ADA questioning the ballistics. She's giving a lot of "I don't know".
Amber Guyger Trial
120,063 Views |
1267 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by Bocephus
Agreed. Might factor into my thoughts during a punishment phase, but not for guilty/not-guilty decision.Captn_Ag05 said:
Her offering help or not or texting or not in the minutes afterwards are irrelevant to me. Her state of mind of what happened in the seconds leading up to the shooting are what I care about.
Surprised she agreed with the prosecutor when he asked if she was trying to kill him. It shouldn't matter because her defense is all based on mistake of fact, but still surprised her attorneys didn't coach her to not agree with that statement.
She testified twice before she perceived him as a threat. ADA kept hammering answer my question. She was directed to give yes or no answer.
She got her intent on the answer to the jury.
She got her intent on the answer to the jury.
When you have no basis in law, let's impugn her for sexting
He also tried to insinuate that she should have expected a potential apartment maintenance person in her apartment since she knows they can legally gain access to perform maintenance. She answered this perfectly with "not that late at night".
Somewhat surprised that the judge has allowed all of the sexting stuff to even come into evidence. Doesn't seem relevant at all. I'm guessing there must have already been a ruling from the judge on that issue because the defense attorneys are not objecting to it at all.
Now let's argue semantics over an email from the apartment. Jesus his case is weak.
You had her when she said there was intent to kill. Should have hammered that. Might have confused the jury. Instead you resort to texting and whether or not an email stated daytime hours.
You had her when she said there was intent to kill. Should have hammered that. Might have confused the jury. Instead you resort to texting and whether or not an email stated daytime hours.
mavsfan4ever said:
Somewhat surprised that the judge has allowed all of the sexting stuff to even come into evidence. Doesn't seem relevant at all. I'm guessing there must have already been a ruling from the judge on that issue because the defense attorneys are not objecting to it at all.
That could prejudice a jury. This judge has left valid reasons for appeal every day of the trial.
The most relevant thing he's gotten from her was during the questioning on her opening the door. At one point, she agreed that she was aware of a threat in her apartment (she could hear movement) but she still had the door between her and the threat.
3rd Generation Ag said:
Going to the wrong apartment is reasonable, NOT recognizing instantly that you are inside the wrong apartment to me is not.
And I live in a "cookie cutter" stacked building where every floor is the same floor plan but there are tons of differences as you walk down every hall. Decorations from the complex (each floor has different paintings, , door mats, door decorations. The minute you open the door, there is the distinctive smell of the home. It is like she turned all her senses of observation OFF totally.
I know you say she is off duty, but I though part of the training for police was to be super observant. That ability would not turn off when she signed off the clock.
I still dont get how she could have been oblivious.
Honestly, I think she should plead guilty if she is a decent person at all. She should feel the terrible weight of guilt and remorse.
I don't even understand how she could want to walk away unpunished
I get it. You don't understand how she could walk into the wrong apartment. Have you ever worked a 14 hour police shift and then carried all that stuff to your apartment? If you have not, then your opinion here is not very valid.
She is human. Our observation skills cannot be on 24 hours per day. That is physically impossible. Expecting police to be super human is expecting too much. She made a mistake. She is human. It happens.
If you made a mistake and someone was charging you with murder, in a county where people who beat their kids to death are not charged with murder, you would just plead guilty?
I think it potentially fits both sides - if she's emotionally distracted and in a poor place mentally the information may work toward the mistake of fact being more or less reasonable. Depends on how its perceived by the jury and used by the attorneys.mavsfan4ever said:
Somewhat surprised that the judge has allowed all of the sexting stuff to even come into evidence. Doesn't seem relevant at all. I'm guessing there must have already been a ruling from the judge on that issue because the defense attorneys are not objecting to it at all.
Ervin Burrell said:
Forgive my ignorance on this, but every other post on this thread is "stay home on verdict day." Are we really expecting the city to burn if she's found not guilty? Are there protesters outside the courthouse en mass every day right now just waiting to commit violence? I haven't heard anything in the news locally about community activists saying "here's what we're going to do if justice isn't served", etc (not that I've sought that type of news out). Add to all of that that Botham was from St Lucia, not an African American (yes, I think it is a mitigating factor) and I'm just not seeing a Michael Brown type riot in the works. But, as I said I'm ignorant so what the hell do I know?
