Racist Black Judge Railroading Amber Guyger

[Jitss617]

So it was a mistrial? Huh

No, it wasn’t

The judge sequestered the jury instead of declaring a mistrial

What does sequestering the jury and mistrial have to do with each other?

You are trolling again

I’m not going to rehash the whole trial for you. Go back and read about the motion for mistrial

It is a mistrial this judge mishandled the procedure .

Your opinion

Yes it is

 

[Grumblenuts]

"It is a mistrial this judge mishandled the procedure ."
"Your opinion"

Yes it is

Why are you fabricating things that didn’t happen ??

Oops!

 

[Jitss617]

"It is a mistrial this judge mishandled the procedure ."
"Your opinion"

Yes it is

Why are you fabricating things that didn’t happen ??

Oops!

It’s actually not an opinion we all have a right to a fair trial

 

[Grumblenuts]

Mistake! Leave me alone! I made a mistake! {boo hoo hoo }

 

[Jitss617]

Mistake! Leave me alone! I made a mistake! {boo hoo hoo }

Are blacks and whites equal in your eyes?

 

[Grumblenuts]

"Yes it is "
"It’s actually not"

Oopsies!

we all have a right to a fair trial

How about to eat ice cream in our living rooms without being murdered?

 

[Jitss617]

"Yes it is "
"It’s actually not"

Oopsies!

we all have a right to a fair trial

How about to eat ice cream in our living rooms without being murdered?

Why do you fabricate what happened ..are you saying he say there ate ice cream and took bullets? Lol why do you lie?

 

[bodecea]

Disgraceful. Appeal.

When you kill someone in the commission of a crime, it's automatically murder.

That makes no sense

She entered the apartment illegally. Then she shot the guy. She killed him during the illegal entry, which automatically ups this to 2nd degree murder.

So she meant to do it? Lol you don’t know the law

You need to learn the definition of second degree murder:

Second degree murder is a criminal law term that describes the killing of another human being without premeditation, but with intent. Second degree murder may also refer to a death caused by an individual’s negligent or reckless conduct.

Second Degree Murder

Second degree murder doesn't require premeditation. It does include negligence or reckless conduct which pretty much is what that woman did.

And she admitted on the stand that she shot to kill. That sunk her.

 

[captkaos]

It's speculation on my part since I wasn't there but in my opinion I do believe that she did accidentally enter his apartment. However, her mistake resulted in the terrible death of an innocent person who was simply inside of their own home. She made a mistake, but her mistake did in fact create pain and suffering. I don't believe that putting her in prison for the rest of her life is the answer though. I personally believe that she should acknowledge the result of her mistake in an honest way and then dedicate the rest of her life to helping the family of the man who passed, reinforcing his memory, and work with the surrounding community to honor him and other innocent lives.

The fact is she killed an "innocent man" ! And was convicted of murder by a "jury of her peers", whatever that means! I don't believe the jury system insures fairness, when the prosecutor and defense can have jurors "preemptively". If a person is selected for jury duty and appears to serve a blind selection should be held. Put the names in a box and select them 1 at a time. I watched jury selection in a case where a man was accused of "damaging flowers at a cemetery site" by removing them and throwing them in the trash. There were 5 men in the jury pool of 18. The Prosecutor was able to have all but one removed preemptively. The 5th was an elderly man who had poor hearing the judge excused him. The complainant went on the stand and cried and sobbed for 30 minutes. All the evidence was a video of the man removing the flowers to a trash receptacle and sitting quietly at a gravesite then walking away, he was the interred mans son. The complainant was another relative. The man was convicted of "Criminal damaging" by an all white female jury, and sentenced to 6 mos. in jail. The system needs change. The right to confront and cross examine an accuser can be done without ever bringing people into court where they also have to confront a potentially hostile jury. Sequester jury's and never identify the race or gender of the Accused or the Accuser to them. That way they can base their decision solely on the facts presented and not human emotion or deep seated resentment of another race or gender. We have a problem with racism in the court system. Instead of selecting a jury that will weigh the facts. Prosecutors cherry pick for a jury that will convict based on the thinnest of evidence.

