Amber Guyger Guilty of Murder

[AzogtheDefiler]

She did not know that at the time....she believed she was in her apartment and there was an intruder...thus it was reasonable for her to be in fear of her life.

She did not know the apartment was not hers until after she shot the guy and turned the lights on...it was very dark in the apartment...for some reason blacks like to keep it dark.

Even if it were her apartment, shooting some one who is not in the process of preparing to harm you with a weapon, can not be shot without it being murder.
A belief you may be at risk is not sufficient.
Risks have to be monitored until there is reasonable suspicion to believe you are about to be harmed.
A guy sitting on the couch with a bowl of ice cream is NOT a threat at all.
If she came home to a plumber eating ice cream on her couch, and she shot him, it would still be murder.
Being scared does NOT equal an actual threat to life.
You can not shoot just because you got scared.
She lied when she said he moved towards her, but even if he did, that would not justify shooting.

that’s the law in MA. Are you certain that’s the law in TX?

States do not have options that would violate basic inherent rights.
All law in a democratic republic are based on the same principles of inherent rights.
All laws can do is balance between the conflicting rights of multiple individuals.
So state legislators have little options in situations like this.
They are required to do the most then can to avoid needless loss of life like this.
Otherwise it is the legislators who would be breaking the law.
All states have a pretty strong set of legal doctrines that are intended to make you feel secure in your own home.
But this was not Amber's home, and she was the trespasser, so I doubt there is any state that would not rule against her.

You’re so long winded. In MA you have to make every attempt to escape prior to attacking a robber. In TX you may shoot if they put their toe on your property.

Neither of those is exactly right.
The extreme is that in some states you have to retreat if possible, while in other states you can stay to defend your property.
But no state requires you to abandon your home.
The disagreement between states is only over property outside the home, like your car.
And the trend is that you do or will have the right to protect property, with deadly force if necessary.

In MA, you do not have to abandon your home, and in TX you can not shoot someone on the porch who is not threatening.
The disparity is not nearly as large as you seem to think.

{...
The self-defense laws in Massachusetts include the castle doctrine, meaning that when defending yourself in your "dwelling," you aren't required to first try to retreat. But, in other circumstances, a person is required to retreat before using force.

It's important to note that under the law, dwelling is defined as a building that's a permanent or temporary residence, which means that tents, motor homes, and boats may not qualify as a dwelling where the doctrine would apply. It's also important to be aware that common areas of building - such as the hall of an apartment - doesn't fall under the castle doctrine. Finally, as with virtually all self-defense laws, the force used must be "reasonably necessary" under the circumstances and if deadly force is used, the person must have "reasonably and actually believe that they were in "immediate danger of great bodily harm or death."
...}
Massachusetts Self-Defense Laws - FindLaw

LOL I am a gun owner in MA. Yes you have to retreat and exit your home too. You argue just to argue.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Is that his mental malfunction? Weird because she ain't what I'd call pretty... Seems to me what we have here is a major bootlicker who gives police the benefit of the doubt even when they screw up royally. Or just a dumb racist and that's not a word I use lightly considering I'm pretty "racist" myself.

Lefties will use people like this guy to paint everyone on the right as an idiot.

He’s making a perfect IM2,or PE sock of himself in this matter that’s for sure...

Pick your battles wisely. the rhetoric about racist cops white terrorizing black people is blown completely out of proportion and fatigue can set in when street protests break out every time some good for nothing criminal gets whats coming to him... but this is not one of those cases. By all accounts, Botham Jean was one of the genuinely decent black men and even if he wasnt, that doesn't give this dumb **** the right to just kill him in his own apartment. That's the worst breach of American freedom. Giving state officials a pass to commit crimes is Un-American as all hell.

If you must politicize everything, this Guyger situation makes a good case against women being in law enforcement.

My thoughts exactly. Of all hills worth dying on; this sure as fuck isn't one of them. It's not even worth fighting for. This dumb broads ineptitude is an embarrassment to us all.

