Metroplex
Sponsored by

Amber Guyger Trial

120,114 Views | 1267 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by Bocephus
chickencoupe16
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Duncan Idaho • 6:12p, 10/1/19
AG
Duncan Idaho said:
powerbelly said:
Duncan Idaho said:
Even if he had a gun in hand, I would still agree with this verdict and say she strait up murdered this poor accountant.
Everyone agrees that she murdered Botham. That isn't the question at all.
chicken coup and the people thst stared his post seem to disagree that she murdered an innocent man.


You've being intentionally dense. Did Guyger intentionally take Jean's life? Yes. Did she feel threatened? It is reasonably possible? Did she believe that she was in her own home. It is reasonably possible. Should she go to jail for this? The law says no, regardless of what I want it to say.

I wish the law was different. I wish that in order to pursue a mistake of fact defense (for any crime) you had to lock yourself in to some sort of punishment. If you won on mistake of fact, you still got punished but to a much lesser degree. If you lost, all options are on the table.
Reply Quote
2
2 edits
nai06
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 • 6:34p, 10/1/19
AG
Bocephus said:
nai06 said:
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


This was not the case in Bryan was it?
Sorry I just saw this.

No, in Denton. looking back it was actually long time ago, 12 years this past September. My wife and I had just started dating when it happened.

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Man-Found-Guilty-in-UNT-Students-Murder.html

The thing that was weird about the trial is that he was essentially allowed to testify without being cross examined. The Judge allowed defense to play a videotaped interview he gave to a local news station while in jail. He proclaims that he is innocent and isn't a killer. The state was unable to refute any of his statements because he didn't take the stand.
Reply Quote
3rd Generation Ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:42p, 10/1/19
AG
Again we each have individual differences on how WE interpret reasonable doubt. I believe that the reasonable person would step out and scream.

I grew up in west Texas where kids usually had bb guns by first grade and the real thing by age ten. The first rule EVERY family I knew drilled into the kids was be sure of your target before you shoot.

Don't you dare accidentally kill granpa's cow by any sort of mistake, and even more so don't kill some stupid hunter trailing a deer and wandering across your fence line.

I would HOPE police have the same phillosophy drilled into them till it is automatic. Be sure of your target before you shoot.

I find it reasonable that she wandered into the wrong apartment even if stupid. I think we are accountable for stupid mistakes. If she had turned the wrong way on a one way street in an unfamiliear city, that would be similar to me. But if she goes full speed ahead, rather than pullining over, and trying to safely creep to a place of safety it is a horrid error in judgement.

And most of us are held accountable for horrid lapses in judgement.

I have no idea of how I would have voted on the jury. I honestly was not there to see body language and expression, not just for the witnesses, but for how the defendent reacted to the witnesses. A jury was. I would have understood their verdict either way. What I don't understand is the people who can't accept that intelligent people might not reach the same decision. I honestly thought it was my concept of negligence and that type of murder. I am NOT a lawyer, But her negiligence in going into the wrong apartment directly led to the sequence of events that cost a TOTALLY INNOCENT man sitting in his own apartment his life.

She was negligent in not having the level of alertness and awareness that most adults would have. I know others had wandered into the wrong apartment. If it was 25 percent than I see it as 75 percent never did it. And NONE of those killed anyone over it. ZERO percent. So her negligence caused the death of another person. I also think her actions after the shooting cost her any sympathy factor the jury might have had. Shoot an innocent man and then text your boy friend while he lay dying. She did that.
Reply Quote
5
4 edits
3rd Generation Ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:48p, 10/1/19
AG
Sorry for all the edits. I am pretty sure I would have voted to convict OJ, but again I was not there in the courtroom. That was my first real lesson that people on a jury have seriously different levels of "reasonable" doubt.
Reply Quote
DannyDuberstein
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:50p, 10/1/19
AG
Just an all around tragedy. His death. Her life wrecked. Huge mistake, but I do not believe for a second that she she went home that night intending to kill an innocent person. A long prison sentence will be more vengeance and not justice IMO.
Reply Quote
9
1 edit
Rudyjax
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:52p, 10/1/19
AG
If little blond girl walks into that apartment, she gets scared the **** and runs out screaming then realizes she's on the wrong floor and then laughs with Botham after the fact.

A poorly trained cop kills him in that situation.

The whole situation tragic on both sides.

Did she murder him? Yes. Was she properly trained or did she not learn how to carry a gun? No.

The only reason he is dead is she was an untrained/poorly trained cop.

And that's sad.