 

[Jitss617]

When you kill someone in the commission of a crime, it's automatically murder.

That makes no sense

She entered the apartment illegally. Then she shot the guy. She killed him during the illegal entry, which automatically ups this to 2nd degree murder.

So she meant to do it? Lol you don’t know the law

You need to learn the definition of second degree murder:

Second degree murder is a criminal law term that describes the killing of another human being without premeditation, but with intent. Second degree murder may also refer to a death caused by an individual’s negligent or reckless conduct.

Second Degree Murder

Second degree murder doesn't require premeditation. It does include negligence or reckless conduct which pretty much is what that woman did.

And she admitted on the stand that she shot to kill. That sunk her.

Well wouldn’t she?

 

[pknopp]

It's speculation on my part since I wasn't there but in my opinion I do believe that she did accidentally enter his apartment. However, her mistake resulted in the terrible death of an innocent person who was simply inside of their own home. She made a mistake, but her mistake did in fact create pain and suffering. I don't believe that putting her in prison for the rest of her life is the answer though. I personally believe that she should acknowledge the result of her mistake in an honest way and then dedicate the rest of her life to helping the family of the man who passed, reinforcing his memory, and work with the surrounding community to honor him and other innocent lives.

The fact is she killed an "innocent man" ! And was convicted of murder by a "jury of her peers", whatever that means! I don't believe the jury system insures fairness, when the prosecutor and defense can have jurors "preemptively". If a person is selected for jury duty and appears to serve a blind selection should be held. Put the names in a box and select them 1 at a time. I watched jury selection in a case where a man was accused of "damaging flowers at a cemetery site" by removing them and throwing them in the trash. There were 5 men in the jury pool of 18. The Prosecutor was able to have all but one removed preemptively. The 5th was an elderly man who had poor hearing the judge excused him. The complainant went on the stand and cried and sobbed for 30 minutes. All the evidence was a video of the man removing the flowers to a trash receptacle and sitting quietly at a gravesite then walking away, he was the interred mans son. The complainant was another relative. The man was convicted of "Criminal damaging" by an all white female jury, and sentenced to 6 mos. in jail. The system needs change. The right to confront and cross examine an accuser can be done without ever bringing people into court where they also have to confront a potentially hostile jury. Sequester jury's and never identify the race or gender of the Accused or the Accuser to them. That way they can base their decision solely on the facts presented and not human emotion or deep seated resentment of another race or gender. We have a problem with racism in the court system. Instead of selecting a jury that will weigh the facts. Prosecutors cherry pick for a jury that will convict based on the thinnest of evidence.

For another topic but I agree. There are obvious examples of why a person should not be on a jury, such as the defendant is your brother but in general it should be a random thing.

 

[Grumblenuts]

There are obvious examples of why a person should not be on a jury, such as the defendant is your brother but in general it should be a random thing.

Nothing human is perfect, but the system has developed over time with that purpose always in mind. In any case, it is a fair system in that both have equal chance to "preselect" the jurors.

 

[rightwinger]

It's speculation on my part since I wasn't there but in my opinion I do believe that she did accidentally enter his apartment. However, her mistake resulted in the terrible death of an innocent person who was simply inside of their own home. She made a mistake, but her mistake did in fact create pain and suffering. I don't believe that putting her in prison for the rest of her life is the answer though. I personally believe that she should acknowledge the result of her mistake in an honest way and then dedicate the rest of her life to helping the family of the man who passed, reinforcing his memory, and work with the surrounding community to honor him and other innocent lives.