There's been a call for protests at the DPA tonight bc Rivera deleted texts so his wife wouldn't see them, and Mike Mata gave the order to shut the camera off. When she is found not guilty of murder, I expect civil unrest. I also think the DA and chief of police are derelict in their duty by not putting out PSAs right now to encourage calm and inform the community that a not guilty verdict is likely.
Why would the DA inform the community that a not guilty verdict is likely? Especially if they are holding firm in not allowing lesser charges to be included.Bocephus said:Ervin Burrell said:
Forgive my ignorance on this, but every other post on this thread is "stay home on verdict day." Are we really expecting the city to burn if she's found not guilty? Are there protesters outside the courthouse en mass every day right now just waiting to commit violence? I haven't heard anything in the news locally about community activists saying "here's what we're going to do if justice isn't served", etc (not that I've sought that type of news out). Add to all of that that Botham was from St Lucia, not an African American (yes, I think it is a mitigating factor) and I'm just not seeing a Michael Brown type riot in the works. But, as I said I'm ignorant so what the hell do I know?
There's been a call for protests at the DPA tonight bc Rivera deleted texts so his wife wouldn't see them, and Mike Mata gave the order to shut the camera off. When she is found not guilty of murder, I expect civil unrest. I also think the DA and chief of police are derelict in their duty by not putting out PSAs right now to encourage calm and inform the community that a not guilty verdict is likely.
She didnt just walk into the wrong apartment, she admittedly entered a dark apartment suspecting there was someone inside. Of course she's human but its reasonable to assume that a large number of humans dont even enter that apartment and engage.Bocephus said:3rd Generation Ag said:
Going to the wrong apartment is reasonable, NOT recognizing instantly that you are inside the wrong apartment to me is not.
And I live in a "cookie cutter" stacked building where every floor is the same floor plan but there are tons of differences as you walk down every hall. Decorations from the complex (each floor has different paintings, , door mats, door decorations. The minute you open the door, there is the distinctive smell of the home. It is like she turned all her senses of observation OFF totally.
I know you say she is off duty, but I though part of the training for police was to be super observant. That ability would not turn off when she signed off the clock.
I still dont get how she could have been oblivious.
Honestly, I think she should plead guilty if she is a decent person at all. She should feel the terrible weight of guilt and remorse.
I don't even understand how she could want to walk away unpunished
I get it. You don't understand how she could walk into the wrong apartment. Have you ever worked a 14 hour police shift and then carried all that stuff to your apartment? If you have not, then your opinion here is not very valid.
She is human. Our observation skills cannot be on 24 hours per day. That is physically impossible. Expecting police to be super human is expecting too much. She made a mistake. She is human. It happens.
If you made a mistake and someone was charging you with murder, in a county where people who beat their kids to death are not charged with murder, you would just plead guilty?
Nonsense! An opinion on is not valid because they didn't work for the police? , You are forgetting the other side of this equation. I've sat on my couch watching TV routinely throughout the years so your damn right I have an opinion that I should be safe from someone entering my unlocked door and killing me all because they chose to work overtime and had to carry their gear back to their home.
I'm sympathetic to both sides but you seem to be thinking that police officers are the only profession that has stressful circumstances to deal with. I'm this case, she caused every bit of stress that came her way that night due to her bad decisions.
What about cops, though? They understand that they are permitted to kill and they enjoy the blind support of a union, coworkers, government officials, etc.tysker said:
She didnt just walk into the wrong apartment, she admittedly entered a dark apartment suspecting there was someone inside. Of course she's human but its reasonable to assume that a large number of humans dont even enter that apartment and engage.
I think most cops would feel free to go in and engage, since they can just kill whomever they encounter.
