HouseDivided06 said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

If your defense is that someone arguing opposite what you are arguing because they're the jury and must know more since they were paid to be there and listen to the testimony, the logic concludes that you think every jury everywhere at all times got the right verdict because they are the jury and listened to the whole testimony, ergo the OJ jury got it right.

The point I am trying to make is that this is not so black and white (no pun intended) as you make it out to be. I have stated multiple times I understand the verdict although I disagree with it. But you simply refuse to look at both sides and consider that MAYBE this was just a horrible, horrible tragedy where Botham Jean did nothing wrong and did not deserve to get shot and Amber Guyger made some massive mistakes and does not deserve to be convicted of murder.

---

1) that isn't a logical conclusion at all. I'm saying there's no reason to think the jury made the wrong decision on this case, so until you present evidence of they did, I'm not going to buy in. Just because you think the jury in OJ was wrong means you MUST think EVERY jury is wrong, see how this works? Its the opposite of logic.

2) I think the jury was right, I have looked at both sides all last week and yesterday during trial. Just agree to disagree without attacking someone personally or insinuating they are somehow dumber for disagreeing with you (and agreeing with a 12 person unanimous decision of fact finders.)

---

I think I have been very civil and polite in my conversation. If you disagree, I apologize, but I do not believe I have attacked you personally at all or called you dumb. My observation from this post though:

Quote:

---

Discuss what? The fact that you think you know better than the people who were paid to decide this? Discuss with someone that somehow knows better than 12 unanimous people that all listened to the facts and nothing but the facts for 8 days?

There's no discussion to be had, justice was served. If you disagree let your voice be heard, don't attack people for trying to explain to you what the fact finders thought.

---

You are insinuating here that someone NOT on the jury could NOT know better. Do not not see how that comes across to me as well as others who have commented on it that you believe it is impossible for juries to get it wrong? What if they had acquitted her? Would you have said "welp, guess I was wrong because clearly the jury knows better than I do?" My speculation, and it is just speculation, is that you would have said the jury got it wrong.

---

lda6339 said:

---

500,000ags said:

---

Don't be too hard on one another. It's the latest political flavor of the decade to say someone that disagrees with you is simply too stupid to understand the facts or too illogical to see beyond their own fallacy.

---

I'm just getting frustrated because somehow me saying, the jury got it right today means no jury has ever been wrong ever. Its a massive strawman coupled with insults.

---

lda6339 said:

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

If your defense is that someone arguing opposite what you are arguing because they're the jury and must know more since they were paid to be there and listen to the testimony, the logic concludes that you think every jury everywhere at all times got the right verdict because they are the jury and listened to the whole testimony, ergo the OJ jury got it right.

The point I am trying to make is that this is not so black and white (no pun intended) as you make it out to be. I have stated multiple times I understand the verdict although I disagree with it. But you simply refuse to look at both sides and consider that MAYBE this was just a horrible, horrible tragedy where Botham Jean did nothing wrong and did not deserve to get shot and Amber Guyger made some massive mistakes and does not deserve to be convicted of murder.

---

1) that isn't a logical conclusion at all. I'm saying there's no reason to think the jury made the wrong decision on this case, so until you present evidence of they did, I'm not going to buy in. Just because you think the jury in OJ was wrong means you MUST think EVERY jury is wrong, see how this works? Its the opposite of logic.

2) I think the jury was right, I have looked at both sides all last week and yesterday during trial. Just agree to disagree without attacking someone personally or insinuating they are somehow dumber for disagreeing with you (and agreeing with a 12 person unanimous decision of fact finders.)

---

I think I have been very civil and polite in my conversation. If you disagree, I apologize, but I do not believe I have attacked you personally at all or called you dumb. My observation from this post though:

Quote:

---

Discuss what? The fact that you think you know better than the people who were paid to decide this? Discuss with someone that somehow knows better than 12 unanimous people that all listened to the facts and nothing but the facts for 8 days?

There's no discussion to be had, justice was served. If you disagree let your voice be heard, don't attack people for trying to explain to you what the fact finders thought.

---

You are insinuating here that someone NOT on the jury could NOT know better. Do not not see how that comes across to me as well as others who have commented on it that you believe it is impossible for juries to get it wrong? What if they had acquitted her? Would you have said "welp, guess I was wrong because clearly the jury knows better than I do?" My speculation, and it is just speculation, is that you would have said the jury got it wrong.

---

What you bolded applies to this trial ONLY. It does not mean no jury has ever been wrong, it means I have no reason to believes THIS jury was wrong.