The fact is she killed an "innocent man" ! And was convicted of murder by a "jury of her peers", whatever that means! I don't believe the jury system insures fairness, when the prosecutor and defense can have jurors "preemptively". If a person is selected for jury duty and appears to serve a blind selection should be held. Put the names in a box and select them 1 at a time. I watched jury selection in a case where a man was accused of "damaging flowers at a cemetery site" by removing them and throwing them in the trash. There were 5 men in the jury pool of 18. The Prosecutor was able to have all but one removed preemptively. The 5th was an elderly man who had poor hearing the judge excused him. The complainant went on the stand and cried and sobbed for 30 minutes. All the evidence was a video of the man removing the flowers to a trash receptacle and sitting quietly at a gravesite then walking away, he was the interred mans son. The complainant was another relative. The man was convicted of "Criminal damaging" by an all white female jury, and sentenced to 6 mos. in jail. The system needs change. The right to confront and cross examine an accuser can be done without ever bringing people into court where they also have to confront a potentially hostile jury. Sequester jury's and never identify the race or gender of the Accused or the Accuser to them. That way they can base their decision solely on the facts presented and not human emotion or deep seated resentment of another race or gender. We have a problem with racism in the court system. Instead of selecting a jury that will weigh the facts. Prosecutors cherry pick for a jury that will convict based on the thinnest of evidence.

Each side has a limited number of preemptive challenges. Some jurors have things in their past that prevent them from being impartial. I had jury duty last summer and some of the dismissed jurors were just freaking stupid or assholes

 

[pknopp]

It's speculation on my part since I wasn't there but in my opinion I do believe that she did accidentally enter his apartment. However, her mistake resulted in the terrible death of an innocent person who was simply inside of their own home. She made a mistake, but her mistake did in fact create pain and suffering. I don't believe that putting her in prison for the rest of her life is the answer though. I personally believe that she should acknowledge the result of her mistake in an honest way and then dedicate the rest of her life to helping the family of the man who passed, reinforcing his memory, and work with the surrounding community to honor him and other innocent lives.

The fact is she killed an "innocent man" ! And was convicted of murder by a "jury of her peers", whatever that means! I don't believe the jury system insures fairness, when the prosecutor and defense can have jurors "preemptively". If a person is selected for jury duty and appears to serve a blind selection should be held. Put the names in a box and select them 1 at a time. I watched jury selection in a case where a man was accused of "damaging flowers at a cemetery site" by removing them and throwing them in the trash. There were 5 men in the jury pool of 18. The Prosecutor was able to have all but one removed preemptively. The 5th was an elderly man who had poor hearing the judge excused him. The complainant went on the stand and cried and sobbed for 30 minutes. All the evidence was a video of the man removing the flowers to a trash receptacle and sitting quietly at a gravesite then walking away, he was the interred mans son. The complainant was another relative. The man was convicted of "Criminal damaging" by an all white female jury, and sentenced to 6 mos. in jail. The system needs change. The right to confront and cross examine an accuser can be done without ever bringing people into court where they also have to confront a potentially hostile jury. Sequester jury's and never identify the race or gender of the Accused or the Accuser to them. That way they can base their decision solely on the facts presented and not human emotion or deep seated resentment of another race or gender. We have a problem with racism in the court system. Instead of selecting a jury that will weigh the facts. Prosecutors cherry pick for a jury that will convict based on the thinnest of evidence.

Each side has a limited number of preemptive challenges. Some jurors have things in their past that prevent them from being impartial. I had jury duty last summer and some of the dismissed jurors were just freaking stupid or assholes

You are asked basic questions before you ever get to the selection process. One question is whether you believe you can fairly rule on the law.

I was called in for a murder case. They asked me all of these questions concerning what I thought on guns. Irrelevant. I can have views on something but still make a decision based upon the law.