I dont think that's fair at all but we should hold those we entrust to a higher standard of ethical behavior even when "off duty."Cuterebra said:What about cops, though? They understand that they are permitted to kill and they enjoy the blind support of a union, coworkers, government officials, etc.tysker said:
She didnt just walk into the wrong apartment, she admittedly entered a dark apartment suspecting there was someone inside. Of course she's human but its reasonable to assume that a large number of humans dont even enter that apartment and engage.
I think most cops would feel free to go in and engage, since they can just kill whomever they encounter.
Bones08 said:Why would the DA inform the community that a not guilty verdict is likely? Especially if they are holding firm in not allowing lesser charges to be included.Bocephus said:Ervin Burrell said:
Forgive my ignorance on this, but every other post on this thread is "stay home on verdict day." Are we really expecting the city to burn if she's found not guilty? Are there protesters outside the courthouse en mass every day right now just waiting to commit violence? I haven't heard anything in the news locally about community activists saying "here's what we're going to do if justice isn't served", etc (not that I've sought that type of news out). Add to all of that that Botham was from St Lucia, not an African American (yes, I think it is a mitigating factor) and I'm just not seeing a Michael Brown type riot in the works. But, as I said I'm ignorant so what the hell do I know?
There's been a call for protests at the DPA tonight bc Rivera deleted texts so his wife wouldn't see them, and Mike Mata gave the order to shut the camera off. When she is found not guilty of murder, I expect civil unrest. I also think the DA and chief of police are derelict in their duty by not putting out PSAs right now to encourage calm and inform the community that a not guilty verdict is likely.
To lessen the likelihood of civil unrest. Prepare the public. He doesn't have to come out and say she is going to be found not guilty of murder, he can say that the office did their best to convict her of the highest charge possible and we need to react with calm not matter what the verdict. He could be on the news all week discussing how hard it is to get murder convictions in this county (placing the communities safety before his own ego).
tysker said:She didnt just walk into the wrong apartment, she admittedly entered a dark apartment suspecting there was someone inside. Of course she's human but its reasonable to assume that a large number of humans dont even enter that apartment and engage.Bocephus said:3rd Generation Ag said:
Going to the wrong apartment is reasonable, NOT recognizing instantly that you are inside the wrong apartment to me is not.
And I live in a "cookie cutter" stacked building where every floor is the same floor plan but there are tons of differences as you walk down every hall. Decorations from the complex (each floor has different paintings, , door mats, door decorations. The minute you open the door, there is the distinctive smell of the home. It is like she turned all her senses of observation OFF totally.
I know you say she is off duty, but I though part of the training for police was to be super observant. That ability would not turn off when she signed off the clock.
I still dont get how she could have been oblivious.
Honestly, I think she should plead guilty if she is a decent person at all. She should feel the terrible weight of guilt and remorse.
I don't even understand how she could want to walk away unpunished
I get it. You don't understand how she could walk into the wrong apartment. Have you ever worked a 14 hour police shift and then carried all that stuff to your apartment? If you have not, then your opinion here is not very valid.
She is human. Our observation skills cannot be on 24 hours per day. That is physically impossible. Expecting police to be super human is expecting too much. She made a mistake. She is human. It happens.
If you made a mistake and someone was charging you with murder, in a county where people who beat their kids to death are not charged with murder, you would just plead guilty?
Very true. Would also like to point out that the DA is wrong that police are trained to look for cover and wait when they find a burglary suspect. They are trained to take the suspect into custody. You don't look for somewhere to hide and wait for SWAT while the suspect escapes.
uneedastraw said:
Nonsense! An opinion on is not valid because they didn't work for the police? , You are forgetting the other side of this equation. I've sat on my couch watching TV routinely throughout the years so your damn right I have an opinion that I should be safe from someone entering my unlocked door and killing me all because they chose to work overtime and had to carry their gear back to their home.
I'm sympathetic to both sides but you seem to be thinking that police officers are the only profession that has stressful circumstances to deal with. I'm this case, she caused every bit of stress that came her way that night due to her bad decisions.
You're completely missing my point. 3rd Gen keeps comparing this event to her own life experiences. She cannot understand how this is possible bc she knows the smells of her house etc. Has she ever participated in a warrant to apprehend multiple felons? Has she experienced the spike in adrenaline and corresponding "come down" from that event. If she has not, then she does not really have any life experience to compare this life event to.
