agreed
Amber Guyger Trial
101,767 Views |
1267 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Bocephus
Yeah, only question at all was whether it was reasonable for her to shoot as opposed to retreating, calling for help, whatever. but she thought he was rushing her - the Defense showed that he was coming towards her.
State is arguing she was "safe and sound" standing in the doorway. He's arguing it wasn't self defense to use her gun to stop him. The more I listen, the weaker the State's case seems.
State is arguing she was "safe and sound" standing in the doorway. He's arguing it wasn't self defense to use her gun to stop him. The more I listen, the weaker the State's case seems.
Ol Jock 99 said:
Defense is making a good case for a lawsuit against the apartment owners/mgmt.
I'll be shocked if the company that owns that property doesn't settle for at least $2-3 million.
Bocephus said:Ol Jock 99 said:
Defense is making a good case for a lawsuit against the apartment owners/mgmt.
I'll be shocked if the company that owns that property doesn't settle for at least $2-3 million.
They'll go after Dallas PD too.
Enviroag02 said:
Poor job by prosecutor here...for him its about emotion, not the law.
That's what this whole case is about. It wouldn't bother me so much if they went after non-officers this hard but they don't. They plead child murderers out to injury to a child by omission and then go guns a blazing after an impossible charge for a cop.
Apartment developers have deeper pockets.wbt5845 said:Bocephus said:Ol Jock 99 said:
Defense is making a good case for a lawsuit against the apartment owners/mgmt.
I'll be shocked if the company that owns that property doesn't settle for at least $2-3 million.
They'll go after Dallas PD too.
wbt5845 said:Bocephus said:Ol Jock 99 said:
Defense is making a good case for a lawsuit against the apartment owners/mgmt.
I'll be shocked if the company that owns that property doesn't settle for at least $2-3 million.
They'll go after Dallas PD too.
After the city which will fight tooth and nail to prove that she was off duty and not a police officer on that night.
Jury will have a lot to discuss. I keep coming back to her not having any reason whatsoever to want to kill this guy. The only possible reason could be that she thought her life was in danger.
I think she ought to walk, but I see the jury giving manslaughter as a compromise solution, whether the law supports it or not.
I think she ought to walk, but I see the jury giving manslaughter as a compromise solution, whether the law supports it or not.
Ol Jock 99 said:Apartment developers have deeper pockets.wbt5845 said:Bocephus said:Ol Jock 99 said:
Defense is making a good case for a lawsuit against the apartment owners/mgmt.
I'll be shocked if the company that owns that property doesn't settle for at least $2-3 million.
They'll go after Dallas PD too.
City of Dallas has pretty deep pockets.
I thought the defense goes last in closing?
State has the burden and therefore gets the final word (rebuttal).
wbt5845 said:
Jury will have a lot to discuss. I keep coming back to her not having any reason whatsoever to want to kill this guy. The only possible reason could be that she thought her life was in danger..
Of course she thought she was in danger. But was she? Or maybe she panicked and made a bad decision and prematurely pulled the trigger. She obviously had lapses of judgement to lead up to her putting herself in that situation. Could another lapse of judgement be that she assumed he was going to hurt her when in fact he was simply standing up and moving forward to see who entered his apartment?
She murdered him in what she thought was self defense.
How many mistakes are you allowed to make when you kill someone?
She executed him. She is a murderer/assassin.uneedastraw said:wbt5845 said:
Jury will have a lot to discuss. I keep coming back to her not having any reason whatsoever to want to kill this guy. The only possible reason could be that she thought her life was in danger..
Or maybe a reason could be she panicked and made a bad decision and prematurely pulled the trigger. She obviously had lapses of judgement to lead up to her putting herself in that situation. Could another lapse of judgement be that she assumed he was going to hurt her when in fact he was simply standing up and moving forward to see who entered his apartment?
She murdered him in what she thought was self defense. But she also incorrectly thought she was in her apartment after missing many obvious signs that she was not. I personally think she shot before saying anything because she was scared.
In my opinion, You don't get free passes on that many lapses of judgement when someone pays with their life. She won't get convicted but I personally think she is a murderer.
Yeah, I keep coming back to justice. It needs to be served. And it seems she ought to be punished.
lda6339 said:She executed him. She is a murderer/assassin.uneedastraw said:wbt5845 said:
Jury will have a lot to discuss. I keep coming back to her not having any reason whatsoever to want to kill this guy. The only possible reason could be that she thought her life was in danger..
Or maybe a reason could be she panicked and made a bad decision and prematurely pulled the trigger. She obviously had lapses of judgement to lead up to her putting herself in that situation. Could another lapse of judgement be that she assumed he was going to hurt her when in fact he was simply standing up and moving forward to see who entered his apartment?
She murdered him in what she thought was self defense. But she also incorrectly thought she was in her apartment after missing many obvious signs that she was not. I personally think she shot before saying anything because she was scared.
In my opinion, You don't get free passes on that many lapses of judgement when someone pays with their life. She won't get convicted but I personally think she is a murderer.
This is a YouTube caliber comment.
lda6339 said:Assassin: a murderer of an important person in a surprise attack for political or religious reasons.aggietony2010 said:lda6339 said:She executed him. She is a murderer/assassin.uneedastraw said:wbt5845 said:
Jury will have a lot to discuss. I keep coming back to her not having any reason whatsoever to want to kill this guy. The only possible reason could be that she thought her life was in danger..
Or maybe a reason could be she panicked and made a bad decision and prematurely pulled the trigger. She obviously had lapses of judgement to lead up to her putting herself in that situation. Could another lapse of judgement be that she assumed he was going to hurt her when in fact he was simply standing up and moving forward to see who entered his apartment?