 

[rightwinger]

It's speculation on my part since I wasn't there but in my opinion I do believe that she did accidentally enter his apartment. However, her mistake resulted in the terrible death of an innocent person who was simply inside of their own home. She made a mistake, but her mistake did in fact create pain and suffering. I don't believe that putting her in prison for the rest of her life is the answer though. I personally believe that she should acknowledge the result of her mistake in an honest way and then dedicate the rest of her life to helping the family of the man who passed, reinforcing his memory, and work with the surrounding community to honor him and other innocent lives.

The fact is she killed an "innocent man" ! And was convicted of murder by a "jury of her peers", whatever that means! I don't believe the jury system insures fairness, when the prosecutor and defense can have jurors "preemptively". If a person is selected for jury duty and appears to serve a blind selection should be held. Put the names in a box and select them 1 at a time. I watched jury selection in a case where a man was accused of "damaging flowers at a cemetery site" by removing them and throwing them in the trash. There were 5 men in the jury pool of 18. The Prosecutor was able to have all but one removed preemptively. The 5th was an elderly man who had poor hearing the judge excused him. The complainant went on the stand and cried and sobbed for 30 minutes. All the evidence was a video of the man removing the flowers to a trash receptacle and sitting quietly at a gravesite then walking away, he was the interred mans son. The complainant was another relative. The man was convicted of "Criminal damaging" by an all white female jury, and sentenced to 6 mos. in jail. The system needs change. The right to confront and cross examine an accuser can be done without ever bringing people into court where they also have to confront a potentially hostile jury. Sequester jury's and never identify the race or gender of the Accused or the Accuser to them. That way they can base their decision solely on the facts presented and not human emotion or deep seated resentment of another race or gender. We have a problem with racism in the court system. Instead of selecting a jury that will weigh the facts. Prosecutors cherry pick for a jury that will convict based on the thinnest of evidence.

Each side has a limited number of preemptive challenges. Some jurors have things in their past that prevent them from being impartial. I had jury duty last summer and some of the dismissed jurors were just freaking stupid or assholes

You are asked basic questions before you ever get to the selection process. One question is whether you believe you can fairly rule on the law.

I was called in for a murder case. They asked me all of these questions concerning what I thought on guns. Irrelevant. I can have views on something but still make a decision based upon the law.

There is a difference between you thinking you are impartial and a prosecutor or defense attorney believing you are impartial

They usually take the side of caution and dismiss you if there is any indication of partiality

 

[pknopp]

It's speculation on my part since I wasn't there but in my opinion I do believe that she did accidentally enter his apartment. However, her mistake resulted in the terrible death of an innocent person who was simply inside of their own home. She made a mistake, but her mistake did in fact create pain and suffering. I don't believe that putting her in prison for the rest of her life is the answer though. I personally believe that she should acknowledge the result of her mistake in an honest way and then dedicate the rest of her life to helping the family of the man who passed, reinforcing his memory, and work with the surrounding community to honor him and other innocent lives.

The fact is she killed an "innocent man" ! And was convicted of murder by a "jury of her peers", whatever that means! I don't believe the jury system insures fairness, when the prosecutor and defense can have jurors "preemptively". If a person is selected for jury duty and appears to serve a blind selection should be held. Put the names in a box and select them 1 at a time. I watched jury selection in a case where a man was accused of "damaging flowers at a cemetery site" by removing them and throwing them in the trash. There were 5 men in the jury pool of 18. The Prosecutor was able to have all but one removed preemptively. The 5th was an elderly man who had poor hearing the judge excused him. The complainant went on the stand and cried and sobbed for 30 minutes. All the evidence was a video of the man removing the flowers to a trash receptacle and sitting quietly at a gravesite then walking away, he was the interred mans son. The complainant was another relative. The man was convicted of "Criminal damaging" by an all white female jury, and sentenced to 6 mos. in jail. The system needs change. The right to confront and cross examine an accuser can be done without ever bringing people into court where they also have to confront a potentially hostile jury. Sequester jury's and never identify the race or gender of the Accused or the Accuser to them. That way they can base their decision solely on the facts presented and not human emotion or deep seated resentment of another race or gender. We have a problem with racism in the court system. Instead of selecting a jury that will weigh the facts. Prosecutors cherry pick for a jury that will convict based on the thinnest of evidence.

