions (like the one Amber Guyger *claims* she did) to such an extent that they made more pools of blood on the stretcher and left a bloody trail down the hallway.

Yet Amber didn't have a drop of blood on her. Nor a drop of blood on her clothing. Nor a drop of blood on the gloves she was carrying. Nor a drop of blood on her shoes.

Which the prosecutor hammered home repeatedly. Amber obliterated her own credibility with here story about CPR. The evidence simply didn't match her story. So you ignore the evidence.

The jury didn't.

Worse, Amber was contradicted by both witnesses who heard the confrontation on her telling him to raise his hands. The jury didn't believe her. As the evidence didn't support he claim AGAIN. So you ignore the evidence.

The jury didn't.

As I've said, you're hopelessly irrational, allowing your emotion to overcome your reason to such an extent that you ignore overwhelming evidence and make up elaborate pseudo-legal gibberish that have no relevance the case.

Which is why you still cling to your gibberish and your emotions while ignoring the facts of the case.

The jury didn't ignore what you do. Which is why they rightly convicted her of murdering an unarmed man in his own apartment who was minding her own business.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

If she lives along, the door being ajar means only one thing; someone is inside or has been. Because of that, she should have entered cautiously ready to immediately retreat back outside.

waaaaaaaaaaaaa Lookie here girl....when she started to put her key in-- the door swung open....she probably thought she either forgot to lock the door or there was a problem with the lock..

How does a door swing open from inserting a key? If it doesn't fit, you take pause. And a police officer cannot figure this out? Give me a break.

Not knowing the facts of the case you make yourself look stupid....she did not insert a key she had just started to use her key card when the door opened....being ajar

Your own description shows the door was ajar when you just denied it wasn't.

 

[Skylar]

Again, she could have called for back up. She could have retreated farther down the hallway. She could have used the fire stairs. She had opportunities galore to de-escalate the situation. And more than the training enough to recognize those opportunities.

If she retreats back outside, that would almost guarantee success and her safety. That's why police always enter looking for suspect/suspects with lots of backup.

Yup. There was no 'imminent danger'. She had plenty of opportunity to de-escalate.

And as a police officer she faces FAR more dangerous situations than a man eating icecream and watching TV. The idea that she 'had no choice' is blithering nonsense that the jury saw right through.

And Amber's lawyers knew it. Which is why they retreated to trying to claim the Castle Doctrine defense, insisting that she had no obligation to use any of those avenues of escape or de-escalate the situation.

Alas, shooting a man to death in HIS home isn't how the Castle Doctrine works. Or has ever worked.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Being racist has nothing to do with this thread....it is all about whether a white lady cop should have been in fear of her life...... believing she was in her own home and confronted with a nigha who refused to comply with her command of 'show me your hands' the nigha as is now known was smokin dope and in his state of mind he did not act rationally.

Nonsense. She had plenty of opportunities to de-escalate. She could have called for back up. She could have retreated into the hallway. She could have gone to the fire stairs. There were ample chances for her to defuse the situation and she had more than enough training to recognize them.

So many opportunities to de-escalate in fact, that her defense was left so desperate that they actually argued the Castle Doctrine in the closing arguments. That's how many chances she had to de-escalate.

Alas, shooting someone to death in their own home.....isn't how the Castle Doctrine works.

Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about.

Thus the two main factors in this case...a white police lady who mistakenly believed she was in her own residence confronted wid a nigha under the influence of marijuana refusing to obey a lawful police order.....these two factors are what caused the shooting.

Several problems with your pseudo-legal analysis:

First, she wasn't working as a cop. She was off duty. She can't give 'lawful orders as a police officer' when she's not working as a police officer. The Dallas PD *never* backed her claim that she gave a 'lawful order'. Instead, they fired her ass citing 'adverse conduct'. Even her lawyers never argued that she gave a 'lawful order'.

Second, two other witnesses to the event contradict Guyger's claim that she told Jean to 'put up his hands' in his own home.