She murdered him in what she thought was self defense. But she also incorrectly thought she was in her apartment after missing many obvious signs that she was not. I personally think she shot before saying anything because she was scared.
In my opinion, You don't get free passes on that many lapses of judgement when someone pays with their life. She won't get convicted but I personally think she is a murderer.
This is a YouTube caliber comment.
RIPinpeace Botham Jean
Shot in his homestead
You have already failed. Go back to the politics board for your trolling.
When do yall anticipate a verdict?
Of course she wasn't in danger. No one is claiming that she was. It's irrelevant anyway. Whether she thought she was is what matters.Quote:
Of course she thought she was in danger. But was she?
Ex-judge on WFAA said maybe today but probably tomorrow. They've been sequestered a while.Ft.Worth_Ag said:
When do yall anticipate a verdict?
Whether she reasonably should have thought she was in danger is what matters.double aught said:Of course she wasn't in danger. No one is claiming that she was. It's irrelevant anyway. Whether she thought she was is what matters.Quote:
Of course she thought she was in danger. But was she?
Ol Jock 99 said:Ex-judge on WFAA said maybe today but probably tomorrow. They've been sequestered a while.Ft.Worth_Ag said:
When do yall anticipate a verdict?
Yea, I would think the jury is very motivated to be done with this crap.
Two thoughts -
1) For those wanting manslaughter, she admitted to intentionally shooting BJ on while on the stand. This negates the elements of the offense for manslaughter. In layman's terms, a legit jury cannot convict her of Manslaughter. I don't think it will happen.
2) They are trying to wrap this trial up ASAP to keep possible rioting from interfering with weekend events.
Culpabe mental states -
d) Culpable mental states are classified according to relative degrees, from highest to lowest, as follows:
(1) intentional;
(2) knowing;
(3) reckless;
(4) criminal negligence.
Definition of Manslaughter - A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.
1) For those wanting manslaughter, she admitted to intentionally shooting BJ on while on the stand. This negates the elements of the offense for manslaughter. In layman's terms, a legit jury cannot convict her of Manslaughter. I don't think it will happen.
2) They are trying to wrap this trial up ASAP to keep possible rioting from interfering with weekend events.
Culpabe mental states -
d) Culpable mental states are classified according to relative degrees, from highest to lowest, as follows:
(1) intentional;
(2) knowing;
(3) reckless;
(4) criminal negligence.
Definition of Manslaughter - A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.
Whether it's justified by the law of not, manslaughter gives a good compromise solution. The jury doesn't not have to give a justification for their conviction.
EDIT: and one could argue her missing all the signs that told her it was the wrong apartment was reckless.
EDIT: and one could argue her missing all the signs that told her it was the wrong apartment was reckless.
Is there anyways we can extend the rioting into tu/ou weekend?Wheatables02 said:
2) They are trying to wrap this trial up ASAP to keep possible rioting from interfering with weekend events.
I don't feel any positivity about the Dallas PD having to manage this situation solo.FincAg said:
Just noticed a Nextdoor post from the DPD Media Relations account:Quote:
The Dallas Police Department will not interfere with a lawful and peaceful assembly of any individuals or groups expressing their first amendment rights. The Dallas Police Department will take enforcement actions if any type of criminal offense is committed against any person or property. Enforcement action will also be taken if demonstrators illegally impede traffic in the roadway or attempt to shut down the freeway. The safety of our officers and citizens is the primary concern as individuals or groups gather to express their first amendment rights.
If there's a verdict today, it needs to be after 3 PM cause that's when my wife gets off work from the large hospital she works at near downtown Dallas.
Your wife will be fine.wbt5845 said:
If there's a verdict today, it needs to be after 3 PM cause that's when my wife gets off work from the large hospital she works at near downtown Dallas.
The timing on jury decisions is remarkably hard to predict. You are trying to get 12 people from different backgrounds to unanimously agree on culpability, or lack thereof, for a killing. This may take days. I do anticipate the jury going late into tonight, due to this sequestration.
Jury is 8 women, 4 men ranging in age from late 20's-60's. Only 2 jurors are white.
jefe95 said:
Jury is 8 women, 4 men ranging in age from late 20's-60's. Only 2 jurors are white.
Only 2 are white? Wow.
I'm sure they've been talking to each other this whole time, no? It's not like this will be their first time talking about the case. Not sure how sequestration works but I assume they have all their meals together and are able to talk through the case as it goes.proc said:
The timing on jury decisions is remarkably hard to predict. You are trying to get 12 people from different backgrounds to unanimously agree on culpability, or lack thereof, for a killing. This may take days. I do anticipate the jury going late into tonight, due to this sequestration.
I was the foreman on a 4 day civil trial (not sequestered) but we were given specific instructions that we couldn't talk about the case until it was given to us.
Yea, you aren't supposed to talk about the case with other jurors. I can't imagine being sequestered and not talking about it though, you can only have the same small talk conversations so many times.
7 days of talking about how aggie football is doing would kill me
Featured Stories
See All
31:49
37m ago
861
17:57
2h ago
3.6k
Jim Schlossnagle discusses Texas A&M's weekend in Baton Rouge
by Ryan Brauninger
8:30
17h ago
6.8k
6:48
18h ago
6.0k
8:45
18h ago
5.2k
Rapid Reaction: Offense explodes as A&M staves off sweep at Alex Box
by David Sandhop
Infection_Ag11
Game sevens in the NHL playoffs are the most intense spectacle in American sports
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
40
ckinard
Game sevens in the NHL playoffs are the most intense spectacle in American sports
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
38