Amber Guyger Guilty of Murder

Take away police in our country now while it’s filled with negroes, Latinos, and other third world trash, and it will become a war zone overnight.

Horse shit.

Blacks and Latinos make fine citizens, unlike racists.

But at 61 years of age, I don't have time to waste on knuckle heads.

Welcome to my ignore list, dude.

gees what a ignorant dummie........blacks though a minority committ over half of all rape in America as well as all other types of violent crime.

Blacks have made a sport of raping white women for decades because they know a lot of them do not want it known they were raped by a nigah and thus will not report it and even if they do the odds are they will get away with it.
 
Take away police in our country now while it’s filled with negroes, Latinos, and other third world trash, and it will become a war zone overnight.

Horse shit.

Blacks and Latinos make fine citizens, unlike racists.

But at 61 years of age, I don't have time to waste on knuckle heads.

Welcome to my ignore list, dude.

gees what a ignorant dummie........blacks though a minority committ over half of all rape in America as well as all other types of violent crime.

Blacks have made a sport of raping white women for decades because they know a lot of them do not want it known they were raped by a nigah and thus will not report it and even if they do the odds are they will get away with it.

BTW all of our founding fathers were racist and even Abe Lincoln was a white sumprmacist.
 
Also found out:
the reason she got the murder conviction - when asked about applying her training to shoot,
she did answer that she shot in the areas that would kill (I think the head and chest area)
so they got her to admit on the stand that she shot to kill, and that's how they got murder out of what she said.
Never say you shoot a kill area.

Shoot center of body and insist that your only goal was to stop the predator.

Anything else is putting your own damned head in the noose.

As to this woman, she couldn't tell the difference between her white female run and owned home from a black male owned home?

She should have never been a cop.

I think there was a love interest and she was frustrated somehow.

She made the same mistake a lot of innocent people make....talked too much

One should never say anything to the police other than I want a lawyer...otherwise they will twist your words and use them against you in a court of law.
 
So who here was a juror who listened to all the testimony and saw all the evidence?

Probably nobody.
 
Also found out:
the reason she got the murder conviction - when asked about applying her training to shoot,
she did answer that she shot in the areas that would kill (I think the head and chest area)
so they got her to admit on the stand that she shot to kill, and that's how they got murder out of what she said.

This is still taken out of the context that she THOUGHT she was in her own apt.
so it wasn't the same as KNOWING she was in someone else's apt and shooting to kill.

That's a gray area and not the same context, but given the pressure to answer for this injustice
in a way commensurate with the suffering caused, that's the best they could do. She might win on appeal
if they ask for reckless homicide, but would have to answer to the need for meaningful correction
or restitution that is proportional to the grievances caused instead of trying to use "murder" charges to compensate.
setting up a community outreach program to help prevent these problems
might compensate better for the pain and prejudice stirred by this case, and not require a murder charge to feel vindicated.

There is some other factor here, so that could addressed in more constructive ways
instead of turning a reckless homicide into murder to try to make a statement that way.

Bottom line, she had no reason to shoot. None. Even if it had been her apartment, she had no reason to shoot. She was armed, he was not.


Kinda scary how many stoopids there are on this board and especially this thread....obviously America has been dumbed down.

Also amazing how many have no idea what the law on self defense is.

Let me break out the color crayons for this moron....but even with that...you can lead a jackass to water but you cant make him drink......anyhow..............ok.....here goes---what would you do if you walked into your darkened house or apartment and you saw a stranger, intruder or burglar in your house and say you were a police officer in uniform with a pistol on your hip?

Say you hollered for him to show his hands but he refused and instead advanced on you.

Say you decided not to shoot....but since the intruder was advancing on you....he got close enough to tackle you and take your weapon away from you

Say he then shot you with your own weapon....not like this has never happened before. Again....what would you do?

Recognizing of course you have the benefit of hindsight which she did not.
 
Last edited:
But instead of "reckless homicide" which seems to be more accurate, this was pushed as a "Murder" when there was no such intent proven.

