Bocephus said:

---

wbt5845 said:

---

Well, I'll say one thing - John Creuzot sure is vindicated. I thought he was an idiot going for murder - then an idiot for including a lesser charge - and then his team hit a home run.

---

He's still the clown who refused to go after Sherin Matthews father. He got his scalp though. Kudos for that I guess. I have no respect for him

---

Don't worry I have double respect for him to make up for what he's missing from you.

He did an exceptional job fighting this case to bring justice to those that survived Botham. Truly a job well done as a public servant.

Guitarsoup said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

aggietony2010 said:

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

double aught said:

---

What is there to not believe?

---

Her testimony flew in the face of the medical examiners for starters

---

Flew in the face is a bit strong. From what I remember, the only thing the medical examiner had to offer for the prosecution was the angle of the bullet was downward, meaning he was crouching down or bent forward. That is far from definitive. He COULD have been sitting on the couch, or he COULD have been advancing toward her bent forward or crouched down.

---

There's no point arguing with him. He doesn't understand burden of proof, and is now convinced that all his poorly crafted arguments are correct because the jury reached the same conclusion.

---

The Medical Examiner said there was no way he was moving towards her while bent down because of her height, his height, and the angle. I know the ME testified almost a week ago but you clearly are remembering it wrong.

Regardless, the point is moot. She is a murderer, justice prevailed.

Obviously the people that were paid to decide this and have lived nothing but this for a week (sequestered) know this better than you or I, the fact that they agree with me is telling, to think otherwise is ignorance.

---

The medical examiner did not testify that there was no way he was moving towards her.

The prosecution's THEORY is that he was on the couch, but that conveniently also helps their case. It also is not supported by evidence as there was no blood on the couch or the rug in front of the couch, but there was blood on the floor a few feet from the couch. He's less of a threat if he is on the couch.


Because a jury came to a verdict does not mean they came to the correct one. How many cases that Barry Scheck and the Innocence Project have had overturned do I need to quote to get you to give up that point?

Do you think OJ is innocent of Nicole and Ron's murders?

---

His only bullet wound was on his shoulder, no exit wound. That's why there was no blood even though he was getting up from the couch when he was executed.

wbt5845 said:

---

double aught said:

---

wbt5845 said:

---

double aught said:

---

What is there to not believe?

---

Her testimony. if you believed her testimony, you had to find her not guilty.

---

I guess I should've said why wouldn't you believe her. She admitted to killing him and even admitted that was her intent. Everything else she said supports that.

---

I believed her. I'm saying the jury apparently did not.

---

Ok. So again I go back to: what specifically didn't they believe?

Bocephus said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

tysker said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

Junkhead said:

---

LSB_2002 said:

---

ElephantRider said:

---

I agree with the verdict, but I hate that it's being twisted to be a race issue.

---

This case has never been anything but a race issue! Hence the celebration downtown Dallas tonight at 6:30. Are we really going to celebrate the fact that a Dallas cop is being sent to prison for murder? Really????

---

Pretty sure people will be celebrating what they believe to be justice for the murder of an innocent man.

---

You should look up all the statements made by Shaun King and Lee Merritt.

---

For me personally as Dallas resident its always been about the citizens of Dallas, how the police are viewed in the community and how we as Dallasites expect to treat one another. I couldn't give two ****s what people outside off Dallas think about the case. Especially a bunch of ivory tower living, non-Texans that wouldn't condescend to know or appreciate Texas laws, traditions and values.

---

Lee Merritt lives in Dallas area and represents the Jean family.

---

I think he actually lives in DC. He is not licensed to practice law in Texas.

---

He moved to the Metroplex when his wife left him with the kids. He mainly practices in Philly, but does federal cases from his main office in Dallas.

He had charges brought against him by the Texas bar last year or the year before, and now has a disclaimer that he only handles federal cases in Texas.

double aught said:

---

wbt5845 said:

---

double aught said:

---

wbt5845 said:

---

double aught said:

---

What is there to not believe?

---

Her testimony. if you believed her testimony, you had to find her not guilty.

---

I guess I should've said why wouldn't you believe her. She admitted to killing him and even admitted that was her intent. Everything else she said supports that.

---

I believed her. I'm saying the jury apparently did not.

