Racist Black Judge Railroading Amber Guyger

[TheGreenHornet]

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.

That is only known by hindsight....she did not have the ability to engage in hindsight...she was living and acting in real time....aka....believing she was in her own apartment in the presence of a intruder....naturally and reasonably she was thus subjected to being in reasonable fear of her life as would anyone in such a scenario...all you monday morning quarterbackers are simply using hindsight to condemn her and also not understanding how quickly all of it transpired...she had to make a decision of life or death in a couple of seconds in a dark apartment which she honestly believed to be her own....to understand her actions you have to understand what was going on in her head.

Very easy to sit back after everything has transpired and all the facts are known and with such hindsight oh...but she was not really in danger. Get real morons.

 

[JoeB131]

That is only known by hindsight....she did not have the ability to engage in hindsight...she was living and acting in real time....aka....believing she was in her own apartment in the presence of a intruder....naturally and reasonably she was thus subjected to being in reasonable fear of her life as would anyone in such a scenario...

"Oh my God, he has ICE CREAM!!!! Get him!"

all you monday morning quarterbackers are simply using hindsight to condemn her and also not understanding how quickly all of it transpired...she had to make a decision of life or death in a couple of seconds in a dark apartment which she honestly believed to be her own....to understand her actions you have to understand what was going on in her head.

What was going on in her head was she was thinking about fucking her married partner, and wasn't paying attention to where she was, so she blundered into someone else's apartment.

and then she killed someone for absolutely no good reason.

Then she tried to lie about it.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

That is only known by hindsight....she did not have the ability to engage in hindsight...she was living and acting in real time....aka....believing she was in her own apartment in the presence of a intruder....naturally and reasonably she was thus subjected to being in reasonable fear of her life as would anyone in such a scenario...

"Oh my God, he has ICE CREAM!!!! Get him!"

all you monday morning quarterbackers are simply using hindsight to condemn her and also not understanding how quickly all of it transpired...she had to make a decision of life or death in a couple of seconds in a dark apartment which she honestly believed to be her own....to understand her actions you have to understand what was going on in her head.

What was going on in her head was she was thinking about fucking her married partner, and wasn't paying attention to where she was, so she blundered into someone else's apartment.

and then she killed someone for absolutely no good reason.

Then she tried to lie about it.

You realise you've offered NOTHING of substance but snarky comments.

Try harder to defend your indefensible position

 

[rightwinger]

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?

I think the question is.......would a person who was unarmed have been scared for their life?

An unarmed person would have just walked away and called 911
Maybe ask why the person was there

Because she was armed, she felt the need to defend her turf

 

[Grumblenuts]

Because she was armed, she felt the need to defend her turf

Only.. outside this magic bubble,.. this intent-is-everything lalaland,.. back in reality,.. she was assaulting a man on his own turf,.. because she was being a reckless idiot with a gun. Have gun, will likely fuck up now and then. Oopsies! Sorry! Wasn't me! Not my fault!

 

[rightwinger]

[
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.

Trespassing is not stand your ground

 

[Crixus]

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.

That is only known by hindsight....she did not have the ability to engage in hindsight...she was living and acting in real time....aka....believing she was in her own apartment in the presence of a intruder....naturally and reasonably she was thus subjected to being in reasonable fear of her life as would anyone in such a scenario...all you monday morning quarterbackers are simply using hindsight to condemn her and also not understanding how quickly all of it transpired...she had to make a decision of life or death in a couple of seconds in a dark apartment which she honestly believed to be her own....to understand her actions you have to understand what was going on in her head.

Very easy to sit back after everything has transpired and all the facts are known and with such hindsight oh...but she was not really in danger. Get real morons.

That makes no difference. If I'm showing off my gun and it go's off and kills someone I am exposed to criminal charges. If I have a pit bull and it eats a kid at the dog park I am exposed to criminal charges. If I have a horse (and I have actually seen this one) and it gets loose, runs into traffic, causes an accident I am exposed to criminal charges. If I own a bar and I over serve a customer and they leave and kill someone I am exposed to criminal charges. None of those examples are deliberate acts, but I can be held criminally liable in any one of those. And you miss the question she answered that pretty much ended it for Guyger. That was "did you intend to kill Mr. Jean"? So I don't say she got out of her car, sent a pic of her titties to work dude then decided to go shoot some black dude. Anyone who does is retarded and weak. I am saying she fucked up and a man died. When this happens the person who did the shooting is held to account.

 

[Crixus]

[
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.

Trespassing is not stand your ground

That depends. "Stand your ground" is very weird. Look at George Zimmerman. He chased the guy down and shot him and walked. Texas isn't as free wheeling with it as Florida is. Had Zimmerman and tryvon been here Zimmerman would be in TDC.

 

[Crixus]

That is only known by hindsight....she did not have the ability to engage in hindsight...she was living and acting in real time....aka....believing she was in her own apartment in the presence of a intruder....naturally and reasonably she was thus subjected to being in reasonable fear of her life as would anyone in such a scenario...