And it's still murder.
Reply Quote
3
500,000ags
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 3rd Generation Ag • 6:53p, 10/1/19
AG
It's pretty amazing that in Texas of all places, where we pride ourselves on individual rights, we are ready to throw this guy's individual rights to the wind because of a series of linear questions and answers. He was in his own home. He was not breaking any laws. A person with a gun entered and shot him.
Reply Quote
11
Brad 98
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:04p, 10/1/19
AG
What is the timeframe for the Court of Criminal Appeals to take the case? The jury is going to give her 50 years to life.
Reply Quote
Rudyjax
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 Brad 98 • 7:08p, 10/1/19
AG
Brad 98 said:
What is the timeframe for the Court of Criminal Appeals to take the case? The jury is going to give her 50 years to life.


As soon as it leaves the news cycle no one cares if she does 5.
Reply Quote
3
powerbelly
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 500,000ags • 7:10p, 10/1/19
AG
500,000ags said:
It's pretty amazing that in Texas of all places, where we pride ourselves on individual rights, we are ready to throw this guy's individual rights to the wind because of a series of linear questions and answers. He was in his own home. He was not breaking any laws. A person with a gun entered and shot him.


Blame poorly written laws.
Reply Quote
2
chickencoupe16
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 3rd Generation Ag • 7:14p, 10/1/19
AG
Should she have gone into the apartment if she thought an intruder was inside? Probably not. I probably would have, though and she did. But if it was her apartment, that is well within her rights. Once there, she was well within her right to shoot him if she reasonably felt threatened.

There are only two things to debate: did she reasonably believe it was her apartment and did she reasonably feel threatened?

I can accept that two people can reach different conclusions. The problem is that much of what it's being debated has nothing to do with the law.

Grandpa's cow has nothing to do with it. She knew exactly what she was shooting at and had every intention of killing him. Now if it was Grandpa's 10 point he'd been after all season and you thought it was an 8, then we would have something there.

Did she text her boyfriend? Yeah. Does that conflict with the two debatable points? Maybe, but no one can put themself in that situation and know how they would react. People do all sorts of stupid things when they've got far less of a reason to lose their minds.

It would likely be very difficult to turn onto a one-way road and not realize it for a long period of time.. And yes, I have done it twice in my life. Both times I realized nearly immediately due to all of the signage. The apartment building apparently had very little. Either way, this analogy stops being relevant as soon as the mistake of fact goes away. So it would matter how she continued into the apartment IF she realized BEFORE she shot him that it was not her apartment.

I do understand the verdict. I believe the jury performed their duty incompetently but I do understand how that could happen.

I think she should be punished. I think ultimately, she will be punished in civil court, as well as permanent loss of her career, and in many social and psychological ways. I wish the law was written so that it allowed for her to be punished criminally. Unfortunately, I did not believe that it is and I believe that this will be overturned on appeal.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
500,000ags
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 powerbelly • 7:27p, 10/1/19
AG
I don't have to, she was found guilty.
Reply Quote
1
Rudyjax
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 chickencoupe16 • 7:35p, 10/1/19
AG
Even if she believes it's her apartment, it's not.

Reply Quote
2
Bob Loblaws Law Blog
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:11p, 10/1/19
AG
sounds like everybody agrees she killed an innocent man in his home. To me, the fact that "mistake in fact" nearly (maybe) let her walk, is asinine. There's probably a case where mistake in fact makes sense, but I can't think of reason why this should be an allowable defense.

Disclaimer: I do numbers and am a legal moron.
Reply Quote
2
Guitarsoup
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 Bob Loblaws Law Blog • 8:14p, 10/1/19
AG
Bob Loblaws Law Blog said:
sounds like everybody agrees she killed an innocent man in his home. To me, the fact that "mistake in fact" nearly (maybe) let her walk, is asinine. There's probably a case where mistake in fact makes sense, but I can't think of reason why this should be an allowable defense.

Disclaimer: I do numbers and am a legal moron.
Do someone that thinks they are acting in self defense and the BTK Killer both deserve the same punishment?
Reply Quote
1
Rudyjax
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 Guitarsoup • 8:15p, 10/1/19
AG
Guitarsoup said:
Bob Loblaws Law Blog said:
sounds like everybody agrees she killed an innocent man in his home. To me, the fact that "mistake in fact" nearly (maybe) let her walk, is asinine. There's probably a case where mistake in fact makes sense, but I can't think of reason why this should be an allowable defense.

