Racist Black Judge Railroading Amber Guyger

[bodecea]

Now you are just making shit up

Are you making it up that you watched the trial?

I get it....you're just trying to outlast everybody else in my thread. Haven't I told you to get lost several times? Little wonder you can't hold a job with that attitude. BTW, you're white as dirty snow and no negro is going to stop beating you because you claim you're a demoncRAT...just a friendly reminder in case you get jiggy and hit on a black girl.

It's a clear sign of failure when a poster drops their thread argument and just personally attacks another poster. A CLEAR sign of failure.

 

[evenflow1969]

I will take my chances. That poor women is to stupid to walk free. Common mistake is hillarious, these people must be drooling idiots and natural selection will take care of them eventually.

PS
I have full and complete knowlege of the risks of carrying a fire arm. I pay attention to what the fuck I am doing and do not make these kind of mistakes. I also understand the risks of not carrying. I prefer to carry in many situations. There are times in low risk areas I do not carry. I typically do not have my gun right on me in my home but they are close by and again my dog is vigilent. Who ever you are be it cop or no cop. There is inherant risk in entering the wrong home. It is a mistake, do not be stupid enough to add to the mistake by shooting some one. At some point self responsibilty must apply. You make thes types of mistakes and you pay for them. This is advise to all! Some more good advice is lock your door so some idiot can not make this type of mistake and or have a dog that deals with intruders. This women likely would not have been shot at my residence, my dog would have gotten to her before I would have need to shoot her. Of course I likely would have still shot her so she could not have a chance to testify and have my dog put to sleep for doing his job.

first of all she was according to blacks legal dictionary a innocent trespasser....aka unknowingly entering the residence of another ....then believing she was in her own apartment she was confronted with what she reasonably thought was an intruder or burglar.

Now of course she made a mistake going to the wrong apartment and of course that is a dangerouos thing to do...but she did it innocently.

Then to make matters worse the black refused to obey a uniformed police officer.

Police have to deal with blacks constantly...thus they know how dangerous they can be...her training kicked in and in her mind she eliminated the threat to her life.

Those who do not understand she was in fear of her life are being unreasonable...I think most people in that situation would have been if fear of their life.

Just a screwed up situation all around....yet anyone with any legal knowledge should understand she was definitely not guilty of murder. In order for murder to occur there must be malice.

Juries like this one are constantly whittling away at our right to self defense.....and add to that the big push to confiscate weapons. Bad precedents are being set.

anyhow....tell us why you think this woman did not believe her life was in danger.

In the end it doesn't matter. The how was not the issue, it was what happened that was the issue. She shot him. She didn't need to shoot him. Drunk drivers don't MEAN to kill people when they begin their evening out, but they do. Her sentence was less then what most habitual drunk drivers get when they kill people. Her charges and sentence was just.

The problem with your analysis is that she did not have the benefit of hindsight.

She perceived a threat to her life for 2 reasons and understandably so....she thought there was an intruder in her apartment and he refused to obey her order.

You simply refuse to consider her state of mind....sure she made a honest mistake and went into someone elses apartment. But case law on innocent trespassing dictates that a person who trespasses innocently is not responsible for any harm they do as a result ot that innocent trespass.

Did not need hind site just needed to pay fucking attention No excuses, she is a worthless dumb fuck. You carry a fire arm you need to pay attention or should not carry.End of story. She is a dumb fuck!

Being stupid does not deny anyone the right to self defense.

There was no threat to her, she was the threat in the situation. She got what she deserved now move on.

 

[JoeB131]

And a SWAT team shows up because they got the wrong address.

How do you respond? Like a FOOL, or do you OBEY and work it out TOMORROW when you're still alive?

What are you babbling about?

 

[Unkotare]

Now you are just making shit up

Are you making it up that you watched the trial?

I get it....you're just trying to outlast everybody else in my thread. Haven't I told you to get lost several times? Little wonder you can't hold a job with that attitude. BTW, you're white as dirty snow and no negro is going to stop beating you because you claim you're a demoncRAT...just a friendly reminder in case you get jiggy and hit on a black girl.