As I have stated clearly multiple times, Guyger is responsible for her actions that night whether they were reasonable or unreasonable. Even if there is logical reasoning behind everything she did, she still has to pay the consequences for her actions.
Cuterebra said:What about cops, though? They understand that they are permitted to kill and they enjoy the blind support of a union, coworkers, government officials, etc.tysker said:
She didnt just walk into the wrong apartment, she admittedly entered a dark apartment suspecting there was someone inside. Of course she's human but its reasonable to assume that a large number of humans dont even enter that apartment and engage.
I think most cops would feel free to go in and engage, since they can just kill whomever they encounter.
I heard they take bets in detail on who will get the first kill of the day.
tysker said:I dont think that's fair at all but we should hold those we entrust to a higher standard of ethical behavior even when "off duty."Cuterebra said:What about cops, though? They understand that they are permitted to kill and they enjoy the blind support of a union, coworkers, government officials, etc.tysker said:
She didnt just walk into the wrong apartment, she admittedly entered a dark apartment suspecting there was someone inside. Of course she's human but its reasonable to assume that a large number of humans dont even enter that apartment and engage.
I think most cops would feel free to go in and engage, since they can just kill whomever they encounter.
There's a difference between a high standard and an impossible one. You can't treat lifelong criminals one way in the courts and then flip it around and go balls to the wall after an officer. So many think she has received special treatment when the exact opposite is true. If she wasn't an officer, DA would never have taken this to trial.
You can't honestly say that if a black man walked into a white woman's apartment and shot and killed her that the DA wouldn't have taken that case to trial.
I agree completely. From my completely nonlegal, no-experience in these matters perspective, I really think, if this was two random shumcks, this would have been pled as manslaughter and the shooter gets 7-10 or maybe 10-12 with chance for parole after 5 or 7. As I've said, this getting to trial in these circumstances does nothing to help the DPD and the public perception. It may wind up making things worse even if the outcome of the trial is proper.Bocephus said:tysker said:I dont think that's fair at all but we should hold those we entrust to a higher standard of ethical behavior even when "off duty."Cuterebra said:What about cops, though? They understand that they are permitted to kill and they enjoy the blind support of a union, coworkers, government officials, etc.tysker said:
She didnt just walk into the wrong apartment, she admittedly entered a dark apartment suspecting there was someone inside. Of course she's human but its reasonable to assume that a large number of humans dont even enter that apartment and engage.
I think most cops would feel free to go in and engage, since they can just kill whomever they encounter.
There's a difference between a high standard and an impossible one. You can't treat lifelong criminals one way in the courts and then flip it around and go balls to the wall after an officer. So many think she has received special treatment when the exact opposite is true. If she wasn't an officer, DA would never have taken this to trial.
If there's one thing I think we can all agree on, it's the complete idiocy of the general public. Reading comments on the various live-streams makes me wonder how most people manage to make it out of their front door every day without setting their house on fire. The amount of racism (coming from all directions), ignorance, and just sheer stupidity is astounding.
Makes you really nervous about your chances of getting a competent jury if you're ever wrongly accused of something. Please take your jury summons seriously! Don't skip out on your civic duty!
Makes you really nervous about your chances of getting a competent jury if you're ever wrongly accused of something. Please take your jury summons seriously! Don't skip out on your civic duty!
If I killed someone and knew they were just in their own apartment, yes I would plead guilty. I would take responsiblity for my actions. In fact I would be near suicial over it.
So we are to excuse her because she was tired after a long shift as a police officer, then not expect her to have the observational skills that go with her job?
We obviously have different value systems.
By the way, if she had been sitting in her apartment and HE walked in my mistake, surely she would give him a chance to walk OUT before shooting?
And since I have zero experience in the situation, show me your hands to me would mean to walk over and let you look at my hands.
I would understand hands up.
But not show me your hands. In my world as a teacher than means a student might have cheat notes written on his hands and I really mean show me your hands.