---

Ok. So again I go back to: what specifically didn't they believe?

---

You'd have to ask them.

Bocephus said:

---

wbt5845 said:

---

Well, I'll say one thing - John Creuzot sure is vindicated. I thought he was an idiot going for murder - then an idiot for including a lesser charge - and then his team hit a home run.

---

He's still the clown who refused to go after Sherin Matthews father. He got his scalp though. Kudos for that I guess. I have no respect for him

---

Didn't he get life? Seemed like that worked out as well.

Guitarsoup said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

aggietony2010 said:

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

double aught said:

---

What is there to not believe?

---

Her testimony flew in the face of the medical examiners for starters

---

Flew in the face is a bit strong. From what I remember, the only thing the medical examiner had to offer for the prosecution was the angle of the bullet was downward, meaning he was crouching down or bent forward. That is far from definitive. He COULD have been sitting on the couch, or he COULD have been advancing toward her bent forward or crouched down.

---

There's no point arguing with him. He doesn't understand burden of proof, and is now convinced that all his poorly crafted arguments are correct because the jury reached the same conclusion.

---

The Medical Examiner said there was no way he was moving towards her while bent down because of her height, his height, and the angle. I know the ME testified almost a week ago but you clearly are remembering it wrong.

Regardless, the point is moot. She is a murderer, justice prevailed.

Obviously the people that were paid to decide this and have lived nothing but this for a week (sequestered) know this better than you or I, the fact that they agree with me is telling, to think otherwise is ignorance.

---

The medical examiner did not testify that there was no way he was moving towards her.

The prosecution's THEORY is that he was on the couch, but that conveniently also helps their case. It also is not supported by evidence as there was no blood on the couch or the rug in front of the couch, but there was blood on the floor a few feet from the couch. He's less of a threat if he is on the couch.


Because a jury came to a verdict does not mean they came to the correct one. How many cases that Barry Scheck and the Innocence Project have had overturned do I need to quote to get you to give up that point?

Do you think OJ is innocent of Nicole and Ron's murders?

---

His only bullet wound was on his shoulder, no exit wound. That's why there was no blood even though he was getting up from the couch when he was executed.

---

That wasn't an execution. There was blood on the floor and there still wasn't an exit wound.

Convenient you failed to touch on point #2.

It is clear you don't want to discuss this in a logical, rational manner.

---

You should have read my post he was replying to. I realized this a few posts ago.

Southlake said:

---

Now, what do you think the sentence will be?

My guess, and what I think is fair: 20 years. With parole and Good Behavior, she's out in 5-7.

Of course, I'm just a heavy equipment operator; what do I know?

---

She has to serve at least 50% in jail because a gun was used.

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.

Guitarsoup said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

aggietony2010 said:

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

double aught said:

---

What is there to not believe?

---

Her testimony flew in the face of the medical examiners for starters

---

Flew in the face is a bit strong. From what I remember, the only thing the medical examiner had to offer for the prosecution was the angle of the bullet was downward, meaning he was crouching down or bent forward. That is far from definitive. He COULD have been sitting on the couch, or he COULD have been advancing toward her bent forward or crouched down.

---

There's no point arguing with him. He doesn't understand burden of proof, and is now convinced that all his poorly crafted arguments are correct because the jury reached the same conclusion.

---

The Medical Examiner said there was no way he was moving towards her while bent down because of her height, his height, and the angle. I know the ME testified almost a week ago but you clearly are remembering it wrong.

Regardless, the point is moot. She is a murderer, justice prevailed.

Obviously the people that were paid to decide this and have lived nothing but this for a week (sequestered) know this better than you or I, the fact that they agree with me is telling, to think otherwise is ignorance.

---

The medical examiner did not testify that there was no way he was moving towards her.

The prosecution's THEORY is that he was on the couch, but that conveniently also helps their case. It also is not supported by evidence as there was no blood on the couch or the rug in front of the couch, but there was blood on the floor a few feet from the couch. He's less of a threat if he is on the couch.


Because a jury came to a verdict does not mean they came to the correct one. How many cases that Barry Scheck and the Innocence Project have had overturned do I need to quote to get you to give up that point?

Do you think OJ is innocent of Nicole and Ron's murders?