It is a tragedy for all concerned....embarassment? I do not think that is the correct term to refer to this case.

I am against women police because they are physically not strong enough to deal with a lot of criminals and thus are a burden to their partner who if in a physical altercation with a perp cannot depend on his partner for much help .....women simply are not strong enough for such situations.

Thus it is quite understandable Amber was in fear of her life...confronted with someone bigger and stronger.

I would not call her inept....this tragedy the result of her innocent trespassing and a unlocked front door thus a combination of mistakes....what are the odds that someone going to the wrong apartment finds one with a unlocked front door? I think Karma comes into play here.

Also we must remember that this mistake of going to the wrong apartment was quite common in that complex.....so whilst folks should always be more focused to avoid such mistakes....they do happen and in all areas of life. We all make mistakes....sometimes very big ones...it is just human to do so.

I think the apartment complex is more to blame than anyone for this tragedy...they knew about people in their complex getting confused and going to the wrong apartment but they took no action...they had inadequate signs up to prevent people from getting confused...when all the apartments look alike a easy mistake to make.

The serious error we see people make on here regarding this incident is basically to attack the law on self defense....most of them do not even know what the law on self defense or if they do ...they fail to comprehend it correctly.

Also it needs to be understood the state turned this into a racial matter....if the victim had been white there would have been no charges.

Completely wrong.
First of all, there was nothing to establish that the guy was bigger or stronger than Amber.
He was sitting down, never got up, and for all Amber knew, he could have been a paraplegic.
The coroner established he was shot while sitting on the couch, not approaching as Amber claimed.
Amber also had the options of retreating, taser, warning shot, aiming at extremities, etc.
The law on self defense is very clear, in that there has to be proof of a threat first.
No one has the right to harm others just because they are scared.
Being free from fear is not a right.
Being free from being shot and killed by Amber is a right.

That is just stuff the prosecution made up....their claim he was still sitting when shot was debunked.

A serial killer could have been sitting there eating ice cream...eating ice cream means nothing...completely irrelevant...it is idiotic to think anyone would have remained sitting and continues to eat ice cream when they see a police officer coming through their door.

Her testimony was correct she issued a lawful command...show me your hands...he refused and began to advance on her...thus a big tragedy.

Again you misinterpet the law on self defense....as in you disregard 'reasonable fear of one's life.' You could if ever in a situation where you are confronted with a threat gamble with your own life...but do not attempt to deny others the ability to defend their life.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Even if it were her apartment, shooting some one who is not in the process of preparing to harm you with a weapon, can not be shot without it being murder.
A belief you may be at risk is not sufficient.
Risks have to be monitored until there is reasonable suspicion to believe you are about to be harmed.
A guy sitting on the couch with a bowl of ice cream is NOT a threat at all.
If she came home to a plumber eating ice cream on her couch, and she shot him, it would still be murder.
Being scared does NOT equal an actual threat to life.
You can not shoot just because you got scared.
She lied when she said he moved towards her, but even if he did, that would not justify shooting.

that’s the law in MA. Are you certain that’s the law in TX?

States do not have options that would violate basic inherent rights.
All law in a democratic republic are based on the same principles of inherent rights.
All laws can do is balance between the conflicting rights of multiple individuals.
So state legislators have little options in situations like this.
They are required to do the most then can to avoid needless loss of life like this.
Otherwise it is the legislators who would be breaking the law.
All states have a pretty strong set of legal doctrines that are intended to make you feel secure in your own home.
But this was not Amber's home, and she was the trespasser, so I doubt there is any state that would not rule against her.

You’re so long winded. In MA you have to make every attempt to escape prior to attacking a robber. In TX you may shoot if they put their toe on your property.

Neither of those is exactly right.
The extreme is that in some states you have to retreat if possible, while in other states you can stay to defend your property.
But no state requires you to abandon your home.
The disagreement between states is only over property outside the home, like your car.
And the trend is that you do or will have the right to protect property, with deadly force if necessary.