So we are to excuse her because she was tired after a long shift as a police officer, then not expect her to have the observational skills that go with her job?
We obviously have different value systems.
By the way, if she had been sitting in her apartment and HE walked in my mistake, surely she would give him a chance to walk OUT before shooting?
And since I have zero experience in the situation, show me your hands to me would mean to walk over and let you look at my hands.
I would understand hands up.
But not show me your hands. In my world as a teacher than means a student might have cheat notes written on his hands and I really mean show me your hands.
Kudos to all of you keeping it civil on this thread. Can't be said for forum 16. I should avoid that place but it's like watching animals at the zoo.
Such an easy thing to say on a message board when what you would or wouldn't hypothetically do doesn't matter at allQuote:
If I killed someone and knew they were just in their own apartment, yes I would plead guilty.
Personal values and the law don't always intertwine perfectly. One can feel remorseful to the core about making such a huge error, to the point of suicide, and be profoundly effected and 100% remorseful for the rest of their life, but that doesn't mean they have to plead guilty to murder and accept a long sentence when there is a component of the law that actually is on your side and is relevant to this situation (mistake of fact). I do judge a person's character by intent, and no part of me believes she intended to murder an innocent person that night.
She made a huge error, but to say that error should make her equal to real murderers that have the intent and murder in their heart because the result is the same is just wrong IMO.
She made a huge error, but to say that error should make her equal to real murderers that have the intent and murder in their heart because the result is the same is just wrong IMO.
I'm pretty sure I could listen and talk about this case for hours and hours. So many different viewpoints, tangents, and thoughts.
Sad and fascinating.
Sad and fascinating.
You want to see a real ****show, watch on wfaa's fb page & read the realtime comments.
edit: People on there still think they were in a relationship, her dog was in her apartment, she was under the influence of something - all things already addressed. I hope I'm never subject to a juries decision - people do not listen, have preconceived ideas, etc.
That said, I was recently on a murder trial jury and it was very stressful but we all paid attention & were able to talk things out rationally in the jury room to eventually get a conviction.
edit: People on there still think they were in a relationship, her dog was in her apartment, she was under the influence of something - all things already addressed. I hope I'm never subject to a juries decision - people do not listen, have preconceived ideas, etc.
That said, I was recently on a murder trial jury and it was very stressful but we all paid attention & were able to talk things out rationally in the jury room to eventually get a conviction.
nm. They're back at it.
3rd Generation Ag said:
If I killed someone and knew they were just in their own apartment, yes I would plead guilty. I would take responsiblity for my actions. In fact I would be near suicial over it.
So we are to excuse her because she was tired after a long shift as a police officer, then not expect her to have the observational skills that go with her job?
We obviously have different value systems.
By the way, if she had been sitting in her apartment and HE walked in my mistake, surely she would give him a chance to walk OUT before shooting?
And since I have zero experience in the situation, show me your hands to me would mean to walk over and let you look at my hands.
I would understand hands up.
But not show me your hands. In my world as a teacher than means a student might have cheat notes written on his hands and I really mean show me your hands.
This is complete ****ing bull*****
Couldn't agree more. Every time I get a summons, such a large part of me doesn't want to get picked because our lives are busy enough. But I always come back to this thought. It's so important. I've actually only served once, but it was sexual assault of a child. It was awful, but at the same time, I really did feel the sense of duty and, as strange as it may sound, gratification in being able to play a role for the community in the process. As lousy as that job was, we need competent people willing to do it.Quote:
Makes you really nervous about your chances of getting a competent jury if you're ever wrongly accused of something. Please take your jury summons seriously! Don't skip out on your civic duty!
Featured Stories
See All
58:55
18h ago
8.8k
Ask Liucci: Offseason begins with a busy portal window & more
by Billy Liucci
35:26
14h ago
1.8k
Reed Report: Recapping a 'culture building' week for Bucky Ball
by Luke Evangelist
11:13
17h ago
1.3k
Dominguez will get his first taste of Lone Star Showdown on Saturday
by Luke Evangelist
whoop1995
Completed my Texas A&M bowl game ticket collection - 1944 orange bowl
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
50