tysker said:
HouseDivided06 said:
hypeiv said:
HouseDivided06 said:
Is it not possible to realize it is a tragedy on BOTH sides and be empathetic for BOTH sides on this? I believe her that it was an honest, terrible mistake. You keep looking at it from the Botham Jean side, but using your own emotional appeals, imagine if Amber was your daughter or sister. You believe she made a terrible mistake, thought she was in her apartment, and believed she was acting self defense. Legitimately believed she was in danger and in her own apartment. But yet you want to cheer at her conviction? I see both sides, I see how murder was the verdict, and I also see how she could have walked given this incredibly unique set of circumstances. But to assume Botham Jean was "just another guy" to people who think that the state didn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that her mistake in fact defense was reasonable is obtuse.
I believe she honestly thought it was her apartment... I also believe she is a bully and decided she wasn't going to let someone mess up her place and went in with the intent to kill.
Even if it had been her apartment, and the same thing happened, I would still think she was a murderer. She could have easily stayed in the hallway with her gun drawn and called for backup (even if it was her apartment). She decided not to do that and that makes her a murderer in my eyes. A reasonable person would not rush into their house if they knew there was a threat in there, but she did b/c she was a tough guy with a gun.
But see, the issue is the prosecution needed to PROVE THAT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. In my opinion, they did not do that, although I completely understand the verdict. However you are making a massive assumption in believing she decided to go in guns blazing in a premeditated fashion. She may well have, but her testimony and the sequence of events leads me to believe that is not the case. And it's fine if we both have differing opinions on what we believe to be the circumstances, but from a legal perspective, I don't see how the prosecution proved that beyond reasonable doubt.
She testified to shooting with an intention to kill a man in his own apartment.
I'm happy with the verdict, but to be clear - she testified to shooting with the intention to kill a man
that she believed to be in her apartment. To state otherwise is to miss the primary legal argument used in the entire case.
Again, I'm good with the verdict as you can't just kill somebody in their apartment, but I think this was the case of the jury going with the verdict they believed appropriate, regardless of whether or not the required burden under the law was met.