What does any of that nonsense have to do with the thread topic?

 

[Rigby5]

In the past, there was a minimal height and weight requirement so that police would be strong enough to not have to rely on their gun. Was it a bad idea to eliminate this so that more women could join the force?

Just my opinion because too lazy to research it right now. But I think that, unfortunately, bullies and wimps are more or less evenly distributed. Big and small are just as apt to use lethal force recklessly in such situations. The "great equalizer" plus reminding the big they have no excuse for being bullies no longer the norm. Now Marvel and video games have everyone thinking men, huge monsters even, present little threat to women. That's right, the women are smarter. They still ain't really as tough though. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be cops. Means cops should only carry loaded guns in truly life threatening situations where encountering armed idiots is reasonably expected. Again, what used to be the norm.

I was not thinking of bullies or wimps, but that when Amber saw the Black man larger than she was, she obviously was scared.
Being scared for her life is likely why she shot.
But the question is whether or not a person who was physically larger would be less likely to be frightened, and therefore less likely to shoot?
Would a larger person have less need to rely on a gun and be able to rely on physical self defense measures instead?

 

[Rigby5]

But he didn't do that.....he was an innocent man who was murdered in his own home..

Which is why Amber is a hero to racist d1c suckers like yourself....

I do not think amber is a hero to anyone. Yes he was a innocent man who was tragically killed by mistake.

But if he had kept his door locked and had not disregarded a lawful order of a police order who was pointing a gun at him he would still be alive....why would anyone disobey a police officer in uniform whilst she was pointing a gun at him?

So the claim is that someone not following a police order deserves to be shot?

No gun, no weapon, no threat.......just failure to put your hands up

You KNOW that AFTER THE FACT.

YES! show your damn hands when a cop tells you to.

No you don't.
When the police illegally enter your home, you arrest them for trespassing.
Cops have no more authority to shoot than anyone.
If they can shoot for someone not instantly complying with an absurb order, than anyone can legally shoot a cop for not obeying their absurd order.
Police orders do NOT have the force of law.
They are NOT legal.
Cops do NOT have any addition legal authority than anyone.

Obedience Required to Police Officers and to School Crossing Guards. A person may not wilfully fail or refuse to comply with a lawful order or direction of: ... has been trained under Section 600.004 and is directing traffic in a school crossing zone
Texas Transportation Code § 542.501 | FindLaw

That only applies to traffic, and that is because you contractually agree to give police and crossing guards authority over you when you are driving.
It is a condition for them giving you a driver's license.
That is NOT true when you are not driving.
Then police have no authority beyond what anyone has.
You can tell that is true because there is no place that authority could come from.
We are the source of all authority, and we hire the police, so they are our servants, and inferior to us, working only on our authority we delegate to them.

But for example, a cop comes up to you on the sidewalk and asks you your name, you do not have to comply.
There is no legal authority for police to do anything that any ordinary citizens can not also do.

 

[Rigby5]

The problem with your analysis is that she did not have the benefit of hindsight.

She perceived a threat to her life for 2 reasons and understandably so....she thought there was an intruder in her apartment and he refused to obey her order.

You simply refuse to consider her state of mind....sure she made a honest mistake and went into someone elses apartment. But case law on innocent trespassing dictates that a person who trespasses innocently is not responsible for any harm they do as a result ot that innocent trespass.

Again, 12 jurors saw it differently...

The fact her first response to HER "honest" mistake was to double-tap a citizen sitting in his own home eating Ice Cream is the problem here. It tells you how we are training cops to be trigger happy maniacs.

"Shoot First, Ask Questions Later" is not a good policy.

He was only shot once.....eating ice cream has nothing to do with anything in this case.

Eating ice cream is very relevant, because it means he was sitting down on his couch, with a spoon in one hand and a bowl in the other.
That contradicts the claim by Amber that he was standing and moving towards her.