Third, there was strong reason to believe that Amber Guyger lied her ass off. As she claimed to have given CPR to Jean. Yet there wasn't a drop of blood on her, her clothes, the gloves she was carrying, or even her shoes. Meanwhile, Jean's chest wound was spewing so much blood with chest compressions by the paramedics that the blood pooled in the stretcher and left a bloody trail behind it in the hallway.

So we have a woman who is contradicted by two witnesses and gave a statement that the evidence strongly indicates was a lie.

And yet you expect the jury to believe her?

Again my friend....you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Yeh a witness who just got killed in a drug deal. No credibility.

Says you, citing you. At this point you're just ignoring evidence that contradicts you.

The jury didn't ignore what you must to cling to your pseudo-legal gibberish.

A policeman is not a paramedic. The wound may not have even been bleeding when she tried cpr.

So your working theory is that gunshot wounds to the chest.....don't bleed? That's probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard this year.

She didn't have a drop of blood on her. Not on her skin, not on her clothing, not on the gloves, not even her shoes. Not a single drop. Despite Jean being found in a POOL of blood, with so much blood spewing from his chest wound with each chest compression that it left a pool in the stetcher that left a bloody trail on the floor behind it.

But per your meaningless, pseudo-legal gibberish, his chest wounds didn't bleed.

Surely you can see why the jury didn't buy that steaming pile of nonsense.

The evidence shows that Amber Guyger lied about the CPR. The prosecutor pointed it out repeatedly, even showing the jury her uniform without a drop of blood on it. The jury rightly believed the prosecutor, and the witnesses the contradicted Amber.

And all you can do is ignore the evidence, the witnesses, and make up the ludicrious fantasy that 'gunshot wounds to the chest don't bleed'.

No thank you. As I've said, you're irrational.

Obviously you know little about gunshot wounds............it is quite common where a person bleeds out internally, but the wound remains pretty much blood free. ... or it may take a little while for the wound to start bleeding profusely.

Says you, citing you. And you have no idea what you're talking about.

Back in reality, his wound *wasn't' blood free. There were pools of blood on the floor, blood spewing from his wounds during chest compressions (like the one Amber Guyger *claims* she did) to such an extent that they made more pools of blood on the stretcher and left a bloody trail down the hallway.

Yet Amber didn't have a drop of blood on her. Nor a drop of blood on her clothing. Nor a drop of blood on the gloves she was carrying. Nor a drop of blood on her shoes.

Which the prosecutor hammered home repeatedly. Amber obliterated her own credibility with here story about CPR. The evidence simply didn't match her story. So you ignore the evidence.

The jury didn't.

Worse, Amber was contradicted by both witnesses who heard the confrontation on her telling him to raise his hands. The jury didn't believe her. As the evidence didn't support he claim AGAIN. So you ignore the evidence.

The jury didn't.

As I've said, you're hopelessly irrational, allowing your emotion to overcome your reason to such an extent that you ignore overwhelming evidence and make up elaborate pseudo-legal gibberish that have no relevance the case.

Which is why you still cling to your gibberish and your emotions while ignoring the facts of the case.

The jury didn't ignore what you do. Which is why they rightly convicted her of murdering an unarmed man in his own apartment who was minding her own business.

Remember all this next time you accuse Zimmerman of "murder."

The jury didnt.

The jury didnt.

The jury didnt.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

If she lives along, the door being ajar means only one thing; someone is inside or has been. Because of that, she should have entered cautiously ready to immediately retreat back outside.

I agree, but she isnt under any obligation to retreat. Still, it would have been the wise move.

The 'Castle Doctrine' doesn't apply when you're breaking into someone ELSE'S apartment and shooting them to death.

she did not break in to begin with....that is a common error many make...thinking she must have broken in. anyone so stupid to leave their front door open in an apartment complex should not be surprised someone might walk through ....just an open invitation for that to happen.