Racist Black Judge Railroading Amber Guyger

[Skylar]

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?

By your own imaginary account of Amber's mindset.....Amber Guyger.

 

[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.

If one honestly believes in the Tooth Fairy, they are likely a small child, and as irrelevant as is repeatedly crying "intent" where criminal negligence is at issue.

Oh, she absolutely intended to shoot him. She intentionally shot him Jean to death. Which is why they went with murder rather than manslaughter.

And per the laws of Texas, rightly so.

 

[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.

I think most sensible people would behave in a similar manner as Amber....if they came home and the apartment did not have the lights on and there was a nigha sitting on their couch...at least if they were armed....irregardless...most would definitely perceive it as a threat and act accordingly.

The black dude had plenty of warning...a police officer in uniform....ordering him to show his hands...and he must have seen her aiming a weapon at him....why did he not do as commanded?

 

[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.

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.

every other witness? none of those alleged witnesses saw what happened...and they were probably black like the one that got killed whilst doing a drug deal the other day...probably doped up when the event ocurred.

I would go with the testimony of a police officer with 4 yrs. of duty everytime before a witness like that.

 

[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.

I think most sensible people would behave in a similar manner as Amber....if they came home and the apartment did not have the lights on and there was a nigha sitting on their couch...at least if they were armed....irregardless...most would definitely perceive it as a threat and act accordingly.

Most sensible people wouldn't be in that situation to begin with. Most sensible people wouldn't have murdered a man to begin with. Or thinking there was a burglar in their home, called the police.

Amber's lawyers had to retreat to an absurd application of the 'Castle Doctrine' because there were simply so many opportunities for her to de-escalate the situation. Obliterating her claim that she 'had no choice'.

She had plenty of choices. And she chose to murder an unarmed man.

The black dude had plenty of warning...a police officer in uniform....ordering him to show his hands...and he must have seen her aiming a weapon at him....why did he not do as commanded?

All other witnesses to Amber's break in of Jean's apartment contradict her.

And she lied about performing CPR.

Most sensible people wouldn't believe a woman contradicted by every other witness and caught giving a statement that was clearly a lie.

And the jury clearly had sensible people.

 

[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.

every other witness? none of those alleged witnesses saw what happened...and they were probably black like the one that got killed whilst doing a drug deal the other day...probably doped up when the event ocurred.

The witnesses HEARD what happened. And they contradict her account that she told him to show his hands.

Why would a jury believe a woman who was contradicted by every other witness, who had shot a man to death in his own home (demonstrating spectacularly poor judgment), and then lied about giving him CPR? She had obliterated her credibility.

Worse, there were plenty of opportunities to de-escalate. She chose instead to murder Botham Jean in his own apartment.

And the jury rightly convicted her of her crimes.

 

[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?

By your own imaginary account of Amber's mindset.....Amber Guyger.

One thing is known for certain...the black guy left his door open or ajar....her reasoning irregardless of what she might have thought about the door being open was that she was in her own home....otherwise she would never have shot the guy...quite obvious.

That apartment complex obviously had a lot of druggies living there....which also makes her being in fear of her life even more credible.

 

[Skylar]

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?

By your own imaginary account of Amber's mindset.....Amber Guyger.

One thing is known for certain...the black guy left his door open or ajar....her reasoning irregardless of what she might have thought about the door being open was that she was in her own home....otherwise she would never have shot the guy...quite obvious.

The one thing we know for certain is that she shot him to death in his own apartment.

Which makes her lawyers desperate attempt to argue the Castle Doctrine an elegant indication of just how badly the case was going for them.

All the opportunities to de-escalate that Amber ignored, despite her training......just obliterated any claim that she 'had no choice'.

She had many choices. And she chose to murder Botham Jean.

 

[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.

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.

every other witness? none of those alleged witnesses saw what happened...and they were probably black like the one that got killed whilst doing a drug deal the other day...probably doped up when the event ocurred.

The witnesses HEARD what happened. And they contradict her account that she told him to show his hands.

Why would a jury believe a woman who was contradicted by every other witness, who had shot a man to death in his own home (demonstrating spectacularly poor judgment), and then lied about giving him CPR? She had obliterated her credibility.

Worse, there were plenty of opportunities to de-escalate. She chose instead to murder Botham Jean in his own apartment.

And the jury rightly convicted her of her crimes.

Nonsense....a good jury would not have given any credibility to a witness who claimed to not have heard something....especially if he is black trying to cover for another black.

Black juries are well known to side with blacks no matter the circumstances.

The real question here is why were there so many blacks on the jury?

 

[TheGreenHornet]

What are the odds that one of the so called witnesses would himself be murdered....maybe karma for lying in court? Lying to give support to a black and then he was killed by blacks. How ironic.

 

[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.

every other witness? none of those alleged witnesses saw what happened...and they were probably black like the one that got killed whilst doing a drug deal the other day...probably doped up when the event ocurred.

