Guitarsoup said:

---

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.

---

Unknown if the state will question her about the total number of pieces of flair she wore.

---

Bob Loblaws Law Blog said:

---

Ida, I agree with the verdict and think the jury got it right, but your ridiculous posts make me think I might actually be wrong here.

---

jefe95 said:

---

The state argued her marijuana usage was relevant because the defense brought up the victim's marijuana usage. Judge agreed to allow it.
Her social media postings are NOT good. Yikes..

---

AgBQ-00 said:

---

I thought polygraph was inadmissible to court proceedings

---

culdeus said:

---

So no bond, and no parole. This is as high stakes as it gets. Minimum 5 years?

---

jefe95 said:

---

How does an appellate bond work? Isn't it like anything over 10 years and she can't get an appellate bond?

---

wbt5845 said:

---

culdeus said:

---

So no bond, and no parole. This is as high stakes as it gets. Minimum 5 years?

---

Minimum 5 years, but she can be paroled after 2.5 minimum.

---

jefe95 said:

---

How does an appellate bond work? Isn't it like anything over 10 years and she can't get an appellate bond?

---

jefe95 said:

---

How does an appellate bond work? Isn't it like anything over 10 years and she can't get an appellate bond?

---

culdeus said:

---

wbt5845 said:

---

culdeus said:

---

So no bond, and no parole. This is as high stakes as it gets. Minimum 5 years?

---

Minimum 5 years, but she can be paroled after 2.5 minimum.

---

Just said on news that there is no parole option for this type of murder?

---

lda6339 said:

---

jefe95 said:

---

How does an appellate bond work? Isn't it like anything over 10 years and she can't get an appellate bond?

---

She can't get an appellate bond period. Murderers cant get appellate bonds in TX, the WFAA judge doesn't know this and has put out misinformation.

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

SoupNazi2001 said:

---

Simple fact is a man was killed in his own home without doing anything wrong and justice was served. Why would a trained police officer not even stop to ask who are you or what are you doing here with her gun drawn before firing kill shots. What if that was your son who was killed in his own home?

---

She was a citizen and not an acting police officer when entering what she thought was her home. Her testimony is she drew her gun and said "let me see your hands! Let me see your hands!" as he approached her saying "hey! Hey!" If it was REASONABLE for her to be mistaken in fact that she thought she was in her apartment, then it would be reasonable for her to act in what she thought was self defense. The prosecution needed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that mistake of fact was not valid. The emotional appeal of "if it was your son" is a straw man. Of course I would be upset and sad and want what I thought was justice. But try it the other way. Imagine if Amber was your daughter and she legitimately thought she was in danger in her own home. Is she not allowed to neutralize the perceived threat? What if he HAD been a burglar who was armed and it WAS her apartment and she DIDN'T shoot and he killed her? Then what? The emotional appeals, while understandable, can go all sorts of different directions.

---

PJYoung said:

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

SoupNazi2001 said:

---

Simple fact is a man was killed in his own home without doing anything wrong and justice was served. Why would a trained police officer not even stop to ask who are you or what are you doing here with her gun drawn before firing kill shots. What if that was your son who was killed in his own home?

---

She was a citizen and not an acting police officer when entering what she thought was her home. Her testimony is she drew her gun and said "let me see your hands! Let me see your hands!" as he approached her saying "hey! Hey!" If it was REASONABLE for her to be mistaken in fact that she thought she was in her apartment, then it would be reasonable for her to act in what she thought was self defense. The prosecution needed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that mistake of fact was not valid. The emotional appeal of "if it was your son" is a straw man. Of course I would be upset and sad and want what I thought was justice. But try it the other way. Imagine if Amber was your daughter and she legitimately thought she was in danger in her own home. Is she not allowed to neutralize the perceived threat? What if he HAD been a burglar who was armed and it WAS her apartment and she DIDN'T shoot and he killed her? Then what? The emotional appeals, while understandable, can go all sorts of different directions.