Disclaimer: I do numbers and am a legal moron.
Do someone that thinks they are acting in self defense and the BTK Killer both deserve the same punishment?


Thinks. That is the key.

She had no reason to shoot him.
Reply Quote
2
NickNaylor
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rudyjax • 8:21p, 10/1/19
I Am Mine said:
Guitarsoup said:
Bob Loblaws Law Blog said:
sounds like everybody agrees she killed an innocent man in his home. To me, the fact that "mistake in fact" nearly (maybe) let her walk, is asinine. There's probably a case where mistake in fact makes sense, but I can't think of reason why this should be an allowable defense.

Disclaimer: I do numbers and am a legal moron.
Do someone that thinks they are acting in self defense and the BTK Killer both deserve the same punishment?


Thinks. That is the key.

She had no reason to shoot him.
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
In reply to expresswrittenconsent • 8:23p, 10/1/19
AG
expresswrittenconsent said:
powerbelly said:
I Am Mine said:
That's fine.

Did you kill the person that lived there?

To me, as a cop she needs to be held to a higher responsibility than the average person. She shot a guy in his own house.

If she had not been armed and a cop, she would've screamed and ran away.
I agree if she was on duty she should be held to a higher standard. But if she isn't then she should be treated as an average citizen.

Problem is that she can't have it both ways. She got special cop treatment from the moment of the shooting. She wasnt arrested for days, while any "average citizen" would have been arrested on the spot. This whole thing began with her getting special treatment so the defense that she should be treated as an "average citizen" rings especially hollow.


Not true at all. People are arrested when the warrant goes through. There are often confusing murder cases and it takes days to sort it out. In this one, there was a delay bc the Rangers took over the case. No special treatment at all. Also, any person can turn themself in to the local PD like Guyger did to Kaufman. That wasn't special either.
Reply Quote
2
Guitarsoup
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 • 8:25p, 10/1/19
AG
Bocephus said:
expresswrittenconsent said:
powerbelly said:
I Am Mine said:
That's fine.

Did you kill the person that lived there?

To me, as a cop she needs to be held to a higher responsibility than the average person. She shot a guy in his own house.

If she had not been armed and a cop, she would've screamed and ran away.
I agree if she was on duty she should be held to a higher standard. But if she isn't then she should be treated as an average citizen.

Problem is that she can't have it both ways. She got special cop treatment from the moment of the shooting. She wasnt arrested for days, while any "average citizen" would have been arrested on the spot. This whole thing began with her getting special treatment so the defense that she should be treated as an "average citizen" rings especially hollow.


Not true at all. People are arrested when the warrant goes through. There are often confusing murder cases and it takes days to sort it out. In this one, there was a delay bc the Rangers took over the case. No special treatment at all. Also, any person can turn themself in to the local PD like Guyger did to Kaufman. That wasn't special either.
Bo, there was definitely special treatment.

They put her in the car and turned off the recording so she wouldn't self incriminate.

If I had shot BoJean in his apartment, I'm probably taking a ride right then and there. She did not.
Reply Quote
3
nai06
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:35p, 10/1/19
AG
Ida6339

Im curious, did know Botham Jean? I fell like you hinted at it a few pages back and I was just curious. If you did, I think some people might better understand some of your comments on the topic and how seriously you have taken this (thats not to say is isn't a serious matter). Not knowing him personally I think most of this have an entirely different perspective. Obviously you don't have to answer one way or another. If you did know him, you have my condolences and I can't imagine what this must be like.
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
In reply to Guitarsoup • 8:41p, 10/1/19
AG
Guitarsoup said:
Bocephus said:
expresswrittenconsent said:
powerbelly said:
I Am Mine said:
That's fine.

Did you kill the person that lived there?

To me, as a cop she needs to be held to a higher responsibility than the average person. She shot a guy in his own house.

If she had not been armed and a cop, she would've screamed and ran away.
I agree if she was on duty she should be held to a higher standard. But if she isn't then she should be treated as an average citizen.

Problem is that she can't have it both ways. She got special cop treatment from the moment of the shooting. She wasnt arrested for days, while any "average citizen" would have been arrested on the spot. This whole thing began with her getting special treatment so the defense that she should be treated as an "average citizen" rings especially hollow.


Not true at all. People are arrested when the warrant goes through. There are often confusing murder cases and it takes days to sort it out. In this one, there was a delay bc the Rangers took over the case. No special treatment at all. Also, any person can turn themself in to the local PD like Guyger did to Kaufman. That wasn't special either.
Bo, there was definitely special treatment.