In MA, you do not have to abandon your home, and in TX you can not shoot someone on the porch who is not threatening.
The disparity is not nearly as large as you seem to think.

{...
The self-defense laws in Massachusetts include the castle doctrine, meaning that when defending yourself in your "dwelling," you aren't required to first try to retreat. But, in other circumstances, a person is required to retreat before using force.

It's important to note that under the law, dwelling is defined as a building that's a permanent or temporary residence, which means that tents, motor homes, and boats may not qualify as a dwelling where the doctrine would apply. It's also important to be aware that common areas of building - such as the hall of an apartment - doesn't fall under the castle doctrine. Finally, as with virtually all self-defense laws, the force used must be "reasonably necessary" under the circumstances and if deadly force is used, the person must have "reasonably and actually believe that they were in "immediate danger of great bodily harm or death."
...}
Massachusetts Self-Defense Laws - FindLaw

LOL I am a gun owner in MA. Yes you have to retreat and exit your home too. You argue just to argue.

That is irrelevant...we are talking about a case in Texas.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

that’s the law in MA. Are you certain that’s the law in TX?

States do not have options that would violate basic inherent rights.
All law in a democratic republic are based on the same principles of inherent rights.
All laws can do is balance between the conflicting rights of multiple individuals.
So state legislators have little options in situations like this.
They are required to do the most then can to avoid needless loss of life like this.
Otherwise it is the legislators who would be breaking the law.
All states have a pretty strong set of legal doctrines that are intended to make you feel secure in your own home.
But this was not Amber's home, and she was the trespasser, so I doubt there is any state that would not rule against her.

You’re so long winded. In MA you have to make every attempt to escape prior to attacking a robber. In TX you may shoot if they put their toe on your property.

Neither of those is exactly right.
The extreme is that in some states you have to retreat if possible, while in other states you can stay to defend your property.
But no state requires you to abandon your home.
The disagreement between states is only over property outside the home, like your car.
And the trend is that you do or will have the right to protect property, with deadly force if necessary.

In MA, you do not have to abandon your home, and in TX you can not shoot someone on the porch who is not threatening.
The disparity is not nearly as large as you seem to think.

{...
The self-defense laws in Massachusetts include the castle doctrine, meaning that when defending yourself in your "dwelling," you aren't required to first try to retreat. But, in other circumstances, a person is required to retreat before using force.

It's important to note that under the law, dwelling is defined as a building that's a permanent or temporary residence, which means that tents, motor homes, and boats may not qualify as a dwelling where the doctrine would apply. It's also important to be aware that common areas of building - such as the hall of an apartment - doesn't fall under the castle doctrine. Finally, as with virtually all self-defense laws, the force used must be "reasonably necessary" under the circumstances and if deadly force is used, the person must have "reasonably and actually believe that they were in "immediate danger of great bodily harm or death."
...}
Massachusetts Self-Defense Laws - FindLaw

LOL I am a gun owner in MA. Yes you have to retreat and exit your home too. You argue just to argue.

That is irrelevant...we are talking about a case in Texas.

I agree. She thought he was the intruder. Hence I believe the verdict should have been manslaughter not murder.

 

[Augustine_]

She broke into someone's apartment and then murdered them. Seems pretty open and shut to me.

Ridiculous.....another moron spouts off knowing nothing of the case...all he has is a movie running in his head. Titled ...'police hunt down blacks to murder'

The door was open...all she did was walk in....to what she thought was her apartment.

Definition of murder................Legal Dictionary - Law.com

So the door was open, "all she did was walk in," then she murdered the resident of the apartment. Open and shut.

 

[Rigby5]

I know what happened...she pushed the door open and saw him eating her rock road...a killing offense if there ever was one.....

He probably had his feet on the couch as well.