---

I'm sorry but I don't believe anything that she says she said.

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

PJYoung said:

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

SoupNazi2001 said:

---

Simple fact is a man was killed in his own home without doing anything wrong and justice was served. Why would a trained police officer not even stop to ask who are you or what are you doing here with her gun drawn before firing kill shots. What if that was your son who was killed in his own home?

---

She was a citizen and not an acting police officer when entering what she thought was her home. Her testimony is she drew her gun and said "let me see your hands! Let me see your hands!" as he approached her saying "hey! Hey!" If it was REASONABLE for her to be mistaken in fact that she thought she was in her apartment, then it would be reasonable for her to act in what she thought was self defense. The prosecution needed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that mistake of fact was not valid. The emotional appeal of "if it was your son" is a straw man. Of course I would be upset and sad and want what I thought was justice. But try it the other way. Imagine if Amber was your daughter and she legitimately thought she was in danger in her own home. Is she not allowed to neutralize the perceived threat? What if he HAD been a burglar who was armed and it WAS her apartment and she DIDN'T shoot and he killed her? Then what? The emotional appeals, while understandable, can go all sorts of different directions.

---

I'm sorry but I don't believe anything that she says she said.

---

Ok. Cool. Did the defense proof beyond reasonable doubt that she DIDN'T do what she said? Because that is what the burden of proof is.

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

Totally get that and do not blame you at all. Bottom line is no one knows because she was the only one there who is alive to give her side, which is a tragedy. But if the burden of proof is on the prosecution to proof beyond reasonable doubt that her version is false and that her mistake of fact is false, I do not think they reached that. Understand the verdict, but ultimately I do not believe the burden of proof was met, which is legally what matters.

---

lda6339 said:

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

Totally get that and do not blame you at all. Bottom line is no one knows because she was the only one there who is alive to give her side, which is a tragedy. But if the burden of proof is on the prosecution to proof beyond reasonable doubt that her version is false and that her mistake of fact is false, I do not think they reached that. Understand the verdict, but ultimately I do not believe the burden of proof was met, which is legally what matters.

---

Please explain to me how her recalling of the events and the Medical Examiners testimony can be reconciled?

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

Totally get that and do not blame you at all. Bottom line is no one knows because she was the only one there who is alive to give her side, which is a tragedy. But if the burden of proof is on the prosecution to proof beyond reasonable doubt that her version is false and that her mistake of fact is false, I do not think they reached that. Understand the verdict, but ultimately I do not believe the burden of proof was met, which is legally what matters.

---

Please explain to me how her recalling of the events and the Medical Examiners testimony can be reconciled?

---

If he was bent over moving forward that could happen. Crouched over. We have no way of knowing WHAT he was doing. He could have been on the couch. He could have been standing up from the couch. He could have already been standing when she came in, was surprised and crouched or ducked or was leaning forward advancing. But saying definitively that he could NOT have been doing one of those things and he MUST have ONLY been sitting on the couch is speculation. Now I remember you saying that the medical examiner stated there was no way he was moving toward her, but I do not remember being that their testimony. I remember them saying he was bent over. That is far from definitive of his position or his movement.

---

lda6339 said:

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

Totally get that and do not blame you at all. Bottom line is no one knows because she was the only one there who is alive to give her side, which is a tragedy. But if the burden of proof is on the prosecution to proof beyond reasonable doubt that her version is false and that her mistake of fact is false, I do not think they reached that. Understand the verdict, but ultimately I do not believe the burden of proof was met, which is legally what matters.

---

Please explain to me how her recalling of the events and the Medical Examiners testimony can be reconciled?

---

If he was bent over moving forward that could happen. Crouched over. We have no way of knowing WHAT he was doing. He could have been on the couch. He could have been standing up from the couch. He could have already been standing when she came in, was surprised and crouched or ducked or was leaning forward advancing. But saying definitively that he could NOT have been doing one of those things and he MUST have ONLY been sitting on the couch is speculation. Now I remember you saying that the medical examiner stated there was no way he was moving toward her, but I do not remember being that their testimony. I remember them saying he was bent over. That is far from definitive of his position or his movement.