The witnesses HEARD what happened. And they contradict her account that she told him to show his hands.

Why would a jury believe a woman who was contradicted by every other witness, who had shot a man to death in his own home (demonstrating spectacularly poor judgment), and then lied about giving him CPR? She had obliterated her credibility.

Worse, there were plenty of opportunities to de-escalate. She chose instead to murder Botham Jean in his own apartment.

And the jury rightly convicted her of her crimes.

Nonsense....a good jury would not have given any credibility to a witness who claimed to not have heard something....especially if he is black trying to cover for another black.

Sensible people aren't motivated by the kind of racial hatred that drives your irrationality. Just because YOU determine credibility on the basis of race doesn't mean that sensible people do as well.

Sensible people would definitely take into account all the other witnesses. And definitely afford them more credibility than a woman who has such spectacularly poor judgment that she shot a man to death in his own apartment and then lied about trying to give him CPR.

And the jury was most definitely comprised of sensible people who rightly recognized that shooting a man to death in his own apartment is neither 'self defense', nor has a thing to do with the Castle Doctrine.

With the just verdict of 10 years being entirely appropriate for Amber Guyger's senseless murder of Botham Jean.

 

[Grumblenuts]

her reasoning irregardless of what she might have thought about the door being open was

Irrelevant. One could honestly believe they're a ham sandwich. Nobody cares.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

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.

every other witness? none of those alleged witnesses saw what happened...and they were probably black like the one that got killed whilst doing a drug deal the other day...probably doped up when the event ocurred.

The witnesses HEARD what happened. And they contradict her account that she told him to show his hands.

Why would a jury believe a woman who was contradicted by every other witness, who had shot a man to death in his own home (demonstrating spectacularly poor judgment), and then lied about giving him CPR? She had obliterated her credibility.

Worse, there were plenty of opportunities to de-escalate. She chose instead to murder Botham Jean in his own apartment.

And the jury rightly convicted her of her crimes.

Nonsense....a good jury would not have given any credibility to a witness who claimed to not have heard something....especially if he is black trying to cover for another black.

Sensible people aren't motivated by the kind of racial hatred that drives your irrationality. Just because YOU determine credibility on the basis of race doesn't mean that sensible people do as well.

Sensible people would definitely take into account all the other witnesses. And definitely afford them more credibility than a woman who has such spectacularly poor judgment that she shot a man to death in his own apartment and then lied about trying to give him CPR.

And the jury was most definitely comprised of sensible people who rightly recognized that shooting a man to death in his own apartment is neither 'self defense', nor has a thing to do with the Castle Doctrine.

With the just verdict of 10 years being entirely appropriate for Amber Guyger's senseless murder of Botham Jean.

Someone who knows blacks very well..................Confessions of a Public Defender - American Renaissance

 

[TheGreenHornet]

her reasoning irregardless of what she might have thought about the door being open was

Irrelevant. One could honestly believe they're a ha sandwich. Nobody cares.

Ridiculous...on the other hand lots of folks in that complex have gone not to their apartment but someone else's.

If she had not believed she was in her own apartment she would not have shot the guy...ridiculous to believe otherwise.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

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.

every other witness? none of those alleged witnesses saw what happened...and they were probably black like the one that got killed whilst doing a drug deal the other day...probably doped up when the event ocurred.

The witnesses HEARD what happened. And they contradict her account that she told him to show his hands.

Why would a jury believe a woman who was contradicted by every other witness, who had shot a man to death in his own home (demonstrating spectacularly poor judgment), and then lied about giving him CPR? She had obliterated her credibility.

Worse, there were plenty of opportunities to de-escalate. She chose instead to murder Botham Jean in his own apartment.

And the jury rightly convicted her of her crimes.

Nonsense....a good jury would not have given any credibility to a witness who claimed to not have heard something....especially if he is black trying to cover for another black.

Sensible people aren't motivated by the kind of racial hatred that drives your irrationality. Just because YOU determine credibility on the basis of race doesn't mean that sensible people do as well.

Sensible people would definitely take into account all the other witnesses. And definitely afford them more credibility than a woman who has such spectacularly poor judgment that she shot a man to death in his own apartment and then lied about trying to give him CPR.

And the jury was most definitely comprised of sensible people who rightly recognized that shooting a man to death in his own apartment is neither 'self defense', nor has a thing to do with the Castle Doctrine.

With the just verdict of 10 years being entirely appropriate for Amber Guyger's senseless murder of Botham Jean.

There were in truth no witnesses....claiming to not have heard something....does not mean anything.....how many people stand around in their apartments listening for stuff...nonsense to expect that....now if a loud explosing went off and someone claimed to have not heard that...then it might be credible....but to claim you did not hear a conversation....highly suspect.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

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.

every other witness? none of those alleged witnesses saw what happened...and they were probably black like the one that got killed whilst doing a drug deal the other day...probably doped up when the event ocurred.