{... Guyger testified at trial that she thought she was entering her own apartment when she shot Jean and claimed he was coming toward her; however, prosecutors said he was either cowering or getting up from his own sofa when shot. ...}

And whether both shots hit or not, she said she fired 2 shots at the "kill zone".

{... Throughout the encounter, Guyger said, she followed her training, from the commands she said she shouted at Jean to the two shots, or “double-tap” she fired at him. ...}

 

[TheGreenHornet]

I do not think amber is a hero to anyone. Yes he was a innocent man who was tragically killed by mistake.

But if he had kept his door locked and had not disregarded a lawful order of a police order who was pointing a gun at him he would still be alive....why would anyone disobey a police officer in uniform whilst she was pointing a gun at him?

So the claim is that someone not following a police order deserves to be shot?

No gun, no weapon, no threat.......just failure to put your hands up

You KNOW that AFTER THE FACT.

YES! show your damn hands when a cop tells you to.

No you don't.
When the police illegally enter your home, you arrest them for trespassing.
Cops have no more authority to shoot than anyone.
If they can shoot for someone not instantly complying with an absurb order, than anyone can legally shoot a cop for not obeying their absurd order.
Police orders do NOT have the force of law.
They are NOT legal.
Cops do NOT have any addition legal authority than anyone.

Obedience Required to Police Officers and to School Crossing Guards. A person may not wilfully fail or refuse to comply with a lawful order or direction of: ... has been trained under Section 600.004 and is directing traffic in a school crossing zone
Texas Transportation Code § 542.501 | FindLaw

That only applies to traffic, and that is because you contractually agree to give police and crossing guards authority over you when you are driving.
It is a condition for them giving you a driver's license.
That is NOT true when you are not driving.
Then police have no authority beyond what anyone has.
You can tell that is true because there is no place that authority could come from.
We are the source of all authority, and we hire the police, so they are our servants, and inferior to us, working only on our authority we delegate to them.

But for example, a cop comes up to you on the sidewalk and asks you your name, you do not have to comply.
There is no legal authority for police to do anything that any ordinary citizens can not also do.

https://www.quora.com/What-constitutes-a-lawful-order

 

[Dr Grump]

Now you are just making shit up

Are you making it up that you watched the trial?

I get it....you're just trying to outlast everybody else in my thread. Haven't I told you to get lost several times? Little wonder you can't hold a job with that attitude. BTW, you're white as dirty snow and no negro is going to stop beating you because you claim you're a demoncRAT...just a friendly reminder in case you get jiggy and hit on a black girl.

This post is a sure sign he is wupping your arse.

 

[Rigby5]

So the claim is that someone not following a police order deserves to be shot?

No gun, no weapon, no threat.......just failure to put your hands up

You KNOW that AFTER THE FACT.

YES! show your damn hands when a cop tells you to.

No you don't.
When the police illegally enter your home, you arrest them for trespassing.
Cops have no more authority to shoot than anyone.
If they can shoot for someone not instantly complying with an absurb order, than anyone can legally shoot a cop for not obeying their absurd order.
Police orders do NOT have the force of law.
They are NOT legal.
Cops do NOT have any addition legal authority than anyone.

Obedience Required to Police Officers and to School Crossing Guards. A person may not wilfully fail or refuse to comply with a lawful order or direction of: ... has been trained under Section 600.004 and is directing traffic in a school crossing zone
Texas Transportation Code § 542.501 | FindLaw

That only applies to traffic, and that is because you contractually agree to give police and crossing guards authority over you when you are driving.
It is a condition for them giving you a driver's license.
That is NOT true when you are not driving.
Then police have no authority beyond what anyone has.
You can tell that is true because there is no place that authority could come from.
We are the source of all authority, and we hire the police, so they are our servants, and inferior to us, working only on our authority we delegate to them.