They put her in the car and turned off the recording so she wouldn't self incriminate.

If I had shot BoJean in his apartment, I'm probably taking a ride right then and there. She did not.


They thought it was a police involved shooting at the time. That's why they pulled her out of the car. Like I said, it was confusing. She would have been taken to jail within the first 24 hours if the Rangers has not taken over.

Guess what happens when we think a guy shot someone but they immediately ask for a lawyer and don't give a statement? We let him go and have to wait a few days til a warrant is issued.
Reply Quote
Kellso
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to mavsfan4ever • 8:44p, 10/1/19
mavsfan4ever said:
If I'm the defense attorney, I call all 95 individuals (or whatever the number is) who have gone to the wrong apartment or wrong floor and I call them one at a time. That seems like it would go a long way to guaranteeing a favorable verdict.
I'm still not sure why supporters of Guyger kept bringing this up as some sort of positive point in a possible acquittal.

Did any of those 95 individuals murder someone in their own home?

If the answer is no....that means Amber Guygers actions were unreasonable.
Reply Quote
8
Rudyjax
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 Kellso • 8:51p, 10/1/19
AG
Kellso said:
mavsfan4ever said:
If I'm the defense attorney, I call all 95 individuals (or whatever the number is) who have gone to the wrong apartment or wrong floor and I call them one at a time. That seems like it would go a long way to guaranteeing a favorable verdict.
I'm still not sure why supporters of Guyger kept bringing this up as some sort of positive point in a possible acquittal.

Did any of those 95 individuals murder someone in their own home?

If the answer is no....that means Amber Guygers actions were unreasonable.


Ding ding ding.

If I'm the prosecutor, I ask, Did your shoot them?
No forther questions.

Reply Quote
1
culdeus
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:53p, 10/1/19
AG
If Jury Nullification is letting someone off when they obviously did the crime, what is this?

It seems the jury agreed there was a crime, is it their fault that they weren't presented a charge that really fit this case which was more like a reckless homicide?
Reply Quote
Guitarsoup
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:53p, 10/1/19
AG
When you have jurors that are sequestered and can't even have their phone, you sure don't want to call a hundred people to testify to the same thing.

You call an intelligent, well-spoken attorney that did the same thing, and you show the apartments were confusing and not labelled properly.

You don't need to call a hundred people to get that point across.
Reply Quote
1
Guitarsoup
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 culdeus • 9:20p, 10/1/19
AG
culdeus said:
If Jury Nullification is letting someone off when they obviously did the crime, what is this?

It seems the jury agreed there was a crime, is it their fault that they weren't presented a charge that really fit this case which was more like a reckless homicide?
She testified her act was intentional. Criminally negligent homicide and Manslaughter could not apply.

Jury was able to convict of manslaughter instead of murder.
Reply Quote
1
Locknload
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:46p, 10/1/19
AG
Quote:
Also, any person can turn themself in to the local PD like Guyger did to Kaufman. That wasn't special either.
Yes, Johnny Football turned himself into Highland Park police. Good idea to avoid the circus.
Reply Quote
double aught
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 Guitarsoup • 10:19p, 10/1/19
AG
Guitarsoup said:
Bocephus said:
expresswrittenconsent said:
powerbelly said:
I Am Mine said:
That's fine.

Did you kill the person that lived there?

To me, as a cop she needs to be held to a higher responsibility than the average person. She shot a guy in his own house.

If she had not been armed and a cop, she would've screamed and ran away.
I agree if she was on duty she should be held to a higher standard. But if she isn't then she should be treated as an average citizen.

Problem is that she can't have it both ways. She got special cop treatment from the moment of the shooting. She wasnt arrested for days, while any "average citizen" would have been arrested on the spot. This whole thing began with her getting special treatment so the defense that she should be treated as an "average citizen" rings especially hollow.


Not true at all. People are arrested when the warrant goes through. There are often confusing murder cases and it takes days to sort it out. In this one, there was a delay bc the Rangers took over the case. No special treatment at all. Also, any person can turn themself in to the local PD like Guyger did to Kaufman. That wasn't special either.
Bo, there was definitely special treatment.

They put her in the car and turned off the recording so she wouldn't self incriminate.

If I had shot BoJean in his apartment, I'm probably taking a ride right then and there. She did not.
I was told that they turned off the camera because she was about to speak to an attorney and that that was fairly standard practice.
Reply Quote
Guitarsoup
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 double aught • 10:27p, 10/1/19
AG
double aught said:
Guitarsoup said:
Bocephus said:
expresswrittenconsent said:
powerbelly said:
I Am Mine said:
That's fine.