"Oh my God, he has ICE CREAM!!!! Get him!"

all you monday morning quarterbackers are simply using hindsight to condemn her and also not understanding how quickly all of it transpired...she had to make a decision of life or death in a couple of seconds in a dark apartment which she honestly believed to be her own....to understand her actions you have to understand what was going on in her head.

What was going on in her head was she was thinking about fucking her married partner, and wasn't paying attention to where she was, so she blundered into someone else's apartment.

and then she killed someone for absolutely no good reason.

Then she tried to lie about it.

Blah, I have to agree. As a police officer, she is expected to be a cut above. She should be reasonably expected to be aware of her surroundings. At least enough to know when she looked up to notice that the picture on her walls aren't hers, the couch is t where it typically is, or even the same color. It's wrong on ALL sides to make this a race issue. It was a horrible accident.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

That is only known by hindsight....she did not have the ability to engage in hindsight...she was living and acting in real time....aka....believing she was in her own apartment in the presence of a intruder....naturally and reasonably she was thus subjected to being in reasonable fear of her life as would anyone in such a scenario...all you monday morning quarterbackers are simply using hindsight to condemn her and also not understanding how quickly all of it transpired...she had to make a decision of life or death in a couple of seconds in a dark apartment which she honestly believed to be her own....to understand her actions you have to understand what was going on in her head.

Very easy to sit back after everything has transpired and all the facts are known and with such hindsight oh...but she was not really in danger. Get real morons.

That makes no difference. If I'm showing off my gun and it go's off and kills someone I am exposed to criminal charges. If I have a pit bull and it eats a kid at the dog park I am exposed to criminal charges. If I have a horse (and I have actually seen this one) and it gets loose, runs into traffic, causes an accident I am exposed to criminal charges. If I own a bar and I over serve a customer and they leave and kill someone I am exposed to criminal charges. None of those examples are deliberate acts, but I can be held criminally liable in any one of those. And you miss the question she answered that pretty much ended it for Guyger. That was "did you intend to kill Mr. Jean"? So I don't say she got out of her car, sent a pic of her titties to work dude then decided to go shoot some black dude. Anyone who does is retarded and weak. I am saying she fucked up and a man died. When this happens the person who did the shooting is held to account.

It all comes down to accountability for your actions

You own the gun, you make the decisions
If you make a bad decision, even with good intent, you will be held accountable.

 

[Crixus]

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.

That is only known by hindsight....she did not have the ability to engage in hindsight...she was living and acting in real time....aka....believing she was in her own apartment in the presence of a intruder....naturally and reasonably she was thus subjected to being in reasonable fear of her life as would anyone in such a scenario...all you monday morning quarterbackers are simply using hindsight to condemn her and also not understanding how quickly all of it transpired...she had to make a decision of life or death in a couple of seconds in a dark apartment which she honestly believed to be her own....to understand her actions you have to understand what was going on in her head.

Very easy to sit back after everything has transpired and all the facts are known and with such hindsight oh...but she was not really in danger. Get real morons.

That makes no difference. If I'm showing off my gun and it go's off and kills someone I am exposed to criminal charges. If I have a pit bull and it eats a kid at the dog park I am exposed to criminal charges. If I have a horse (and I have actually seen this one) and it gets loose, runs into traffic, causes an accident I am exposed to criminal charges. If I own a bar and I over serve a customer and they leave and kill someone I am exposed to criminal charges. None of those examples are deliberate acts, but I can be held criminally liable in any one of those. And you miss the question she answered that pretty much ended it for Guyger. That was "did you intend to kill Mr. Jean"? So I don't say she got out of her car, sent a pic of her titties to work dude then decided to go shoot some black dude. Anyone who does is retarded and weak. I am saying she fucked up and a man died. When this happens the person who did the shooting is held to account.

It all comes down to accountability for your actions

You own the gun, you make the decisions
If you make a bad decision, even with good intent, you will be held accountable.

When I got my CCW they spent a day drilling that into our heads.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Maybe, the police should not be allowed to work such long hours if they are going to claim they are too tired to act rationally after a 13 1/2 hour shift.

 

[Crixus]

Maybe, the police should not be allowed to work such long hours if they are going to claim they are too tired to act rationally after a 13 1/2 hour shift.

That's another thing that sucks about this. Not enough cops so the ones they got work way to long, but no one will be a cop because they don't want to end up on the news for this type of crap.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Dennis fired one round and struck Bergan, killing him instantly, according to the sheriff.

“Our investigation has revealed that this was totally accidental, it was a really sad occurrence, and that no charges are warranted in this case,” Sheriff Johnson said.

My ground! My round! Wait?

Oopsies!

 

[TheGreenHornet]

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.

That is only known by hindsight....she did not have the ability to engage in hindsight...she was living and acting in real time....aka....believing she was in her own apartment in the presence of a intruder....naturally and reasonably she was thus subjected to being in reasonable fear of her life as would anyone in such a scenario...all you monday morning quarterbackers are simply using hindsight to condemn her and also not understanding how quickly all of it transpired...she had to make a decision of life or death in a couple of seconds in a dark apartment which she honestly believed to be her own....to understand her actions you have to understand what was going on in her head.