---

lda6339 said:

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

If your defense is that someone arguing opposite what you are arguing because they're the jury and must know more since they were paid to be there and listen to the testimony, the logic concludes that you think every jury everywhere at all times got the right verdict because they are the jury and listened to the whole testimony, ergo the OJ jury got it right.

The point I am trying to make is that this is not so black and white (no pun intended) as you make it out to be. I have stated multiple times I understand the verdict although I disagree with it. But you simply refuse to look at both sides and consider that MAYBE this was just a horrible, horrible tragedy where Botham Jean did nothing wrong and did not deserve to get shot and Amber Guyger made some massive mistakes and does not deserve to be convicted of murder.

---

1) that isn't a logical conclusion at all. I'm saying there's no reason to think the jury made the wrong decision on this case, so until you present evidence of they did, I'm not going to buy in. Just because you think the jury in OJ was wrong means you MUST think EVERY jury is wrong, see how this works? Its the opposite of logic.

2) I think the jury was right, I have looked at both sides all last week and yesterday during trial. Just agree to disagree without attacking someone personally or insinuating they are somehow dumber for disagreeing with you (and agreeing with a 12 person unanimous decision of fact finders.)

---

I think I have been very civil and polite in my conversation. If you disagree, I apologize, but I do not believe I have attacked you personally at all or called you dumb. My observation from this post though:

Quote:

---

Discuss what? The fact that you think you know better than the people who were paid to decide this? Discuss with someone that somehow knows better than 12 unanimous people that all listened to the facts and nothing but the facts for 8 days?

There's no discussion to be had, justice was served. If you disagree let your voice be heard, don't attack people for trying to explain to you what the fact finders thought.

---

You are insinuating here that someone NOT on the jury could NOT know better. Do not not see how that comes across to me as well as others who have commented on it that you believe it is impossible for juries to get it wrong? What if they had acquitted her? Would you have said "welp, guess I was wrong because clearly the jury knows better than I do?" My speculation, and it is just speculation, is that you would have said the jury got it wrong.

---

What you bolded applies to this trial ONLY. It does not mean no jury has ever been wrong, it means I have no reason to believes THIS jury was wrong.

---

powerbelly said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

500,000ags said:

---

Don't be too hard on one another. It's the latest political flavor of the decade to say someone that disagrees with you is simply too stupid to understand the facts or too illogical to see beyond their own fallacy.

---

I'm just getting frustrated because somehow me saying, the jury got it right today means no jury has ever been wrong ever. Its a massive strawman coupled with insults.

---

People are remembering this post:

https://texags.com/forums/37/topics/3062473/replies/55034504


And realizing you can't possibly have a rational discussion at this point.

---

lda6339 said:

---

powerbelly said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

500,000ags said:

---

Don't be too hard on one another. It's the latest political flavor of the decade to say someone that disagrees with you is simply too stupid to understand the facts or too illogical to see beyond their own fallacy.

---

I'm just getting frustrated because somehow me saying, the jury got it right today means no jury has ever been wrong ever. Its a massive strawman coupled with insults.

---

People are remembering this post:

https://texags.com/forums/37/topics/3062473/replies/55034504


And realizing you can't possibly have a rational discussion at this point.

---

Is this the part where you finally argue your own position? Or do we just keep changing topics. I stand by that statement and the courts do too.

---

lda6339 said:

---

powerbelly said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

500,000ags said:

---

Don't be too hard on one another. It's the latest political flavor of the decade to say someone that disagrees with you is simply too stupid to understand the facts or too illogical to see beyond their own fallacy.

---

I'm just getting frustrated because somehow me saying, the jury got it right today means no jury has ever been wrong ever. Its a massive strawman coupled with insults.

---

People are remembering this post:

https://texags.com/forums/37/topics/3062473/replies/55034504


And realizing you can't possibly have a rational discussion at this point.

---

Is this the part where you finally argue your own position? Or do we just keep changing topics. I stand by that statement and the courts do too.

---

powerbelly said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

powerbelly said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

500,000ags said:

---

Don't be too hard on one another. It's the latest political flavor of the decade to say someone that disagrees with you is simply too stupid to understand the facts or too illogical to see beyond their own fallacy.

---

I'm just getting frustrated because somehow me saying, the jury got it right today means no jury has ever been wrong ever. Its a massive strawman coupled with insults.

---

People are remembering this post:

https://texags.com/forums/37/topics/3062473/replies/55034504


And realizing you can't possibly have a rational discussion at this point.

---

Is this the part where you finally argue your own position? Or do we just keep changing topics. I stand by that statement and the courts do too.