Did you kill the person that lived there?

To me, as a cop she needs to be held to a higher responsibility than the average person. She shot a guy in his own house.

If she had not been armed and a cop, she would've screamed and ran away.
I agree if she was on duty she should be held to a higher standard. But if she isn't then she should be treated as an average citizen.

Problem is that she can't have it both ways. She got special cop treatment from the moment of the shooting. She wasnt arrested for days, while any "average citizen" would have been arrested on the spot. This whole thing began with her getting special treatment so the defense that she should be treated as an "average citizen" rings especially hollow.


Not true at all. People are arrested when the warrant goes through. There are often confusing murder cases and it takes days to sort it out. In this one, there was a delay bc the Rangers took over the case. No special treatment at all. Also, any person can turn themself in to the local PD like Guyger did to Kaufman. That wasn't special either.
Bo, there was definitely special treatment.

They put her in the car and turned off the recording so she wouldn't self incriminate.

If I had shot BoJean in his apartment, I'm probably taking a ride right then and there. She did not.
I was told that they turned off the camera because she was about to speak to an attorney and that that was fairly standard practice.
There was no attorney there.
Reply Quote
double aught
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 Guitarsoup • 10:32p, 10/1/19
AG
On the phone.
Reply Quote
Guitarsoup
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 double aught • 10:47p, 10/1/19
AG
It was shut off because a police union leader wanted to talk to her in private. This was testified to in court.

Sgt Valentine testified that once she found out Guyger was responsible for the shooting, she was supposed to take her to her car and isolate her. But that isn't what happened.

Guyger was allowed to interact socially and hug several other officers. Then she sat in the car. Then the Police Union guy (a superior officer) ordered Sgt Valentine to shut off her car's camera. This violated departmental general orders.

Guyger was allowed to use her phone in the car.

I think it is completely understandable, but she absolutely got preferential treatment because she was an officer. Any argument otherwise is just silly. Sgt. Valentine even testified as such.
Reply Quote
6
1 edit
PatAg
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 • 12:02a, 10/2/19
AG
Bocephus said:
culdeus said:
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.


State showed that if she did perceive him as a threat should have called for backup either as a cop or citizen. Neither was done. She advanced on this threat with intention to kill.

I suppose bowls do look menacing in the wrong hands. He maybe was lining up an oddjob throw.


State effectively got the jury to dislike her and vote against her. Congrats. Still not murder but whatevs.

Reply Quote
1 edit
mavsfan4ever
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 Kellso • 12:15a, 10/2/19
AG
Kellso said:
mavsfan4ever said:
If I'm the defense attorney, I call all 95 individuals (or whatever the number is) who have gone to the wrong apartment or wrong floor and I call them one at a time. That seems like it would go a long way to guaranteeing a favorable verdict.
I'm still not sure why supporters of Guyger kept bringing this up as some sort of positive point in a possible acquittal.

Did any of those 95 individuals murder someone in their own home?

If the answer is no....that means Amber Guygers actions were unreasonable.


In my opinion, if the defense proved mistake of fact (or actually if the prosecution didn't disprove it), then the castle doctrine would apply. And it wouldn't really matter if other people who went to the wrong apartment had shot anyone. That's why I thought it would be a good idea to focus on mistake of fact so much. In my opinion, according to the law, if the state wasn't able to disprove mistake of fact, she was basically home free because if the castle doctrine. So having a lot of witnesses focus on the mistake of fact would have been beneficial (saying I would call all 95 was hyperbolic).

Obviously, the jury disagreed (or didn't fully understand the law). Or maybe I'm missing something in regards to the mistake of fact defense and castle doctrine. I agree that a murder conviction with a light sentence is a fair outcome, I just don't see how it fits with the law in this case.
Reply Quote
2
PatAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:21a, 10/2/19
AG
She is rightfully guilty, and hopefully will also get a sentence on the low. She is just someone that should have never been a police officer, and never should have been in a spot where she could make a decision like she did with a gun.

It's a bit funny that a lot of people were piling on Ida for their ridiculous posts, but we had multiple people who clearly had a similarly ridiculous viewpoint in favor of Guyger
Reply Quote
3
chickencoupe16
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rudyjax • 12:34a, 10/2/19
AG
I Am Mine said:
Even if she believes it's her apartment, it's not.



You're right. And the law agrees. The law also provides for the mistake of fact defense.
Reply Quote
4
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.