Very easy to sit back after everything has transpired and all the facts are known and with such hindsight oh...but she was not really in danger. Get real morons.

That makes no difference. If I'm showing off my gun and it go's off and kills someone I am exposed to criminal charges. If I have a pit bull and it eats a kid at the dog park I am exposed to criminal charges. If I have a horse (and I have actually seen this one) and it gets loose, runs into traffic, causes an accident I am exposed to criminal charges. If I own a bar and I over serve a customer and they leave and kill someone I am exposed to criminal charges. None of those examples are deliberate acts, but I can be held criminally liable in any one of those. And you miss the question she answered that pretty much ended it for Guyger. That was "did you intend to kill Mr. Jean"? So I don't say she got out of her car, sent a pic of her titties to work dude then decided to go shoot some black dude. Anyone who does is retarded and weak. I am saying she fucked up and a man died. When this happens the person who did the shooting is held to account.

It all comes down to accountability for your actions

You own the gun, you make the decisions
If you make a bad decision, even with good intent, you will be held accountable.

That is a very broad statement...so broad as to be irrelevant.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

That is only known by hindsight....she did not have the ability to engage in hindsight...she was living and acting in real time....aka....believing she was in her own apartment in the presence of a intruder....naturally and reasonably she was thus subjected to being in reasonable fear of her life as would anyone in such a scenario...

"Oh my God, he has ICE CREAM!!!! Get him!"

all you monday morning quarterbackers are simply using hindsight to condemn her and also not understanding how quickly all of it transpired...she had to make a decision of life or death in a couple of seconds in a dark apartment which she honestly believed to be her own....to understand her actions you have to understand what was going on in her head.

What was going on in her head was she was thinking about fucking her married partner, and wasn't paying attention to where she was, so she blundered into someone else's apartment.

and then she killed someone for absolutely no good reason.

Then she tried to lie about it.

Blah, I have to agree. As a police officer, she is expected to be a cut above. She should be reasonably expected to be aware of her surroundings. At least enough to know when she looked up to notice that the picture on her walls aren't hers, the couch is t where it typically is, or even the same color. It's wrong on ALL sides to make this a race issue. It was a horrible accident.

Yes it was a accident and a horrible tragedy for all involved.

The apartment was dark...thus making it more likely that she would not immediately realize she was not in her own apartment...also all this happened very quickly...most on here miss that....she only had a couple of seconds from the time she went through the door to make a life or death decision....so many on here do not know the facts nor the law.

Bottome Line: She was wrongfully convicted of murder. i would not complain too much if she had been charged with negligent homicide....but this was definitely not murder.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

[
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.

Trespassing is not stand your ground

That depends. "Stand your ground" is very weird. Look at George Zimmerman. He chased the guy down and shot him and walked. Texas isn't as free wheeling with it as Florida is. Had Zimmerman and tryvon been here Zimmerman would be in TDC.

More lies....you know nothing about the George Zimmerman case and do not come on here pretending you do.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

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.

That is only known by hindsight....she did not have the ability to engage in hindsight...she was living and acting in real time....aka....believing she was in her own apartment in the presence of a intruder....naturally and reasonably she was thus subjected to being in reasonable fear of her life as would anyone in such a scenario...all you monday morning quarterbackers are simply using hindsight to condemn her and also not understanding how quickly all of it transpired...she had to make a decision of life or death in a couple of seconds in a dark apartment which she honestly believed to be her own....to understand her actions you have to understand what was going on in her head.

Very easy to sit back after everything has transpired and all the facts are known and with such hindsight oh...but she was not really in danger. Get real morons.

That makes no difference. If I'm showing off my gun and it go's off and kills someone I am exposed to criminal charges. If I have a pit bull and it eats a kid at the dog park I am exposed to criminal charges. If I have a horse (and I have actually seen this one) and it gets loose, runs into traffic, causes an accident I am exposed to criminal charges. If I own a bar and I over serve a customer and they leave and kill someone I am exposed to criminal charges. None of those examples are deliberate acts, but I can be held criminally liable in any one of those. And you miss the question she answered that pretty much ended it for Guyger. That was "did you intend to kill Mr. Jean"? So I don't say she got out of her car, sent a pic of her titties to work dude then decided to go shoot some black dude. Anyone who does is retarded and weak. I am saying she fucked up and a man died. When this happens the person who did the shooting is held to account.

This was not a case of murder to begin with....definitely not murder. One could reasonably argue for manslaughter or negligent homicide....but definitely not murder.

 

[bodecea]

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?

How would she know he was bigger, she shot him while he was still seated.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Commissioner Christine Coulter says based on the evidence, investigators believe the victim was an innocent bystander.

"It certainly didn't look like she was the intended target. It didn't seem like she was involved in anything that would lead to her being shot. It's truly what keeps you up at night," said Coulter.

Oopsies!