---

His only bullet wound was on his shoulder, no exit wound. That's why there was no blood even though he was getting up from the couch when he was executed.

---

That wasn't an execution. There was blood on the floor and there still wasn't an exit wound.

Convenient you failed to touch on point #2.

It is clear you don't want to discuss this in a logical, rational manner.

---

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.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

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

---

Analysis doesn't end there.

Quote:

---

Texas Penal Code 8.02 Mistake of Fact

(a) It is a defense to prosecution that the actor through mistake formed a reasonable belief about a matter of fact if his mistaken belief negated the kind of culpability required for commission of the offense.

(b) Although an actor's mistake of fact may constitute a defense to the offense charged, he may nevertheless be convicted of any lesser included offense of which he would be guilty if the fact were as he believed.

---

If the prosecution doesn't disprove reasonableness of the mistake, you still have to evaluate what happened next with in an alternative scenario where she was right about her mistake. Essentially, if mistake of fact is in play, then you have to look at what she did as though she were in her own home. I think this is why the judge allowed the defense to argue the castle doctrine over the prosecution's objections.

It was uncontested after she took that stand that she intentionally caused Jean's death, so essentially here was the prosecution's case:

(1) Guyger wasn't reasonable in mistaking her apartment because of all the various difference she should have noticed.

(2) Even if you think she was reasonable in thinking it was her apartment, she had no cause to shoot an unarmed man sitting there watching TV and eating ice cream. There was no threat to her to justify homicide.

On the flip side, here was the defense's case

(1) She was totally reasonable in thinking it was her apartment because the door wasn't locked/set, and here are 100 other people this happened to.

(2) If you agree that she was reasonable, then she was also justified in using deadly force to stop Jean.

So was she justified in using deadly force under 9.32 or 9.42? Did the jury believe he was sitting there, eating ice cream when she approached him?

In other words, they could have bought mistake in fact, but still believed the homicide wasn't justified, ergo, she is guilty of murder.

HouseDivided06 said:

---

Guessing you think OJ's jury got it right then since they clearly knew more about the case.

---

Read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Bocephus said:

---

Southlake said:

---

Now, what do you think the sentence will be?

My guess, and what I think is fair: 20 years. With parole and Good Behavior, she's out in 5-7.

Of course, I'm just a heavy equipment operator; what do I know?

---

Batch springs officer got 15 years for a much worse case imo. I'd say 5-10 years.

---

I think she gets 5-10 and is out on an appellate bond until her appeal is over.

powerbelly said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

Southlake said:

---

Now, what do you think the sentence will be?

My guess, and what I think is fair: 20 years. With parole and Good Behavior, she's out in 5-7.

Of course, I'm just a heavy equipment operator; what do I know?

---

Batch springs officer got 15 years for a much worse case imo. I'd say 5-10 years.

---

I think she gets 5-10 and is out on an appellate bond until her appeal is over.

---

She can't get an appellate bond:

lda6339 said:

---

powerbelly said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

Southlake said:

---

Now, what do you think the sentence will be?

My guess, and what I think is fair: 20 years. With parole and Good Behavior, she's out in 5-7.

Of course, I'm just a heavy equipment operator; what do I know?

---

Batch springs officer got 15 years for a much worse case imo. I'd say 5-10 years.

---

I think she gets 5-10 and is out on an appellate bond until her appeal is over.

---

She can't get an appellate bond:

---

Interesting. Judge on tv was wrong last night.

This was not the verdict I was expecting but not surprised given the circumstances. Sentencing will speak volumes.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but how many of those people admitted under oath to purposefully killing someone? This whole thing was just so unique and bizarre

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.)

Guitarsoup said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

aggietony2010 said:

---

HouseDivided06 said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

double aught said:

---

What is there to not believe?

---

Her testimony flew in the face of the medical examiners for starters

---

Flew in the face is a bit strong. From what I remember, the only thing the medical examiner had to offer for the prosecution was the angle of the bullet was downward, meaning he was crouching down or bent forward. That is far from definitive. He COULD have been sitting on the couch, or he COULD have been advancing toward her bent forward or crouched down.

---

There's no point arguing with him. He doesn't understand burden of proof, and is now convinced that all his poorly crafted arguments are correct because the jury reached the same conclusion.