 

[Common Sense Dude]

The bitch's murder charge was justified. Forget that she's a police officer, that she's white, that she's a woman, the victim was black, or any of that shit. It doesn't matter.

She went into the wrong apartment because she wasn't paying attention to where she was going. Walking and texting on a fucking cell phone caused her to be distracted, and she thought the guy was in her place when it was his apartment.

All because she was more concentrated on a fucking worthless phone than watching where she was going and obviously valued that worthless phone more than human life.

Stupid whore! I'm glad she was charged with murder.

 

[Rigby5]

So then with her police training, she should have not been afraid and felt no threat or danger, and instead should have asked him questions, to find out what was happening.

I really hope you are not so stupid.....police are human being they have human emotions like fear etc.

Anyone that goes into their apartment and it is dark and another presence is noted...most will then be fearful...facing an unknown presence and assuming he is most likely a burglar. Being a cop does not give one super man status. get real.

From your own link.
{...
murder

n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first degree murder. By statute, many states consider a killing in which there is torture, movement of the person before the killing (kidnapping) or the death of a police officer or prison guard, or it was as an incident to another crime (as during a hold-up or rape), to be first degree murder, with or without premeditation and with malice presumed. Second degree murder is such a killing without premeditation, as in the heat of passion or in a sudden quarrel or fight. Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life of others (such as firing a gun into a crowd or bashing someone with any deadly weapon).
...}

It says, "Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life of others (such as firing a gun into a crowd or bashing someone with any deadly weapon)."

This is supported by the fact she should have recognized the apt differences, she shot twice, and aimed at kill zones.

It was dark in the apartment...she did not know it was her apartment until she turned the lights on. Police are trained to shoot to kill...most defense courses teach the same thing...shoot twice at center mass...which is what she did...because she was in reasonable fear of her life.

If police are trained to kill illegally, that does not make them any less criminal, but simply makes the trainer complicit.
The goal of legal punishment is to protect society, and it does not matter what caused her to be a danger to society, she still has to be put away until it sinks in how wrong her actions were.

Darkness is no excuse.
She had a flashlight, knew where the switch was, and could have backed out the door.

Any defense course that teaches to shoot twice at the center of mass is illegal except in a battlefield in a state of declared war.

Utter nonsense....a danger to society?
The above post is one of the more ridiculous you will see on here and there have been a bunch of them.... claiming the police are trained to illegally ...what ridiculous biased claims we see on here.

I really do not know where such stupidity comes from other than a hatred of police. Blacks are well known for that....it would be interesting to know how many of these idiotic posts are made by blacks. I am sure some are but there are a lot of whites who are not much smarter.

Liar.
The standard of one shot was established by ALL the previous generations of police, and it is THEY who established that things like double taps by police are criminal.
And it is also obvious how police came to be illegally trained, because military personnel have taken over the police departments and their training.

Anyone who would shoot to kill when confronted with an unknown person who has not brandished a weapon, is a clear and present danger to society, and needs to be locked up.
Amber would have murdered a plumber, electrician, or any Black person who happened to be in her apartment legally when she got home.
That is criminally reckless.

Bullshitt....you want to do away with law on self defense because?

You then work your imagination over time and make suprious claims of what she might have done. Nonsense.

This belief you and many others have of an unarmed person not being a possible threat is contradicted by real life...people are strangled and beaten to death by unarmed perps. Just a sad reaility of life. A smaller weaker person is in much more danger from an unarmed perp...thus they are more prone to use a equalizer. Thus a woman in the situation of confronting an intruder in a dark apartment who refuses to follow commands is more likely to use lethal force...and it is certainly reasonable for them to do so.

The law on self defense only is invoked when there is an actual threat, not just the false assumption of a threat that is not real, and does not at all apply when the person is in the commission of a crime, such as illegally entering the apt of someone else.
Amber had no self defense application, at all.