---

As someone who really didn't care one way or the other, I can't see how the jury would find guilty of murder if they were trying to stay within the boundaries of the law. I can see how they went guilty of murder if their decision was based on emotion and not what happened in court.

Also, she is not an assassin and will not be shot. So the court definitely doesn't stand by your statement.

---

culdeus said:

---

powerbelly said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

powerbelly said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

500,000ags said:

---

Don't be too hard on one another. It's the latest political flavor of the decade to say someone that disagrees with you is simply too stupid to understand the facts or too illogical to see beyond their own fallacy.

---

I'm just getting frustrated because somehow me saying, the jury got it right today means no jury has ever been wrong ever. Its a massive strawman coupled with insults.

---

People are remembering this post:

https://texags.com/forums/37/topics/3062473/replies/55034504


And realizing you can't possibly have a rational discussion at this point.

---

Is this the part where you finally argue your own position? Or do we just keep changing topics. I stand by that statement and the courts do too.

---

As someone who really didn't care one way or the other, I can't see how the jury would find guilty of murder if they were trying to stay within the boundaries of the law. I can see how they went guilty of murder if their decision was based on emotion and not what happened in court.

Also, she is not an assassin and will not be shot. So the court definitely doesn't stand by your statement.

---

She intended to kill a person that was not a threat to her. That's how the jury applied the law. That's murder.

---

wbt5845 said:

---

Social media postings are being discussed right now. We should all sit up and take notice.

---

powerbelly said:

---

culdeus said:

---

powerbelly said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

powerbelly said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

500,000ags said:

---

Don't be too hard on one another. It's the latest political flavor of the decade to say someone that disagrees with you is simply too stupid to understand the facts or too illogical to see beyond their own fallacy.

---

I'm just getting frustrated because somehow me saying, the jury got it right today means no jury has ever been wrong ever. Its a massive strawman coupled with insults.

---

People are remembering this post:

https://texags.com/forums/37/topics/3062473/replies/55034504


And realizing you can't possibly have a rational discussion at this point.

---

Is this the part where you finally argue your own position? Or do we just keep changing topics. I stand by that statement and the courts do too.

---

As someone who really didn't care one way or the other, I can't see how the jury would find guilty of murder if they were trying to stay within the boundaries of the law. I can see how they went guilty of murder if their decision was based on emotion and not what happened in court.

Also, she is not an assassin and will not be shot. So the court definitely doesn't stand by your statement.

---

She intended to kill a person that was not a threat to her. That's how the jury applied the law. That's murder.

---

I don't believe the state proved a case beyond a reasonable doubt that she did not perceive him as a threat.

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

If this wasn't mistake of fact, then mistake of fact shouldn't exist.

---

lda6339 said:

---

If you thought the jury got it wrong, do you think Greg Abbott should pardon her?

---

lda6339 said:

---

wbt5845 said:

---

Social media postings are being discussed right now. We should all sit up and take notice.

---

Her posts going in to consideration might not be good for her: https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/dallas-police-officer-amber-guygers-likely-pinterest-account-11139874

---

JDCAG (NOT Colin) said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

If you thought the jury got it wrong, do you think Greg Abbott should pardon her?

---

To be clear, I believe most people have said that they are okay with the verdict, even if they personally don't believe the state proved enough.

Before you go on a rant about how stupid I am for questioning the jury, I'm not - that's the "I'm okay with their verdict" part.

It's actually quite possible for myriad opinions (and nuanced ones, at that) on this topic without trying to immediately make a villain or idiot out of the person with whom you disagree.

To summarize - saying that you wouldn't have come to the conclusion of the jury doesn't mean that you believe she should be pardoned or that you're insisting the jury "got it wrong".

---

wbt5845 said:

---

Social media postings are being discussed right now. We should all sit up and take notice.

---

CJS4715 said:

---

wbt5845 said:

---

Social media postings are being discussed right now. We should all sit up and take notice.

---

In the days leading up to the murder, cjs4715 spent many hours posting on an A&M message board about the Aggies' chance at making the college football playoff and Star Wars movies. Clearly, he is far removed from reality.

---

expresswrittenconsent said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

wbt5845 said:

---

Social media postings are being discussed right now. We should all sit up and take notice.

---

Her posts going in to consideration might not be good for her: https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/dallas-police-officer-amber-guygers-likely-pinterest-account-11139874

---

Shocker. Her ability to scrub social media is about as good as her ability to notice floor mats, planters, and not accidentally murder innocent people.

---

Ervin Burrell said:

---

Dafuq is it with right-leaning memes and using minions?

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

She admitted she stole a brownie while working at TGI Fridays when she applied to the police department.

State wants to use this in the sentencing phase.

---