The witnesses HEARD what happened. And they contradict her account that she told him to show his hands.

Why would a jury believe a woman who was contradicted by every other witness, who had shot a man to death in his own home (demonstrating spectacularly poor judgment), and then lied about giving him CPR? She had obliterated her credibility.

Worse, there were plenty of opportunities to de-escalate. She chose instead to murder Botham Jean in his own apartment.

And the jury rightly convicted her of her crimes.

Nonsense....a good jury would not have given any credibility to a witness who claimed to not have heard something....especially if he is black trying to cover for another black.

Sensible people aren't motivated by the kind of racial hatred that drives your irrationality. Just because YOU determine credibility on the basis of race doesn't mean that sensible people do as well.

Sensible people would definitely take into account all the other witnesses. And definitely afford them more credibility than a woman who has such spectacularly poor judgment that she shot a man to death in his own apartment and then lied about trying to give him CPR.

And the jury was most definitely comprised of sensible people who rightly recognized that shooting a man to death in his own apartment is neither 'self defense', nor has a thing to do with the Castle Doctrine.

With the just verdict of 10 years being entirely appropriate for Amber Guyger's senseless murder of Botham Jean.

Everyone is racist...from our founding fathers on down....most just do not want to admit it. Backs are more racist than anyone....even blacks admit that...more hatred and violence in that group than in any other....that is why most white folk are not the concerned when a cop kills a black.

 

[Grumblenuts]

If she had not believed she was in her own apartment she would not have shot the guy...ridiculous to believe otherwise.

And still irrelevant.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

If she had not believed she was in her own apartment she would not have shot the guy...ridiculous to believe otherwise.

And still irrelevant.

Nonsense............that is the case in a nutshell.

Police do not go around looking for blacks to shoot despite what you have been led to believe.

The Truth About Police Violence Against Black Men - American Renaissance

I doubt there is a white woman in America who if they came home and found a black nigha sitting on their couch would not think they were going to get raped and or killed. Just reality

 

[Skylar]

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.

every other witness? none of those alleged witnesses saw what happened...and they were probably black like the one that got killed whilst doing a drug deal the other day...probably doped up when the event ocurred.

The witnesses HEARD what happened. And they contradict her account that she told him to show his hands.

Why would a jury believe a woman who was contradicted by every other witness, who had shot a man to death in his own home (demonstrating spectacularly poor judgment), and then lied about giving him CPR? She had obliterated her credibility.

Worse, there were plenty of opportunities to de-escalate. She chose instead to murder Botham Jean in his own apartment.

And the jury rightly convicted her of her crimes.

Nonsense....a good jury would not have given any credibility to a witness who claimed to not have heard something....especially if he is black trying to cover for another black.

Sensible people aren't motivated by the kind of racial hatred that drives your irrationality. Just because YOU determine credibility on the basis of race doesn't mean that sensible people do as well.

Sensible people would definitely take into account all the other witnesses. And definitely afford them more credibility than a woman who has such spectacularly poor judgment that she shot a man to death in his own apartment and then lied about trying to give him CPR.

And the jury was most definitely comprised of sensible people who rightly recognized that shooting a man to death in his own apartment is neither 'self defense', nor has a thing to do with the Castle Doctrine.

With the just verdict of 10 years being entirely appropriate for Amber Guyger's senseless murder of Botham Jean.

There were in truth no witnesses....

Says you, citing your own irrational racial hatred. Remember, just because you determine credibility based on the color of someone's skin doesn't mean that anyone else is obligated to abide your failed, irrational process.

Sensible people would listen to ALL witnesses. And all other witnesses to Amber Guyger's encounter contradict her account. This after she had demontrated fantastically poor judgment in shooting a man to death in his own apartment AND lying about giving him CPR.

The jury rightly didn't find Amber Guyger as credible as the witnesses or the evidence contradicting her.

Amber had plenty of opportunities to de-escalate. She chose instead to murder an unarmed man in his own apartment. Which the sensible jury rightly found was neither self defense nor a reasonable application of the Castle Doctrine.

And justly sentenced her to 10 years. Which, of course, Amber Guyger deserves.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

So is killing an innocent black man in his home, oh that'

Many blacks have been killed in their homes....shit happens..

So shit happens when a man is murdered in his home.

.blacks are to blame because of their criminal behavior in most cases....the black dude was high on marijuanah which most likely prevented him from being rational.

Wow, so it's rational to think someone is going to burst up in your home.

What kind of moron will not follow the order of a police officer when the officer has his weapon trained on them.

The kind of person who has broken the law and knows the police have no business on their home.

He was either being defiant or sedated by the drug he was inhaling.

Smfh, but she was thinking rationally and drug free.

Exactly and the toxicology report showed she was alcohol and drug free.

Did anyone see a toxicology report on Botham?

That is incorrect, there was no toxicology report done on her.

Have you ever been right about anything?

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/arti...-in-texas-murder-trial-hear-officers-911-call

By all means post the report.