But for example, a cop comes up to you on the sidewalk and asks you your name, you do not have to comply.
There is no legal authority for police to do anything that any ordinary citizens can not also do.

https://www.quora.com/What-constitutes-a-lawful-order

The links says:
{...
Generally speaking, a lawful order is one that a police officer can legally issue and enforce. That's very circular logic, but it's the easiest way to explain it.

Let's start with the process, without getting into any details:

• You and a police officer are in the same area.
• The police officer tells you to do something, or to stop doing something you are already doing.
• You do not comply.
• The officer arrests you for failing to comply with his/her order.
• You go to trial and the judge says, "Yes, the officer was giving a lawful order," or, "No, the officer's order was not lawful."

...}

That does not at all imply that police have any exceptional authority, and we know they can't because we are their source of authority, and we can't give them authority we do not already have ourselves.
So when a store owner yells to a shoplifter to "stop or I will shoot", that is just as lawful as any order a cop yells.

 

[Dr Grump]

[
So when a store owner yells to a shoplifter to "stop or I will shoot", that is just as lawful as any order a cop yells.

And one would hope, unless the shop owner's life is in immediate danger, that if they did shoot and kill a shoplifter running away, they'd get 10 or more years in the pokey.

 

[Rigby5]

[
So when a store owner yells to a shoplifter to "stop or I will shoot", that is just as lawful as any order a cop yells.

And one would hope, unless the shop owner's life is in immediate danger, that if they did shoot and kill a shoplifter running away, they'd get 10 or more years in the pokey.

Depends on the state, but the whole point of the Stand Your Ground law is that you are also allowed to use deadly force to protect possessions as well as your safety.
In most states, you would only be charged when you shoot a thief trying to escape with your property, is if it was not actually your property.

When you yell, "Stop thief", that is a lawful order if on your property.

 

[Dr Grump]

Depends on the state, but the whole point of the Stand Your Ground law is that you are also allowed to use deadly force to protect possessions as well as your safety.
In most states, you would only be charged when you shoot a thief trying to escape with your property, is if it was not actually your property.

When you yell, "Stop thief", that is a lawful order if on your property.

Interesting. Bit archaic, but there you go.

 

[Skylar]

It Matters That Amber Guyger’s Jury Was Diverse


So the truth comes out now about just how one-sided and racist the prosecution of brave officer, Amber Guyger, actually was. Not only was the judge a fat black racist (no doubt a Black Lives Matter operative) -- but now we have news that the jury themselves were nothing but a bunch of racists who obviously have a deep seated hatred for whites.

"Observers were shocked at the guilty verdict, as law enforcement officers accused of misconduct are rarely convicted of a criminal offense. One possible factor in the unusual outcome of the Guyger trial may be the diversity of the jury: Ten of the 12 jurors were nonwhite. Research indicates that diverse juries make better decisions that are less likely to be biased or tainted by racism. Yet there is a troubling lack of diversity among juries across the country." <<-- Yes, as in, the lack of "whites" in Amber's jury...I agree with Tucker, diversity is nothing more than a kind way to eliminate white people from the equation. I am sure this judge did something to restrict who the defense could put on the jury -- and once this is brought to light, I fully demand that this judge is sentenced to prison along with the other black racist community agitators.

The judge purposely allowed this jury to hear testimony about Amber that was immaterial to the case -- like how Amber sent racist texts to friends talking about how she hated blacks -- she clearly said it as a joke since Amber has black friends, they were trying to make it appear that Amber was some bad person -- but what about Botham Jean?? What do we know about his stance on the police?? Did he celebrate when officers were shot in Dallas years earlier?? Was he involved?? There are people most likely somewhere saying that Botham was connected to several black identity extremists groups, this needs to be investigated -- who knows what Botham could have been planning in the future....

#JusticeForAmber

Um, no.

 

[Skylar]

She got 10 years..pretty standard sentence for manslaughter...and shockingly low for Murder...i guess the jury had some sympathy for her. Hardly the howling mob of non-whites
convicting just because the defendant was white..and a cop.