Whether or not an unarmed person could somehow become a threat, is totally irrelevant.
The point is that B. Jean was NOT a threat in any way.
Amber had a number of alternative ways of dealing with a threat if one had come up.
She could have backed out the door, fired a warning shot, shot at extremities, etc.
But nothing came up because no threat ever happened.

 

[Rigby5]

States do not have options that would violate basic inherent rights.
All law in a democratic republic are based on the same principles of inherent rights.
All laws can do is balance between the conflicting rights of multiple individuals.
So state legislators have little options in situations like this.
They are required to do the most then can to avoid needless loss of life like this.
Otherwise it is the legislators who would be breaking the law.
All states have a pretty strong set of legal doctrines that are intended to make you feel secure in your own home.
But this was not Amber's home, and she was the trespasser, so I doubt there is any state that would not rule against her.

You’re so long winded. In MA you have to make every attempt to escape prior to attacking a robber. In TX you may shoot if they put their toe on your property.

Neither of those is exactly right.
The extreme is that in some states you have to retreat if possible, while in other states you can stay to defend your property.
But no state requires you to abandon your home.
The disagreement between states is only over property outside the home, like your car.
And the trend is that you do or will have the right to protect property, with deadly force if necessary.

In MA, you do not have to abandon your home, and in TX you can not shoot someone on the porch who is not threatening.
The disparity is not nearly as large as you seem to think.

{...
The self-defense laws in Massachusetts include the castle doctrine, meaning that when defending yourself in your "dwelling," you aren't required to first try to retreat. But, in other circumstances, a person is required to retreat before using force.

It's important to note that under the law, dwelling is defined as a building that's a permanent or temporary residence, which means that tents, motor homes, and boats may not qualify as a dwelling where the doctrine would apply. It's also important to be aware that common areas of building - such as the hall of an apartment - doesn't fall under the castle doctrine. Finally, as with virtually all self-defense laws, the force used must be "reasonably necessary" under the circumstances and if deadly force is used, the person must have "reasonably and actually believe that they were in "immediate danger of great bodily harm or death."
...}
Massachusetts Self-Defense Laws - FindLaw

LOL I am a gun owner in MA. Yes you have to retreat and exit your home too. You argue just to argue.

That is irrelevant...we are talking about a case in Texas.

I agree. She thought he was the intruder. Hence I believe the verdict should have been manslaughter not murder.

Whether or not she thought he was the intruder, she was mistaken and was the one who caused it to all happen, so then her mistake nullifies any aspect of self defense, castle doctrine, stand your ground, or anything else.
You don't get any legal rights when you are in the commission of a crime, even if the crime was not intentional.

Only if she had ensured it really was her apartment, and then she accidentally killed the plumber or electrician working on her apartment, then could she have been eligible for manslaughter instead of murder. But the double tap still would indicate murder to me.

 

[Rigby5]

Even if it were her apartment, shooting some one who is not in the process of preparing to harm you with a weapon, can not be shot without it being murder.
A belief you may be at risk is not sufficient.
Risks have to be monitored until there is reasonable suspicion to believe you are about to be harmed.
A guy sitting on the couch with a bowl of ice cream is NOT a threat at all.
If she came home to a plumber eating ice cream on her couch, and she shot him, it would still be murder.
Being scared does NOT equal an actual threat to life.
You can not shoot just because you got scared.
She lied when she said he moved towards her, but even if he did, that would not justify shooting.

that’s the law in MA. Are you certain that’s the law in TX?

States do not have options that would violate basic inherent rights.
All law in a democratic republic are based on the same principles of inherent rights.
All laws can do is balance between the conflicting rights of multiple individuals.
So state legislators have little options in situations like this.
They are required to do the most then can to avoid needless loss of life like this.
Otherwise it is the legislators who would be breaking the law.
All states have a pretty strong set of legal doctrines that are intended to make you feel secure in your own home.
But this was not Amber's home, and she was the trespasser, so I doubt there is any state that would not rule against her.

You’re so long winded. In MA you have to make every attempt to escape prior to attacking a robber. In TX you may shoot if they put their toe on your property.

