Racist Black Judge Railroading Amber Guyger

[TheGreenHornet]

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.

Hindsight is so helpful when analyzing this case. Too bad Amber did not have the benefit of hindsight.

 

[Skylar]

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.

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.

Before *I* accuse Zimmerman of murder?

Laughing....dude, just because your views are dependent on the race of the person killed doesn't mean mine are. I go with the evidence. To quote me:

There was clearly reasonable doubt. Following someone because they're black may be racist but its not a federal crime. And shooting someone because they're beating the shit out of you isn't particularly racist or a federal crime.

And the 'shot because he was attacked by Trayvon' story is plausible. I don't know if we'll ever know if its true.

Skylar
This just in no federal case against .Zimmerman

I stick with the evidence. And the evidence clearly demonstrates that Amber Guyger is guilty of murdering a man in his own apartment who was minding his own business.

Which is exactly what the jury found.

 

[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.

Hindsight is so helpful when analyzing this case. Too bad Amber did not have the benefit of hindsight.

Amber had the benefit of numerous opportunities to de-escalate and the training to recognize them.

She didn't use those benefits or those opportunities, instead murdering an innocent man in his own apartment.

Which is why she was rightly convicted of murder and justly sentenced to 10 years in prison.

 

[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.

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.

Which has nothing to do with the Castle Doctrine.

Again, Amber murdered an unarmed man in HIS apartment. That's not how the Castle Doctrine works.

And her lawyers knew that too. But the evidence was so overwhelmingly against Amber Guyger, that they had no choice but that desperation play.

Predictably it failed. And Amber was rightly and justly convicted of murdering unarmed man in his own apartment.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

If you believe you are in your own home

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.

Again....she never inserted a key...when she touched the door it just swung open.

 

[Grumblenuts]

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

Another nothin' burger? No thanks, wacko.

As far as criminal liability, Klinger said questions about the nature of the officer’s off-duty employment might be considered, but ultimately the law on deadly force “says you’re allowed to shoot when you’re life’s in jeopardy.” As for department discipline and accountability, DeCarlo said it doesn’t matter whether police are using their police power on the clock, or during secondary employment, because they should be held to the same standards and scrutiny.

“Whether the officer was on duty or off duty, the question should be was he under color of law stopped in a fair and judicious manner,” DeCarlo said, noting that the same standards apply to whether he followed the law on use of deadly force. “If it was a bad shooting, the department has to own it.”

When your life's actually in jeopardy. Duh.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Again....she never inserted a key...when she touched the door it just swung open.

So that means she knew something was wrong. Then why didn't she enter cautiously, ready to immediately retreat?

Since Amber was obviously in the wrong on some level, she needs to give substantial evidence to support some kind of defense. Her story didn't cut it.

 

[Grumblenuts]

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.

Wrong.

 

[Skylar]

If you believe you are in your own home

The Castle Doctrine isn't *believing* you're in your own home. Its *being* in your own home.

And Amber's lawyer demonstrated how badly the case was going for them.....as they had to try to argue that she didn't have any obligation to retreat or de-escalate because of the 'Castle Doctrine'. Despite the fact that she wasn't in her own home. Why flee to such an obviously false and an indefensible position?

Because her lawyers had no choice. There were simply so many opportunities for Amber Guyger to de-escalate that Amber clearly had the training to recognize that her claim that she 'had no choice' was obliterated.

Along with her credibility over her 'cpr' lie and contradiction by every other witness.

 

[Grumblenuts]

If you believe you are in your own home

If you believe in the Tooth Fairy...

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Again....she never inserted a key...when she touched the door it just swung open.

So that means she knew something was wrong. Then why didn't she enter cautiously, ready to immediately retreat?

Since Amber was obviously in the wrong on some level, she needs to give substantial evidence to support some kind of defense. Her story didn't cut it.

She did not know anything was wrong...probably just thought she forgot to lock the door.

 

[Skylar]

Again....she never inserted a key...when she touched the door it just swung open.

So that means she knew something was wrong. Then why didn't she enter cautiously, ready to immediately retreat?

Since Amber was obviously in the wrong on some level, she needs to give substantial evidence to support some kind of defense. Her story didn't cut it.

Nope. It didn't.

She irreparably damaged her credibility by being contradicted by *every other witness* to her encounter with Jean. And her lie regarding CPR.

Given that her entire defense was based on the jury believing her story, that damaged credibility and the obvious and numerous opportunties to de-escalate left her lawyers with no choice but to throw a hail mary pass, and absurdly argue the Castle Doctrine.

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

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

She did not know anything was wrong...probably just thought she forgot to lock the door.

Forgetting to lock the door does not account for it swinging open. And who is so lame to leave their front door ajar when they leave?

It is all way too basic for a trained police officer to ignore the signs.

 

[Grumblenuts]

when she touched the door it just swung open.

Obvious lie. Auto-close, spring loaded.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

If you believe you are in your own home

If you believe in the Tooth Fairy...

If one honestly believes they are in their own home then they will act like they are in their own home.

Anyone confronted with what they sincerely believe is a intruder in their home should not be blamed for trying to neutralize the threat.

At most she should just have just been charged with negligent homicide.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

when she touched the door it just swung open.

Obvious lie. Auto-close, spring loaded.

If it is working properly....so how do you think she got in?

 

[TheGreenHornet]

She did not know anything was wrong...probably just thought she forgot to lock the door.

Forgetting to lock the door does not account for it swinging open. And who is so lame to leave their front door ajar when they leave?

It is all way too basic for a trained police officer to ignore the signs.

so how do you think she got in?

 

[TheGreenHornet]

She did not know anything was wrong...probably just thought she forgot to lock the door.

Forgetting to lock the door does not account for it swinging open. And who is so lame to leave their front door ajar when they leave?

It is all way too basic for a trained police officer to ignore the signs.

Who is so lame to leave their front door open when they are home?

 

[Skylar]

If you believe you are in your own home

If you believe in the Tooth Fairy...

If one honestly believes they are in their own home then they will act like they are in their own home.

Anyone confronted with what they sincerely believe is a intruder in their home should not be blamed for trying to neutralize the threat.

At most she should just have just been charged with negligent homicide.

Alas, Amber Guyger's awful judgment isn't a justification or excuse for murdering an innocent man in his own apartment.

If you're going to shoot someone to death under the 'Castle Doctrine', you damn well better be sure you're in your home. And not theirs.

As murdering an unarmed man in HIS apartment is neither self defense, nor covered by the Castle Doctrine.

 

[Grumblenuts]

If you believe you are in your own home

If you believe in the Tooth Fairy...

If one honestly believes they are in their own home then they will act like they are in their own home.

Anyone confronted with what they sincerely believe is a intruder in their home should not be blamed for trying to neutralize the threat.

At most she should just have just been charged with negligent homicide.

If one honestly believes in the Tooth Fairy, they are likely a small child. That's as irrelevant as repeatedly crying "intent" where criminal negligence is the issue. And she was, in effect, "charged with negligent homicide."