Amber Guyger Guilty of Murder

[Rigby5]

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

Wrong.
Extreme negligence can also make it murder, such as a drunk driver.
And clearly there was malice because she shot twice, aiming at the "kill zone", using her own terminology.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Trespassers are not innocent.
Committing a crime does NOT require malicious intent.
When you let the parking meter run out, you can't beat the ticket by claiming it was unintentional.
When you commit a crime, it does not have to be intentional.
It just has to be negligent and harmful.

 

[impuretrash]

No matter her excuses, there must be accountability for entering someone's home and shooting them dead.

The most she should have been charged with would have been negligent homicide....definitely not murder.

Why should she get a slap on the wrist for killing a dude in his own home? I don't understand the logic here.

 

[Rigby5]

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

That is ridiculous, since if it were her apartment, the door would have been locked, and there would not have been a guy eating ice cream on his couch, not hers.
What if it had been her apartment, and a plumber had been called by the maintenance people?
If she had shot a plumber who was legally in her apartment, how would that not also have been murder?
She can not just claim to feel threatened, but actually has to have a valid reason to feel threatened, like by a weapon or something.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

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.

If she was in her apt, the castle doctrine might have applied.
In that situation, whether people shoot without adequate warning
varies case by case, because citizens are not required to follow
the same protocol as police are. So maybe we should change that
and require ALL citizens with firearms to be trained and screened.

That way, if Guyger or others don't follow police protocol, then
we have a set standard to judge against, and train people to follow.

The laws as they pertain to lethal force in self-defense apply across the board irrespective as to whether the shooter is a LEO or civilian.

And although Guyger was a police officer during the time that she shot & killed Botham Jean, she was not on duty therefore it was not a police shooting.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

No, she was criminally negligent to not notice things being different like the red door mat and the fact the door was unlocked. In fact, if she thought she was at her apartment, she would immediately have used the key and not tried to open it first.
In no way was she innocent.
An innocent trespass is when someone else is responsible, like pretending to be the owner and inviting you in.
If you are so inept as to not be able to recognize you are at the wrong apartment, you are not innocent.

 

[Rigby5]

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

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.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

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.

 

[Rigby5]

What was the motive?

Self defense....she had a rasonable belief her life was in danger.

What danger? There was no danger in the apartment.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

What was the motive?

Self defense....she had a rasonable belief her life was in danger.

What danger? There was no danger in the apartment.

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.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

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.

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.

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

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.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

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.

No, she was criminally negligent to not notice things being different like the red door mat and the fact the door was unlocked. In fact, if she thought she was at her apartment, she would immediately have used the key and not tried to open it first.
In no way was she innocent.
An innocent trespass is when someone else is responsible, like pretending to be the owner and inviting you in.
If you are so inept as to not be able to recognize you are at the wrong apartment, you are not innocent.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

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.

No, she was criminally negligent to not notice things being different like the red door mat and the fact the door was unlocked. In fact, if she thought she was at her apartment, she would immediately have used the key and not tried to open it first.
In no way was she innocent.
An innocent trespass is when someone else is responsible, like pretending to be the owner and inviting you in.
If you are so inept as to not be able to recognize you are at the wrong apartment, you are not innocent.

No ...none of that constitutes criminal negligence...she tried to insert her key and when she did the door opened...then things started happening very quickly...this is what a lot miss...how quickly things happened...she took a couple of steps inside noted a silohuette of someone...thinking it was an intruder or burglar she hollered show me your hands...he started yelling....heh...heh and advanced on her...she fired twice striking him once.

You do not know what innocent trespass is. Inncocent trespass is unkonwingly entering someone else's property, house or apartment.

Obviously you are not keeping up.....it has been shown many times that in that particular complex where all the apartments looked alike it was not un-common for that mistake to occur....in fact it is known it happened around a hundred times....probably more that are not known about...the complex is at fault for not putting up signs to avoid all the confusion.

Definition of innocent tresspasser from Black's Legal Dictionary........What is INNOCENT TRESPASSER? definition of INNOCENT TRESPASSER (Black's Law Dictionary)

 

[TheGreenHornet]

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.

Trespassers are not innocent.
Committing a crime does NOT require malicious intent.
When you let the parking meter run out, you can't beat the ticket by claiming it was unintentional.
When you commit a crime, it does not have to be intentional.
It just has to be negligent and harmful.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

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.

Trespassers are not innocent.
Committing a crime does NOT require malicious intent.
When you let the parking meter run out, you can't beat the ticket by claiming it was unintentional.
When you commit a crime, it does not have to be intentional.
It just has to be negligent and harmful.

You ignorance of the law is appalling....the definition of innocent trespasser from black's legal dictionary has been posted....try an keep up if you insist on posting on this thread.

You must be a negro. If you are white you are a disgrace to our race.

