Metroplex
Sponsored by

Amber Guyger Trial

120,065 Views | 1267 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by Bocephus
TOUCHDOWN!
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:42a, 9/30/19
100% going to get a compromise verdict - guilty of manslaughter.

This really is the best outcome that any side could have hoped for. A few years in jail for killing an innocent man, revoke all gun rights, never work as an armed officer/guard in any capacity.
Reply Quote
1
DannyDuberstein
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:43a, 9/30/19
AG
Yeah, wouldn't exactly fit the letter of the law IMO, but conceptually, I think it would be appropriate justice.
Reply Quote
1
proc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to wbt5845 • 10:50a, 9/30/19
AG
wbt5845 said:
they HAVE included lesser charges!
Which side requested that?
Reply Quote
Bocephus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nai06 • 10:52a, 9/30/19
AG
nai06 said:
Bocephus said:
nai06 said:
Bocephus said:
culdeus said:
Yeah. This has always been as clear a not guilty as you can find. From the onset this has had interest as a great friend of mine was shot under similar circumstances just not by a cop. That never got past a grand jury. So just making her sweat it a little and living life broke AF will have to be what constitutes progress.


As in garnishing her future wages?

When she's found not guilty, part of me hopes she applies to get her job back with Dallas PD. It will never happen but I would laugh to see the chief trying to squirm and explain that.



Why would the Chief squirm? If she asks for her job back, seems pretty easy to just say no and move on.


There's an appeal process. If Guyger is found not guilty, she would actually have a decent case to get it back. Many a Chief has been forced to take back officers they did not like for personal or professional reasons. My guess is that when she is found not guilty she will immediately move out of the state and start her life over. I would not be disappointed if she re-applied though.


I guess I disagree. Even in the best case scenario, by her own admission she accidentally murdered someone. I feel like that's a pretty easy deal breaker.


I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying, do not expect logical results when dealing with the city of Dallas. She has had so many death threats, I don't see any way she would remain in the area.
Reply Quote
wbt5845
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to proc • 10:56a, 9/30/19
AG
proc said:
wbt5845 said:
they HAVE included lesser charges!
Which side requested that?

I don't know. It surprised me when I heard it in the charges.

That being said, it was almost certainly the Prosecution. Defense was looking at her walking.
Reply Quote
Bocephus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aglaohfour • 10:56a, 9/30/19
AG
Agoodlittleag04 said:
Quote:
There's an appeal process. If Guyger is found not guilty, she would actually have a decent case to get it back. Many a Chief has been forced to take back officers they did not like for personal or professional reasons. My guess is that when she is found not guilty she will immediately move out of the state and start her life over. I would not be disappointed if she re-applied though.


We have a friend who was a captain with a large agency (not in Texas) who was fired when his wife accused him of rape. He'd been on for 18 years and they revoked his retirement and everything. Case went to trial, wife admitted that she'd lied to get revenge because he'd discovered her drug habit and threatened to divorce her. After he was acquitted, she was charged with perjury and a bunch of drug-related stuff and was sentenced to several years in prison. He waited for all that to play out and applied for his job back. The chief was mortified and pissed about it (mainly because massive investigative incompetence on the part of the department had been revealed during the trial) but had no choice but to hire him back. Long story short, he never worked one more day for that agency, but he got his retirement reinstated and a huge settlement from the county. It really was glorious in his case.

Guyger's case is completely different though. She actually killed someone who didn't deserve it. And it was due to an absurd mistake. She doesn't have any business being a cop, and it seems like it would be a pretty cut and dry "hell no" in the appeal process.


I know an officer at a PD in the metroplex. His wife was upset that he cheated on her so he filed a false domestic assault case. The chief immediately placed him on desk duty and read him the riot act and ordered him to not ever identify himself as a police officer to anyone, said he could not carry his gun etc. officer ended up selling his boat and a few items to pay for a lawyer to fight the case. Of course it was found out that the wife was lying. Officer filed a suit against the city. The city offered a $700,000 settlement and he turned it down. I figure he will get enough to retire happily. That chief is no longer the chief.
Reply Quote
Bocephus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Enviroag02 • 10:58a, 9/30/19
AG
Enviroag02 said:
It really doesn't matter since the Judge denied it. They wanted to exclude the Castle Doctrine because they said it creates the presumption that the danger existed, and that's something the jury needs to decide...essentially.


Is this the first time the judge has ruled in favor of the defense? Sure seems like it
Reply Quote
Goose
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:14a, 9/30/19
AG
Is this guy's condescending tone typical for closing arguments?
Reply Quote
nai06
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:14a, 9/30/19
AG
This guy giving the closing statement sucks. He doesn't seem polished or practiced at all.
Reply Quote
1
texAZtea
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nai06 • 11:15a, 9/30/19
AG
I was about to say, if this is the level of presentation, I should have gone to law school...
Reply Quote
2
The Collective
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:17a, 9/30/19
AG
Yea, this is not very convincing at all.
Reply Quote
aggietony2010
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:18a, 9/30/19
AG
This DA is making a few good points, but it's lost in his condescension and the more ridiculous claims. The times I've agreed with him have been followed by eye roll moments.
Reply Quote
The Collective
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggietony2010 • 11:20a, 9/30/19
AG
aggietony2010 said:
This DA is making a few good points, but it's lost in his condescension and the more ridiculous claims. The times I've agreed with him have been followed by eye roll moments.