---

None of what you said was him walking towards her like she said? The bullet trajectory and him walking towards her just cant sync up.

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

Totally get that and do not blame you at all. Bottom line is no one knows because she was the only one there who is alive to give her side, which is a tragedy. But if the burden of proof is on the prosecution to proof beyond reasonable doubt that her version is false and that her mistake of fact is false, I do not think they reached that. Understand the verdict, but ultimately I do not believe the burden of proof was met, which is legally what matters.

---

Please explain to me how her recalling of the events and the Medical Examiners testimony can be reconciled?

---

If he was bent over moving forward that could happen. Crouched over. We have no way of knowing WHAT he was doing. He could have been on the couch. He could have been standing up from the couch. He could have already been standing when she came in, was surprised and crouched or ducked or was leaning forward advancing. But saying definitively that he could NOT have been doing one of those things and he MUST have ONLY been sitting on the couch is speculation. Now I remember you saying that the medical examiner stated there was no way he was moving toward her, but I do not remember being that their testimony. I remember them saying he was bent over. That is far from definitive of his position or his movement.

---

None of what you said was him walking towards her like she said? The bullet trajectory and him walking towards her just cant sync up.

---

It's physically impossible to be bent over or crouched down and walking forward?

---

lda6339 said:

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

Totally get that and do not blame you at all. Bottom line is no one knows because she was the only one there who is alive to give her side, which is a tragedy. But if the burden of proof is on the prosecution to proof beyond reasonable doubt that her version is false and that her mistake of fact is false, I do not think they reached that. Understand the verdict, but ultimately I do not believe the burden of proof was met, which is legally what matters.

---

Please explain to me how her recalling of the events and the Medical Examiners testimony can be reconciled?

---

If he was bent over moving forward that could happen. Crouched over. We have no way of knowing WHAT he was doing. He could have been on the couch. He could have been standing up from the couch. He could have already been standing when she came in, was surprised and crouched or ducked or was leaning forward advancing. But saying definitively that he could NOT have been doing one of those things and he MUST have ONLY been sitting on the couch is speculation. Now I remember you saying that the medical examiner stated there was no way he was moving toward her, but I do not remember being that their testimony. I remember them saying he was bent over. That is far from definitive of his position or his movement.

---

None of what you said was him walking towards her like she said? The bullet trajectory and him walking towards her just cant sync up.

---

It's physically impossible to be bent over or crouched down and walking forward?

---

In a threatening manner, yup.

---

lda6339 said:

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

Totally get that and do not blame you at all. Bottom line is no one knows because she was the only one there who is alive to give her side, which is a tragedy. But if the burden of proof is on the prosecution to proof beyond reasonable doubt that her version is false and that her mistake of fact is false, I do not think they reached that. Understand the verdict, but ultimately I do not believe the burden of proof was met, which is legally what matters.

---

Please explain to me how her recalling of the events and the Medical Examiners testimony can be reconciled?

---

If he was bent over moving forward that could happen. Crouched over. We have no way of knowing WHAT he was doing. He could have been on the couch. He could have been standing up from the couch. He could have already been standing when she came in, was surprised and crouched or ducked or was leaning forward advancing. But saying definitively that he could NOT have been doing one of those things and he MUST have ONLY been sitting on the couch is speculation. Now I remember you saying that the medical examiner stated there was no way he was moving toward her, but I do not remember being that their testimony. I remember them saying he was bent over. That is far from definitive of his position or his movement.

---

None of what you said was him walking towards her like she said? The bullet trajectory and him walking towards her just cant sync up.

---

It's physically impossible to be bent over or crouched down and walking forward?

---

In a threatening manner, yup.