What is INNOCENT TRESPASSER? definition of INNOCENT TRESPASSER (Black's Law Dictionary)

Legal Dictionary - Law.com

Next........hopefully someone with some knowledge of the law, the facts of the case and some common sense also.

 

[CWayne]

Railroaded.

Scapegoat for hands up don't shoot.

Yes and No.
She was prevented from getting off easy due to the heightened publicity surrounding this case of a death caused by a race based reaction to Botham as a BLACK male figure.

But instead of "reckless homicide" which seems to be more accurate, this was pushed as a "Murder" when there was no such intent proven.

"Reckless homicide is a crime in which the perpetrator was aware that their act (or failure to act when there is a legal duty to act) creates significant risk of death or grievous bodily harm in the victim, but ignores the risk and continues to act (or fail to act), and a human death results."

Guyger was sex-texting plans to hookup illicitly with a married police partner, which might explain her distraction and shows she acted with reckless disregard for saving Botham after the shooting.

She had no intent of killing Botham, but made a deadly mistake because she was doing the wrong thing with a fellow officer knowing this would cost them both their jobs, careers and reputations.

That's not intent to kill Botham, but acting with reckless disregard for him and his life while scrambling to deal with her problems she got into herself. That's not murder, but in order to punish her for her culpability, it was raised to that level of charges instead of going with reckless homicide which would still not appease the family and public aggrieved over this injustice. There should have been counseling to help the family and public to understand why this is reckless homicide and not murder. So they wouldn't need murder charges to feel that the wrong was acknowledged and punished. It was wrong and it cost a man his life, but by reckless homicide because she had no intent.

This makes sense. Murder is defined as the unlawful, PREMEDITATED, killing of another human being.

I always thought that there was no premeditation to this and though I haven't been following the trail, I have yet to hear how she planned this, which is what would constitute premeditation.

 

[Vastator]

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.

Do you even realize what such a paltry standard for use of force would result in applied equally? As all laws in our country should be... Can you imagine how many people would walk after gunning down cops?
"He approached me with a gun out of its holster... I was afeared for my life..."

 

[Vastator]

No matter her excuses, there must be accountability for entering someone's home and shooting them dead.

The most she should have been charged with would have been negligent homicide....definitely not murder.

Why should she get a slap on the wrist for killing a dude in his own home? I don't understand the logic here.

Because he cannot see past the length of his own pecker to notice that this stupid bitch is a disgrace. A disgrace to gun owners, a disgrace to women, and a disgrace, to the "profession" of law enforcement, and cumulatively a disgrace to whites. For he is too busy "White Knighting" for a piece of ass he'll never even get a sniff of.
If he had any vision, he would catapult this dumb bitch over the wall like a flaming bag of shit, thankful to be rid of her, lest her disgrace reflect poorly on him, or his people. But instead he's thinking with the head on the end of his pecker, rather than the one on top of his neck. Simple as that....

 

[SavannahMann]

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.

Trespassers are not innocent.
Committing a crime does NOT require malicious intent.
When you let the parking meter run out, you can't beat the ticket by claiming it was unintentional.
When you commit a crime, it does not have to be intentional.
It just has to be negligent and harmful.

You ignorance of the law is appalling....the definition of innocent trespasser from black's legal dictionary has been posted....try an keep up if you insist on posting on this thread.

You must be a negro. If you are white you are a disgrace to our race.

What is INNOCENT TRESPASSER? definition of INNOCENT TRESPASSER (Black's Law Dictionary)

Legal Dictionary - Law.com

Next........hopefully someone with some knowledge of the law, the facts of the case and some common sense also.

Innocent Trespasser? Nonsense. If your asinine definitions were accepted, then every crime would be written off with the defendant swearing it was an innocent mistake.

“You entered the house.”

It was an innocent mistake. I thought it was my house.

“You raped the woman who lived there.”

I thought that it was my wife, I had no idea it wasn’t it was an innocent mistake.

“Then you killed her.”

I swear I thought she was an intruder, I was defending my life.

What a crock of shit. What an absolute disgrace. When people ask me why I don’t even consider the crap about White’s being superior, or better, or whatever, I just point at a nutter like this and ask if they need more reason.

 

[impuretrash]

No matter her excuses, there must be accountability for entering someone's home and shooting them dead.

The most she should have been charged with would have been negligent homicide....definitely not murder.

Why should she get a slap on the wrist for killing a dude in his own home? I don't understand the logic here.

Because he cannot see past the length of his own pecker to notice that this stupid bitch is a disgrace. A disgrace to gun owners, a disgrace to women, and a disgrace, to the "profession" of law enforcement, and cumulatively a disgrace to whites. For he is too busy "White Knighting" for a piece of ass he'll never even get a sniff of.
If he had any vision, he would catapult this dumb bitch over the wall like a flaming bag of shit, thankful to be rid of her, lest her disgrace reflect poorly on him, or his people. But instead he's thinking with the head on the end of his pecker, rather than the one on top of his neck. Simple as that....

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.