Each side has a limited number of preemptive challenges. Some jurors have things in their past that prevent them from being impartial. I had jury duty last summer and some of the dismissed jurors were just freaking stupid or assholes

You are asked basic questions before you ever get to the selection process. One question is whether you believe you can fairly rule on the law.

I was called in for a murder case. They asked me all of these questions concerning what I thought on guns. Irrelevant. I can have views on something but still make a decision based upon the law.

There is a difference between you thinking you are impartial and a prosecutor or defense attorney believing you are impartial

They usually take the side of caution and dismiss you if there is any indication of partiality

A jury of your peers. Not a jury of your peers that believe a certain way.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Was he really *aggressive* or you're just thinking he was aggressive automatically because he's black? Because no

Yes .. put your self in her shoes. It was dark, she thought it was he apartment, his voice and movement was aggressive.. she did the right thing.. man slaughter

It's a lot easier to put yourself in her shoes because she is not dead...

Funny how folks like you don't give a fuck about putting yourself in the shoes of the person who didn't do anything wrong....but since it is a black guy, that concept is just something you refuse to grasp....he had to be wrong somehow, fuck it -- lets just say he tried to rape her...


Trumpers are pathetic...

I voted for Trump, will vote for him again, and I think the death of the man was a tragedy and really don't understand why or how the woman was THAT confused. Is it possible? Yes. Does she deserve Murder One? I'm not sure. But she is not innocent that's for sure. He didn't break into HER apt....

Then you think she did This on purpose .. that’s nuts and I disagree.. it was a tragic mistake.

I didn't say I thought she did it "on purpose". But nor was she completely innocent. He did not break into HER apt, she broke into HIS, whether she was confused or not.

It always amazes me how some on here will comment on this case obviously not knowing the facts of the case....she did not break in...the door was open.

 

[rightwinger]

It's speculation on my part since I wasn't there but in my opinion I do believe that she did accidentally enter his apartment. However, her mistake resulted in the terrible death of an innocent person who was simply inside of their own home. She made a mistake, but her mistake did in fact create pain and suffering. I don't believe that putting her in prison for the rest of her life is the answer though. I personally believe that she should acknowledge the result of her mistake in an honest way and then dedicate the rest of her life to helping the family of the man who passed, reinforcing his memory, and work with the surrounding community to honor him and other innocent lives.

The fact is she killed an "innocent man" ! And was convicted of murder by a "jury of her peers", whatever that means! I don't believe the jury system insures fairness, when the prosecutor and defense can have jurors "preemptively". If a person is selected for jury duty and appears to serve a blind selection should be held. Put the names in a box and select them 1 at a time. I watched jury selection in a case where a man was accused of "damaging flowers at a cemetery site" by removing them and throwing them in the trash. There were 5 men in the jury pool of 18. The Prosecutor was able to have all but one removed preemptively. The 5th was an elderly man who had poor hearing the judge excused him. The complainant went on the stand and cried and sobbed for 30 minutes. All the evidence was a video of the man removing the flowers to a trash receptacle and sitting quietly at a gravesite then walking away, he was the interred mans son. The complainant was another relative. The man was convicted of "Criminal damaging" by an all white female jury, and sentenced to 6 mos. in jail. The system needs change. The right to confront and cross examine an accuser can be done without ever bringing people into court where they also have to confront a potentially hostile jury. Sequester jury's and never identify the race or gender of the Accused or the Accuser to them. That way they can base their decision solely on the facts presented and not human emotion or deep seated resentment of another race or gender. We have a problem with racism in the court system. Instead of selecting a jury that will weigh the facts. Prosecutors cherry pick for a jury that will convict based on the thinnest of evidence.