Can this be allowed in Dallas? In Texas? Nuh uh.
Reply Quote
proc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:20a, 9/30/19
AG
Not a good "open close". He seemed to believe the State has already lost the jury.
Reply Quote
nai06
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:25a, 9/30/19
AG
Defense closing statement is going much better IMO. This guy has his cadence down. He sounds so much better.



I think she gets manslaughter and 5ish years in jail.
Reply Quote
Bocephus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:42a, 9/30/19
AG
I think her lawyer (believe it is Toby Shook) is doing a good job with this closing. I did not know the state had to prove it was not a mistake of fact. I don't see any way she gets convicted unless the prosecution asks for a lesser included charge.
Reply Quote
1
proc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:45a, 9/30/19
AG
Since the defense has offered evidence of mistake of fact and self defense, the state has to disprove those defenses beyond a reasonable doubt. Tough burden.
Reply Quote
Ol Jock 99
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bocephus • 11:45a, 9/30/19
AG
Bocephus said:
I think her lawyer (believe it is Toby Shook) is doing a good job with this closing. I did not know the state had to prove it was not a mistake of fact. I don't see any way she gets convicted unless the prosecution asks for a lesser included charge.
Manslaughter was included.
Reply Quote
wbt5845
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bocephus • 11:46a, 9/30/19
AG
Bocephus said:
I think her lawyer (believe it is Toby Shook) is doing a good job with this closing. I did not know the state had to prove it was not a mistake of fact. I don't see any way she gets convicted unless the prosecution asks for a lesser included charge.
Toby Shook is one of the best defense attorneys in Texas.
Reply Quote
Ol Jock 99
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:47a, 9/30/19
AG
Defense is making a good case for a lawsuit against the apartment owners/mgmt.
Reply Quote
1
wbt5845
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to proc • 11:49a, 9/30/19
AG
proc said:
Since the defense has offered evidence of mistake of fact and self defense, the state has to disprove those defenses beyond a reasonable doubt. Tough burden.
They're only hope (imho) is to prove she was lying. I don't think they did, but it's up to those 12 people to decide.
Reply Quote
HarleySpoon
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bocephus • 11:49a, 9/30/19
AG
Bocephus said:
I think her lawyer (believe it is Toby Shook) is doing a good job with this closing. I did not know the state had to prove it was not a mistake of fact. I don't see any way she gets convicted unless the prosecution asks for a lesser included charge.


How could you not know that. This was from your post on the first page of this thread:

"And here's how strong a "defense" is: If the jury has a reasonable doubt on whether or not the State of Texas "disproves" the "Mistake of Fact" beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury MUST ACQUIT. In other words, the State of Texas will have to DISprove the mistake of fact beyond a reasonable doubt in this case to secure a conviction. "
Reply Quote
Goose
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:53a, 9/30/19
AG
"reasonable mistake anyone could make"

As much as he wants me to focus on the reasonable part, I just can't ignore the mistake part.
Reply Quote
1
aggietony2010
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Goose • 11:57a, 9/30/19
AG
Goose said:
"reasonable mistake anyone could make"

As much as he wants me to focus on the reasonable part, I just can't ignore the mistake part.


It really boils down to this. From a justice for the deceased standpoint, she deserves time in jail. She made a mistake and someone died because of it.

But from a legal standpoint, I think she should be acquitted.
Reply Quote
5
Anti-taxxer
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:01p, 9/30/19
AG
Has the jury already been given instructions, or are the closing arguments still taking place?
Reply Quote
PlaneCrashGuy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Anti-taxxer • 12:02p, 9/30/19
AG
smango05 said:
Has the jury already been given instructions, or are the closing arguments still taking place?
Instructions came before closing, closing taking place now.
Reply Quote
1
Goose
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:07p, 9/30/19
AG
This guy can't decide if he wants to sound like a lawyer or an evangelical Southern Baptist preacher desperate for a few amen shouts from the congregation jury.
Reply Quote
wbt5845
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:10p, 9/30/19
AG
Shook laid out the case. This guy is hammering home the technicalities of the law. That's why he keeps going back to reasonability. That's the crux of their defense.
Reply Quote
1
PlaneCrashGuy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to wbt5845 • 12:10p, 9/30/19
AG
wbt5845 said:
Shook laid out the case. This guy is hammering home the technicalities of the law. That's why he keeps going back to reasonability. That's the crux of their defense.
To me it makes him sound like a legal eagle
Reply Quote
1 edit
Ol Jock 99
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:13p, 9/30/19
AG
"I don't like this red floor mat. I'm going to go in and kill whomever has this red floor mat." Sorry, but LOLZ.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Ol Jock 99
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:16p, 9/30/19
AG
Mentioning pot was dumb. That is what the news will focus on.
Reply Quote
wbt5845
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ol Jock 99 • 12:17p, 9/30/19
AG
Ol Jock 99 said:
"I don't like this red floor mat. I'm going to go in and kill whomever has this red floor mat." Sorry, but LOLZ.

Yeah, great job of giving a simple visual that will stay with the jury.
Reply Quote
FincAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:21p, 9/30/19
AG
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.
Reply Quote
Enviroag02
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:24p, 9/30/19
AG
Poor job by prosecutor here...for him its about emotion, not the law.
Reply Quote
1
Bocephus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:25p, 9/30/19
AG
I don't think there is any way you can argue that the state proves their case
Reply Quote
7
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.