---

The Medical Examiner said there was no way he was moving towards her while bent down because of her height, his height, and the angle. I know the ME testified almost a week ago but you clearly are remembering it wrong.

Regardless, the point is moot. She is a murderer, justice prevailed.

Obviously the people that were paid to decide this and have lived nothing but this for a week (sequestered) know this better than you or I, the fact that they agree with me is telling, to think otherwise is ignorance.

---

The medical examiner did not testify that there was no way he was moving towards her.

The prosecution's THEORY is that he was on the couch, but that conveniently also helps their case. It also is not supported by evidence as there was no blood on the couch or the rug in front of the couch, but there was blood on the floor a few feet from the couch. He's less of a threat if he is on the couch.


Because a jury came to a verdict does not mean they came to the correct one. How many cases that Barry Scheck and the Innocence Project have had overturned do I need to quote to get you to give up that point?

Do you think OJ is innocent of Nicole and Ron's murders?

---

His only bullet wound was on his shoulder, no exit wound. That's why there was no blood even though he was getting up from the couch when he was executed.

---

That wasn't an execution. There was blood on the floor and there still wasn't an exit wound.

Convenient you failed to touch on point #2.

It is clear you don't want to discuss this in a logical, rational manner.

---

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.

---

It is clear there is no discussion to be had with someone who does not believe a jury can get it wrong, despite the clear mountain of evidence that they can and do have wrong verdicts.

Steven Avery served 18 years for rape after being convicted by a jury of 12 people unanimously that all listened to the facts and nothing but the facts. 18 years later, DNA proved their decision was wrong.

Darryl Hunt served 19.5 years after a jury of 12 people unanimously convicted him and sentenced him to life before he was exonerated.

Glenn Ford served 30 years on death row before being exonerated. He was convicted by a jury of 12 people who listened to all the facts presented.

James Bain served 35 years for rape before being exonerated by DNA evidence. He was convicted by a jury of 12 people who listened to all the facts presented.

OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder, then wrote a book explaining how he killed them. Oh, yeah, that one chapter was a guess. Right.



Juries are not infallible. Anyone who says they are is a fool.

---

It is clear there is no discussion to be had with someone who does not believe a jury can get it right, despite the clear mountain of evidence that they can and do have correct verdicts.

Is that how this works? When did I say a jury was never wrong? I said there is no evidence in this instance that the jury was wrong, and instead of presenting evidence this jury was wrong, you go to other completely unrelated juries, and that says a lot about your position.

powerbelly said:

---

lda6339 said:

---

powerbelly said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

Southlake said:

---

Now, what do you think the sentence will be?

My guess, and what I think is fair: 20 years. With parole and Good Behavior, she's out in 5-7.

Of course, I'm just a heavy equipment operator; what do I know?

---

Batch springs officer got 15 years for a much worse case imo. I'd say 5-10 years.

---

I think she gets 5-10 and is out on an appellate bond until her appeal is over.

---

She can't get an appellate bond:

---

Interesting. Judge on tv was wrong last night.

---

He said it again today, someone needs to inform him of the change.

ElephantRider said:

---

I'm not disagreeing with you, but how many of those people admitted under oath to purposefully killing someone? This whole thing was just so unique and bizarre

---

Agree completely. Absolutely unique and bizarre case that will probably be a textbook case for law schools.

I don't think there was a good conclusion for the jury to make on either side. I don't think the law really fits what happened in this unique case.


I'm just making the point that it is beyond ridiculous to act like a jury of 12 people is infallible. We have significant evidence that judges can and do make mistakes for a large variety of reasons. Some are lack of science. Some are lack of understanding of science. Some because they just never would have convicted because of prejudices (jurors have admitted as such.) And sometimes because of evidence disallowed either by attorney or misconduct by prosecution.

In any event, juries are not infallible and no one should act like they are.

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.

Ed Carter said:

---

nai06 said:

---

When a friend of ours was murdered a awhile back, I definitely felt like clapping when that POS was found guilty

---

So were those circumstances the same as the circumstances in this case?

---

Not in the least bit. She was sexually assaulted, beaten to death, and set on fire. All I'm saying is that I could see a close frit or family member clapping after the verdict because you feel some justice has been realized