Each side has a limited number of preemptive challenges. Some jurors have things in their past that prevent them from being impartial. I had jury duty last summer and some of the dismissed jurors were just freaking stupid or assholes

You are asked basic questions before you ever get to the selection process. One question is whether you believe you can fairly rule on the law.

I was called in for a murder case. They asked me all of these questions concerning what I thought on guns. Irrelevant. I can have views on something but still make a decision based upon the law.

There is a difference between you thinking you are impartial and a prosecutor or defense attorney believing you are impartial

They usually take the side of caution and dismiss you if there is any indication of partiality

A jury of your peers. Not a jury of your peers that believe a certain way.

A fair and impartial jury of your peers

 

[Jitss617]

The fact is she killed an "innocent man" ! And was convicted of murder by a "jury of her peers", whatever that means! I don't believe the jury system insures fairness, when the prosecutor and defense can have jurors "preemptively". If a person is selected for jury duty and appears to serve a blind selection should be held. Put the names in a box and select them 1 at a time. I watched jury selection in a case where a man was accused of "damaging flowers at a cemetery site" by removing them and throwing them in the trash. There were 5 men in the jury pool of 18. The Prosecutor was able to have all but one removed preemptively. The 5th was an elderly man who had poor hearing the judge excused him. The complainant went on the stand and cried and sobbed for 30 minutes. All the evidence was a video of the man removing the flowers to a trash receptacle and sitting quietly at a gravesite then walking away, he was the interred mans son. The complainant was another relative. The man was convicted of "Criminal damaging" by an all white female jury, and sentenced to 6 mos. in jail. The system needs change. The right to confront and cross examine an accuser can be done without ever bringing people into court where they also have to confront a potentially hostile jury. Sequester jury's and never identify the race or gender of the Accused or the Accuser to them. That way they can base their decision solely on the facts presented and not human emotion or deep seated resentment of another race or gender. We have a problem with racism in the court system. Instead of selecting a jury that will weigh the facts. Prosecutors cherry pick for a jury that will convict based on the thinnest of evidence.

Each side has a limited number of preemptive challenges. Some jurors have things in their past that prevent them from being impartial. I had jury duty last summer and some of the dismissed jurors were just freaking stupid or assholes

You are asked basic questions before you ever get to the selection process. One question is whether you believe you can fairly rule on the law.

I was called in for a murder case. They asked me all of these questions concerning what I thought on guns. Irrelevant. I can have views on something but still make a decision based upon the law.

There is a difference between you thinking you are impartial and a prosecutor or defense attorney believing you are impartial

They usually take the side of caution and dismiss you if there is any indication of partiality

A jury of your peers. Not a jury of your peers that believe a certain way.

A fair and impartial jury of your peers

Did she have the right to pick the jury she wanted?

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Each side has a limited number of preemptive challenges. Some jurors have things in their past that prevent them from being impartial. I had jury duty last summer and some of the dismissed jurors were just freaking stupid or assholes

You are asked basic questions before you ever get to the selection process. One question is whether you believe you can fairly rule on the law.

I was called in for a murder case. They asked me all of these questions concerning what I thought on guns. Irrelevant. I can have views on something but still make a decision based upon the law.

There is a difference between you thinking you are impartial and a prosecutor or defense attorney believing you are impartial

They usually take the side of caution and dismiss you if there is any indication of partiality

A jury of your peers. Not a jury of your peers that believe a certain way.

A fair and impartial jury of your peers

Did she have the right to pick the jury she wanted?

Of course not...no one does. The defense team does its best to try and pick jurors of their liking but it is a give and take thing...as the prosecution does the same thing...the jurors they wind up with is a compromise between the prosecution and the defense.

And.......that is the best that can be hoped for. The jurors still surprise both the prosecution and the defense in a lot of cases...coming up with decisions that in too many cases are wrong. Some people are very adept at hiding their prejudices.