Neither of those is exactly right.
The extreme is that in some states you have to retreat if possible, while in other states you can stay to defend your property.
But no state requires you to abandon your home.
The disagreement between states is only over property outside the home, like your car.
And the trend is that you do or will have the right to protect property, with deadly force if necessary.

In MA, you do not have to abandon your home, and in TX you can not shoot someone on the porch who is not threatening.
The disparity is not nearly as large as you seem to think.

{...
The self-defense laws in Massachusetts include the castle doctrine, meaning that when defending yourself in your "dwelling," you aren't required to first try to retreat. But, in other circumstances, a person is required to retreat before using force.

It's important to note that under the law, dwelling is defined as a building that's a permanent or temporary residence, which means that tents, motor homes, and boats may not qualify as a dwelling where the doctrine would apply. It's also important to be aware that common areas of building - such as the hall of an apartment - doesn't fall under the castle doctrine. Finally, as with virtually all self-defense laws, the force used must be "reasonably necessary" under the circumstances and if deadly force is used, the person must have "reasonably and actually believe that they were in "immediate danger of great bodily harm or death."
...}
Massachusetts Self-Defense Laws - FindLaw

LOL I am a gun owner in MA. Yes you have to retreat and exit your home too. You argue just to argue.

Wrong.
I just quoted you and linked FindLaw on MA, and it said the MA includes the "castle doctrine, meaning that when defending yourself in your 'dwelling,' you aren't required to first try to retreat."
There is not a state in the country that could require you to retreat from your house.
You need to talk to a lawyer, because you have this totally and completely wrong.
MA requires retreating if possible, everywhere EXCEPT your own home.

 

[MaryL]

Just as I predicted she would be:

Amber Guyger found guilty of murder at trial in fatal shooting of neighbor Botham Jean

Murder is defined as premeditated. A deliberate act of malice with forethought. This incident does not fit that definition. It was Manslaughter, an accident. That's it. This has become a political/racial issue, surpassing a judicial one. I think of blacks doing drive by shootings murdering little kids or grannies who's names are long forgotten like casualties of war as if they disposable, and then THIS....What was the name of the victim? Botham Jean.

 

[Rigby5]

Just as I predicted she would be:

Amber Guyger found guilty of murder at trial in fatal shooting of neighbor Botham Jean

Murder is defined as premeditated. A deliberate act of malice with forethought. This incident does not fit that definition. It was Manslaughter, an accident. That's it. This has become a political/racial issue, not a judicial one. I think of blacks doing drive bys shooting little kids or grannies, this is small potatoes.

NO!
This has been explained many times.
Extreme negligence can cause an act to be murder even without it being intentional or with malice.
Drunk driving accident deaths are often murder without any malice or intent.
There are also things that can elevate charges, and in this case Amber was in the commission of the crime of trespassing, while armed.
Which accelerates the charge.
When you are allowed to carry a gun by permit, you accept a higher standard for being careful about how you use that gun.
Simple mistakes then become crimes.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Did they ever present a motive?....I didn't really follow this trial...

She was in reasonable fear of her life and thus entitled to use lethal force.

You obviously know nothing about the law.

That ONLY applies if you are where you are legally allowed to be. You can't break into someone's apartment and then say you were in fear for your life. You were trespassing, breaking and entering. You can't claim self defense during the commission of a felony.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Just as I predicted she would be:

Amber Guyger found guilty of murder at trial in fatal shooting of neighbor Botham Jean

Murder is defined as premeditated. A deliberate act of malice with forethought. This incident does not fit that definition. It was Manslaughter, an accident. That's it. This has become a political/racial issue, surpassing a judicial one. I think of blacks doing drive by shootings murdering little kids or grannies who's names are long forgotten like casualties of war as if they disposable, and then THIS....What was the name of the victim? Botham Jean.