ETA: no one considers a duck walk threatening lol

---

lda6339 said:

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

Totally get that and do not blame you at all. Bottom line is no one knows because she was the only one there who is alive to give her side, which is a tragedy. But if the burden of proof is on the prosecution to proof beyond reasonable doubt that her version is false and that her mistake of fact is false, I do not think they reached that. Understand the verdict, but ultimately I do not believe the burden of proof was met, which is legally what matters.

---

Please explain to me how her recalling of the events and the Medical Examiners testimony can be reconciled?

---

If he was bent over moving forward that could happen. Crouched over. We have no way of knowing WHAT he was doing. He could have been on the couch. He could have been standing up from the couch. He could have already been standing when she came in, was surprised and crouched or ducked or was leaning forward advancing. But saying definitively that he could NOT have been doing one of those things and he MUST have ONLY been sitting on the couch is speculation. Now I remember you saying that the medical examiner stated there was no way he was moving toward her, but I do not remember being that their testimony. I remember them saying he was bent over. That is far from definitive of his position or his movement.

---

None of what you said was him walking towards her like she said? The bullet trajectory and him walking towards her just cant sync up.

---

It's physically impossible to be bent over or crouched down and walking forward?

---

In a threatening manner, yup.

ETA: no one considers a duck walk threatening lol

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

Totally get that and do not blame you at all. Bottom line is no one knows because she was the only one there who is alive to give her side, which is a tragedy. But if the burden of proof is on the prosecution to proof beyond reasonable doubt that her version is false and that her mistake of fact is false, I do not think they reached that. Understand the verdict, but ultimately I do not believe the burden of proof was met, which is legally what matters.

---

Please explain to me how her recalling of the events and the Medical Examiners testimony can be reconciled?

---

If he was bent over moving forward that could happen. Crouched over. We have no way of knowing WHAT he was doing. He could have been on the couch. He could have been standing up from the couch. He could have already been standing when she came in, was surprised and crouched or ducked or was leaning forward advancing. But saying definitively that he could NOT have been doing one of those things and he MUST have ONLY been sitting on the couch is speculation. Now I remember you saying that the medical examiner stated there was no way he was moving toward her, but I do not remember being that their testimony. I remember them saying he was bent over. That is far from definitive of his position or his movement.

---

None of what you said was him walking towards her like she said? The bullet trajectory and him walking towards her just cant sync up.

---

It's physically impossible to be bent over or crouched down and walking forward?

---

In a threatening manner, yup.

ETA: no one considers a duck walk threatening lol

---

Are you familiar with a bull rush? A move you see JJ Watt do regularly.

What about walking quickly towards someone, then see a gun, so your reaction is cowering down?

Both are feasible. Both fit the medical examiners testimony and Amber Guyger's testimony.

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

Totally get that and do not blame you at all. Bottom line is no one knows because she was the only one there who is alive to give her side, which is a tragedy. But if the burden of proof is on the prosecution to proof beyond reasonable doubt that her version is false and that her mistake of fact is false, I do not think they reached that. Understand the verdict, but ultimately I do not believe the burden of proof was met, which is legally what matters.

---

Please explain to me how her recalling of the events and the Medical Examiners testimony can be reconciled?

---

If he was bent over moving forward that could happen. Crouched over. We have no way of knowing WHAT he was doing. He could have been on the couch. He could have been standing up from the couch. He could have already been standing when she came in, was surprised and crouched or ducked or was leaning forward advancing. But saying definitively that he could NOT have been doing one of those things and he MUST have ONLY been sitting on the couch is speculation. Now I remember you saying that the medical examiner stated there was no way he was moving toward her, but I do not remember being that their testimony. I remember them saying he was bent over. That is far from definitive of his position or his movement.

---

None of what you said was him walking towards her like she said? The bullet trajectory and him walking towards her just cant sync up.

---

It's physically impossible to be bent over or crouched down and walking forward?

---

In a threatening manner, yup.

---

Seriously? You can DEFINITELY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, say that? Bold. No one could POSSIBLY be advancing in a threatening manner or even PERCEIVED threatening manner while bent forward?