Wrong. You obviously didn't watch the trail. I watched the prosecutor ask her on the stand "As a cop you are trained to shoot to kill correct?" Her: "Correct." Prosecutor: "Then when you aimed your gun at Mr so and so and shot him twice in the chest you intended to kill him, correct?" Her: "Correct."

She intended to kill him. It was murder.
 
So who here was a juror who listened to all the testimony and saw all the evidence?

Probably nobody.

Not even to mention they will not bother to try to find out the facts of the case...just come on here and start in with their opinion what they would have done etc. when it was not their life on the line.
 
But instead of "reckless homicide" which seems to be more accurate, this was pushed as a "Murder" when there was no such intent proven.

Wrong. You obviously didn't watch the trail. I watched the prosecutor ask her on the stand "As a cop you are trained to shoot to kill correct?" Her: "Correct." Prosecutor: "Then when you aimed your gun at Mr so and so and shot him twice in the chest you intended to kill him, correct?" Her: "Correct."

She intended to kill him. It was murder.

Ridiculous.....murder is a legal term of which you do not know the definition of even though it has been posted on here. hint: for murder malice is required.

The prosecutor was being disingenous....attempting to mislead the jury and obviouosly he suceeded.....also she shot twice but only him him once.


Study up and get back with us....scroll up to where the defintion of murder has been posted.

Legal Dictionary - Law.com

Not even to mention under the law of self defense one is entitled to use deadly force if you are in reasonable fear of your life or of great bodily harm.
 
Last edited:
A just verdict.

bwaaaaaaaaaaaa nonsense. The most she should have been charged with would be negligent homicide. What she did does not fit the defintion of murder by any stretch of the imagination.....anyhow what they really found her guilty of was white cop shoots unarmed black...that is it in a nutshell. Get real.
 
Did they ever present a motive?....I didn't really follow this trial...

The only thing I do not know is motive. However, under the law motive is not an essential element of proving the crime of murder. She may have gone to his apartment to tell him to keep things quite so she would not be disturbed. Guyger had just gotten off a 15-hour shift and needed to get to sleep. In the past, she had made a complaint against Jean for making noise and disturbing her sleep (this information is somewhere in the links provided below). He may have said something that in her very exhausted state put her over the edge. The fact that Guyger had filed noise complaints against Jean before is contained somewhere in the following link:

Grand jury hears evidence in Dallas police officer shooting of black neighbor

Irrelevant...all the evidence indicates she was a innocent trespasser.
 
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
 
If she were so scared, she could have retreated.

If I walked into my apartment and realized someone foreign was inside, the absolute only thing I would want to do is go back outside lickety-split.

Would you have called the police....wait....she was the police...no need to call herself...she was there already.
 
Is there any reason to believe she went to his apartment with intent to murder him? If not, this will be reduced on appeal.

Exactlly ....she had no malice....for murder to exist there must be malice.....now most of the ignorants on here probably do not even know what malice means....hint 'evil intention'
 
Keeping the racial issue going by claiming she is a victim doesn't do anybody any good. She shot and killed a innocent guy who thought he was safe in his own apartment. It wasn't racially motivated but she is surely guilty of murder. I'm surprised the prosecutor didn't offer her a deal on manslaughter or something like negligent homicide. Maybe he did and she refused to take it.

It was not murder.
For murder to exist there must be malice.............Legal Dictionary - Law.com




I
 
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.

No she was not.
First of all he was sitting down on the couch according to the coroner, with a bowl of ice cream in one hand, and a spoon in the other.
He was not coming at her, she lied.

But no matter what he did or if he even pointed a gun at her, she was NOT in a reasonable fear for her life because she was in the wrong apartment, and it is NOT at all reasonable to do that.
No reasonable person goes into the wrong apartment.
And when you so, then the owner of the apartment has the right to shoot you, not that you can shoot them.
What you suggest is totally unreasonable.

No one is entitled to use lethal force when they are committing a crime, and entering someone elses' apartment without permission, is a crime.
 

Forum List

Back
Top