Wrong. Murder is the killing of one human being by another with intent to kill. She intended to kill him. She picked up her gun and pointed it at him and pulled the trigger twice. She had forethought if you want that. She had intent to kill. She openly admitted in court she meant to kill him.

Breaking into someone's elses apartment pointing a gun at them and shooting them with the intent to kill them is murder.

PERIOD.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

that’s the law in MA. Are you certain that’s the law in TX?

States do not have options that would violate basic inherent rights.
All law in a democratic republic are based on the same principles of inherent rights.
All laws can do is balance between the conflicting rights of multiple individuals.
So state legislators have little options in situations like this.
They are required to do the most then can to avoid needless loss of life like this.
Otherwise it is the legislators who would be breaking the law.
All states have a pretty strong set of legal doctrines that are intended to make you feel secure in your own home.
But this was not Amber's home, and she was the trespasser, so I doubt there is any state that would not rule against her.

You’re so long winded. In MA you have to make every attempt to escape prior to attacking a robber. In TX you may shoot if they put their toe on your property.

Neither of those is exactly right.
The extreme is that in some states you have to retreat if possible, while in other states you can stay to defend your property.
But no state requires you to abandon your home.
The disagreement between states is only over property outside the home, like your car.
And the trend is that you do or will have the right to protect property, with deadly force if necessary.

In MA, you do not have to abandon your home, and in TX you can not shoot someone on the porch who is not threatening.
The disparity is not nearly as large as you seem to think.

{...
The self-defense laws in Massachusetts include the castle doctrine, meaning that when defending yourself in your "dwelling," you aren't required to first try to retreat. But, in other circumstances, a person is required to retreat before using force.

It's important to note that under the law, dwelling is defined as a building that's a permanent or temporary residence, which means that tents, motor homes, and boats may not qualify as a dwelling where the doctrine would apply. It's also important to be aware that common areas of building - such as the hall of an apartment - doesn't fall under the castle doctrine. Finally, as with virtually all self-defense laws, the force used must be "reasonably necessary" under the circumstances and if deadly force is used, the person must have "reasonably and actually believe that they were in "immediate danger of great bodily harm or death."
...}
Massachusetts Self-Defense Laws - FindLaw

LOL I am a gun owner in MA. Yes you have to retreat and exit your home too. You argue just to argue.

Wrong.
I just quoted you and linked FindLaw on MA, and it said the MA includes the "castle doctrine, meaning that when defending yourself in your 'dwelling,' you aren't required to first try to retreat."
There is not a state in the country that could require you to retreat from your house.
You need to talk to a lawyer, because you have this totally and completely wrong.
MA requires retreating if possible, everywhere EXCEPT your own home.

you’re incorrect. I actually live here

 

[Issa]

The justice system is broken and some preach about how Americans are free...
Thos criminal went on to kill a man in his house with cold blood and she gets only 10 years ?

She was a innocent trespasser...the door to the apartment was open....she walked in thinking she was in her own apartment and immediately spotted a silhouette of a person...who she naturally thought was either a intruder or burglar....reasonable for her to believe that since she thought she was in her own apartment....she became very frightened...only natural....issued a order for the person to show his hands....he failed to comply...then she shot twice hitting him once.

A tragedy for all concerned but what she did was not murder....for murder to occurr there must be malice...she had no malice.

The most she should have been charged with would be negligent homicide.

This case is being appealed and should result in a new trial....otherwise it is a miscarriage of justice.

So she cant tell her house from a neighbour"s house? Sounds to me she is a danger to society...she deserves a death sentence for killing an innocent human in his house....intrusion, trespassing and premeditated killing ...she deserves the death penalty IMHO.

 

[Issa]

The justice system is broken and some preach about how Americans are free...
Thos criminal went on to kill a man in his house with cold blood and she gets only 10 years ?