Jury Sentences Amber Guyger To 10 Years In Prison

this feels like justice served to me. Best ending anyone could have hoped for. Kudos to the jury.

yeah, that was my take too. 10 years was in the realm of reasonable.

I was really impressed by his brother who asked to hug the defendant after her sentencing. It ws a beautiful moment. That's a man who is genuinely walking the walk of Christianity

 

[Grumblenuts]

In the past, there was a minimal height and weight requirement so that police would be strong enough to not have to rely on their gun. Was it a bad idea to eliminate this so that more women could join the force?

Just my opinion because too lazy to research it right now. But I think that, unfortunately, bullies and wimps are more or less evenly distributed. Big and small are just as apt to use lethal force recklessly in such situations. The "great equalizer" plus reminding the big they have no excuse for being bullies no longer the norm. Now Marvel and video games have everyone thinking men, huge monsters even, present little threat to women. That's right, the women are smarter. They still ain't really as tough though. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be cops. Means cops should only carry loaded guns in truly life threatening situations where encountering armed idiots is reasonably expected. Again, what used to be the norm.

I was not thinking of bullies or wimps, but that when Amber saw the Black man larger than she was, she obviously was scared.
Being scared for her life is likely why she shot.
But the question is whether or not a person who was physically larger would be less likely to be frightened, and therefore less likely to shoot?
Would a larger person have less need to rely on a gun and be able to rely on physical self defense measures instead?

Yes. That's part of what I was saying. It should be well understood by adults that bigger generally means stronger and certainly heavier. A big enough oaf could potentially kill you or me just by falling on us by accident. It's normal to be initially scared when encountering big strangers. They clearly present a physical risk so fight or flight is our instinctive response. Moreso for children. Moreso for the small and weak. For those completely inexperienced with self-defense. The bigger/stronger you are, the less frightened you need be. The more experienced in self-defense. Obviously frightened least if fresh, calm, well trained, and carrying a loaded gun prior to the encounter no matter what else. Presuming that situation might begin to make sense if we could count on people carrying loaded firearms around all day to remain that frosty 99.999% of the time instead of say a more realistic 25% estimate. Absolute insanity otherwise as we've seen.

 

[Grumblenuts]

{... Throughout the encounter, Guyger said, she followed her training, from the commands she said she shouted at Jean to the two shots, or “double-tap” she fired at him. ...}

Of course. She'd be nuts to say otherwise. Lawyer apparently didn't coach her not to offer shooting to kill though.. TWICE! Fact is she had no business walking around with a loaded gun at the ready after work. Nobody pays taxes to support one's off the clock small man or vigilante hero fantasies.

Guyger's paying for our collective gun culture tolerance. I think that's where the hugging and forgiveness comes from. Victim's families. Judges after conviction. We all know deep down this is FUBAR. Not a thing that can be blamed on the negligence of just one or two people.

 

[Grumblenuts]

[
So when a store owner yells to a shoplifter to "stop or I will shoot", that is just as lawful as any order a cop yells.

And one would hope, unless the shop owner's life is in immediate danger, that if they did shoot and kill a shoplifter running away, they'd get 10 or more years in the pokey.

Perhaps we should be giving such people awards for exercising good judgement and restraint. The fewer living with having killed someone on their conscience the better.

 

[Street Juice]

If all true the Judge is a problem BUT how often have YOU mistaken someone else's home for yours?

Stuff like that happens. I've tried to open a door on someone else's car thinking it was mine more than once. It makes more sense that it was an accident as claimed than that she was trying a novel way to murder her downstairs neighbor and get away with it.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

If all true the Judge is a problem BUT how often have YOU mistaken someone else's home for yours?

Stuff like that happens. I've tried to open a door on someone else's car thinking it was mine more than once. It makes more sense that it was an accident as claimed than that she was trying a novel way to murder her downstairs neighbor and get away with it.

Exactly.....the stoopids on here sound like someone trying to write a cheap crime story.