---

ElephantRider said:

---

At the end of the day, she walked into someone else's residence and killed them. Regardless of what mistakes she made to get to that point, it deserves to be punished.

---

lda6339 said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

Totally get that and do not blame you at all. Bottom line is no one knows because she was the only one there who is alive to give her side, which is a tragedy. But if the burden of proof is on the prosecution to proof beyond reasonable doubt that her version is false and that her mistake of fact is false, I do not think they reached that. Understand the verdict, but ultimately I do not believe the burden of proof was met, which is legally what matters.

---

Please explain to me how her recalling of the events and the Medical Examiners testimony can be reconciled?

---

If he was bent over moving forward that could happen. Crouched over. We have no way of knowing WHAT he was doing. He could have been on the couch. He could have been standing up from the couch. He could have already been standing when she came in, was surprised and crouched or ducked or was leaning forward advancing. But saying definitively that he could NOT have been doing one of those things and he MUST have ONLY been sitting on the couch is speculation. Now I remember you saying that the medical examiner stated there was no way he was moving toward her, but I do not remember being that their testimony. I remember them saying he was bent over. That is far from definitive of his position or his movement.

---

None of what you said was him walking towards her like she said? The bullet trajectory and him walking towards her just cant sync up.

---

It's physically impossible to be bent over or crouched down and walking forward?

---

In a threatening manner, yup.

ETA: no one considers a duck walk threatening lol

---

Are you familiar with a bull rush? A move you see JJ Watt do regularly.

What about walking quickly towards someone, then see a gun, so your reaction is cowering down?

Both are feasible. Both fit the medical examiners testimony and Amber Guyger's testimony.

---

She didn't say he was bull rushing, she said he was walking. She didn't say he was bent over, so at best she didn't know her target.

Why didn't her testimony say he was bent over and moving? She swore to tell the whole truth....

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

Totally get that and do not blame you at all. Bottom line is no one knows because she was the only one there who is alive to give her side, which is a tragedy. But if the burden of proof is on the prosecution to proof beyond reasonable doubt that her version is false and that her mistake of fact is false, I do not think they reached that. Understand the verdict, but ultimately I do not believe the burden of proof was met, which is legally what matters.

---

Please explain to me how her recalling of the events and the Medical Examiners testimony can be reconciled?

---

If he was bent over moving forward that could happen. Crouched over. We have no way of knowing WHAT he was doing. He could have been on the couch. He could have been standing up from the couch. He could have already been standing when she came in, was surprised and crouched or ducked or was leaning forward advancing. But saying definitively that he could NOT have been doing one of those things and he MUST have ONLY been sitting on the couch is speculation. Now I remember you saying that the medical examiner stated there was no way he was moving toward her, but I do not remember being that their testimony. I remember them saying he was bent over. That is far from definitive of his position or his movement.

---

None of what you said was him walking towards her like she said? The bullet trajectory and him walking towards her just cant sync up.

---

It's physically impossible to be bent over or crouched down and walking forward?

---

In a threatening manner, yup.

ETA: no one considers a duck walk threatening lol

---

Are you familiar with a bull rush? A move you see JJ Watt do regularly.

What about walking quickly towards someone, then see a gun, so your reaction is cowering down?

Both are feasible. Both fit the medical examiners testimony and Amber Guyger's testimony.

---

She didn't say he was bull rushing, she said he was walking. She didn't say he was bent over, so at best she didn't know her target.

Why didn't her testimony say he was bent over and moving? She swore to tell the whole truth....

---

It is normal for someone in a crisis situation to not remember everything. That doesn't mean they are lying or being deceptive.

You would have heard that from the defensive expert witnesses, only the judge didn't allow them to testify.

---

Bocephus said:

---

ElephantRider said:

---

At the end of the day, she walked into someone else's residence and killed them. Regardless of what mistakes she made to get to that point, it deserves to be punished.

---

But does that equal murder? You will never see another murder case in Dallas County tried without a motive as this one was.

---