She was a innocent trespasser...the door to the apartment was open....she walked in thinking she was in her own apartment and immediately spotted a silhouette of a person...who she naturally thought was either a intruder or burglar....reasonable for her to believe that since she thought she was in her own apartment....she became very frightened...only natural....issued a order for the person to show his hands....he failed to comply...then she shot twice hitting him once.

She was outrageously charged with murder...........the most she should have been charged with would be negligent homicide.

A tragedy for all concerned but what she did was not murder....for murder to occurr there must be malice...she had no malice.

The most she should have been charged with would be negligent homicide.

This case is being appealed and should result in a new trial....otherwise it is a miscarriage of justice.

The walked up to an apartment that did not have her number on the door. This apartment had a door mat which she didn't have, and she walked in and shot the owner of the apartment. It is inconceivable that she thought that this was her apartment. Did she not recognize this was not her furniture?

Her story makes no logical sense.

Try and keep up ....it has been shown over and over that in that complex lots of people get confused because all the apartments look alike....there have been around a hundred known instances in that complex where people have gotten someone elses apartment mixed up with their own.

Another factor in this case...the front door of the black guys apartment was ajar...as in not locked...as in when she tried to insert her key into the door...it swung open.

Anyone with any common sense whatsoever can see she made a honest mistake...as so many others have in that complex.

If the door had been locked or if the black guy had complied with her lawful order to show his hands....she would not have shot him.

I'm a 100% sure if it was the other way around you would ask for the harshest sentence....I have 0 doubt in my mind.

 

[22lcidw]

The justice system is broken and some preach about how Americans are free...
Thos criminal went on to kill a man in his house with cold blood and she gets only 10 years ?

She was a innocent trespasser...the door to the apartment was open....she walked in thinking she was in her own apartment and immediately spotted a silhouette of a person...who she naturally thought was either a intruder or burglar....reasonable for her to believe that since she thought she was in her own apartment....she became very frightened...only natural....issued a order for the person to show his hands....he failed to comply...then she shot twice hitting him once.

A tragedy for all concerned but what she did was not murder....for murder to occurr there must be malice...she had no malice.

The most she should have been charged with would be negligent homicide.

This case is being appealed and should result in a new trial....otherwise it is a miscarriage of justice.

So she cant tell her house from a neighbour"s house? Sounds to me she is a danger to society...she deserves a death sentence for killing an innocent human in his house....intrusion, trespassing and premeditated killing ...she deserves the death penalty IMHO.

Now now...…..the quotas, pc and diversity that is your gaian master and you so love may have helped her to get hired. Her politics be damned!

 

[Common Sense Dude]

The justice system is broken and some preach about how Americans are free...
Thos criminal went on to kill a man in his house with cold blood and she gets only 10 years ?

She was a innocent trespasser...the door to the apartment was open....she walked in thinking she was in her own apartment and immediately spotted a silhouette of a person...who she naturally thought was either a intruder or burglar....reasonable for her to believe that since she thought she was in her own apartment....she became very frightened...only natural....issued a order for the person to show his hands....he failed to comply...then she shot twice hitting him once.

A tragedy for all concerned but what she did was not murder....for murder to occurr there must be malice...she had no malice.

The most she should have been charged with would be negligent homicide.

This case is being appealed and should result in a new trial....otherwise it is a miscarriage of justice.

So she cant tell her house from a neighbour"s house? Sounds to me she is a danger to society...she deserves a death sentence for killing an innocent human in his house....intrusion, trespassing and premeditated killing ...she deserves the death penalty IMHO.

10 years in the pen is too light of a sentence for murder. I agree she should have gotten the death penalty, or life in prison at the very least.

If it were me I would have fried her sorry ass and smashed her fucking phone.

 

[airplanemechanic]

For those saying murder requires premeditation, she had that as well:

What is premeditated and deliberate conduct?

Premeditation requires that the defendant think out the act, no matter how quickly—it can be as simple deciding to pick up a hammer that is lying nearby and to use it as a weapon

So it was premeditated. She drew her gun and shot him. Same as picking up a hammer that's nearby.