Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Gyger made a mistake. Dumb, and shooting a guy eating ice-cream? In his own house even. That wasn't self defense. I get it. I have done some dumb things too, and so have the rest of you. But then I have seen blacks do drive by shootings, or seen them murder innocent people. for no obvious reason , statistically in larger numbers than anyone else. So...where do you go with that?White female cop off duty gets stupid, becomes human and does something dumb. Of course, that was manslaughter. But if you are white and a cop, no excuse. Jesus Christ, no wonder people are leaving the police force. They expect you to be god and be able to second guess everything...
I do not think she did anything wrong other than to be a innocent trespasser.
You are definitely right that most folks want to believe cops should be super human.
Everyone makes mistakes....it is just human nature...
Trespassing is never innocent.
And she obviously was absurdly reckless and irresponsible.
What she did wrong was to shoot without any provocation at all.
It has nothing at all to do with her being a cop.
Anyone who carries a firearm has to reach a higher standard.
That is why it takes classes, extensive background checks, and more stringent laws.
Shooting someone who had no weapon is not a mistake, but an extremely serious crime.
And no, it is not human nature to make mistakes.
Mistakes do happen, but when they harm others, you have to pay for those mistakes,
There are no do overs when you kill someone.
Wrong.................
White female cop off duty gets stupid, becomes human and does something dumb. Of course, that was manslaughter. But if you are white and a cop, no excuse. Jesus Christ, no wonder people are leaving the police force. They expect you to be god and be able to second guess everything...
I do not think she did anything wrong other than to be a innocent trespasser.
You are definitely right that most folks want to believe cops should be super human.
Everyone makes mistakes....it is just human nature...
Trespassing is never innocent.
And she obviously was absurdly reckless and irresponsible.
What she did wrong was to shoot without any provocation at all.
It has nothing at all to do with her being a cop.
Anyone who carries a firearm has to reach a higher standard.
That is why it takes classes, extensive background checks, and more stringent laws.
Shooting someone who had no weapon is not a mistake, but an extremely serious crime.
And no, it is not human nature to make mistakes.
Mistakes do happen, but when they harm others, you have to pay for those mistakes,
There are no do overs when you kill someone.
Wrong..................What is INNOCENT TRESPASSER? definition of INNOCENT TRESPASSER (Black's Law Dictionary)
She was in reasonable fear of her life as in she thought she was in her apartment and confronted by an intruder/burglar or who knows what.
Again...it is not a crime in and of itself to shoot an unarmed person...this myth has been promoted by the media far and wide and they have convinced a lot of gullible people that it is true.
Animals do not make mistakes but all humans do.
Now of course this case was a tragedy for all concerned....but destroying another innocent life only doubles the tragedy.
She obviously was not up to it or else she would not have shot.
Any ordinary person would not at all have shot in that situation.
A police officer isn't trained to back away and even if she had, there was no cover in the hallway and always a chance of an innocent walking out into an exchange of gunfire. Despite all the horseshit that's here in my thread, the fact of the matter is she believed she was confronting a burglar in her apartment. She was tired, overburdened, NOT drunk, and scared. The DA put her text messages and frivolous tweets in front of a jury which was NOT of her peers. Her defense was neutered by a racist judge who made a fool of herself with her body language, mannerisms, and obvious racial bias. When have you ever seen a PICTURE of a victim positioned in front of a jury day after day? Her expert witnesses could have proven the victim was moving, not sitting eating his ice cream. It was not allowed. WTF? He yelled at her and moved forward toward her when it was obvious she was a police officer and had to obey her command or get smoked. They both were culpable.....a few seconds of mayhem destroyed both lives.
Police officers are SUPPOSED to be trained to back away to find cover, and Amber was NOT a police officer at the time, but was off duty and a civilian.
The wall and door IS cover.
And the risk to other is higher is she stays in the dark apartment than if she retreats into the light.
How was the jury NOT of her peers?
Were they not US citizens?
There was no evidence that an expert witness was not allowed.
If true, that would be for an appeal court to hear.
There is no evidence he yelled, nor is there anything wrong with him yelling, since it was his apartment.
No one has to obey an illegal command by a police officer or anyone, and she had no legal authority to command anyone to do anything at that point. She was off duty so had no legal authority, and she was trespassing, so was committing a crime.
And police can NOT shoot when someone just does not obey a command.
She had been a police officer for years with a clean record and no disciplinary problems.Last September, one of Amber Guyger’s friends told her that she should adopt a German Shepherd—although tEvhe dog “may be racist,” the friend texted. “It’s okay.. I’m the same,” GuygeNor replied.
Everyone is racist...certainly most intelligent people are racist. Our founding fathers were racist...Abraham Lincoln was a white supremacits.
You are probably right that everyone is a racist even if they do not admit it, but people in responsible jobs are expected to know better. No one is supposed to shoot someone else unless they see a weapon about to be wrongly used.
An off duty cop is under the same duty to retreat as anyone.
Again....you are another one that does not understand the law.
I do understand why you think that...simply because the media for a long while now has preached hard that blacks that are unarmed should not be shot...ridiculous.
There are probably more folks killed by unarmed perps than armed perps.....every heard of strangulation or being beaten to death ...quite common.
Thus just because someone is unarmed does not mean they are not a threat...especially if they are bigger and stronger than the defendant....thus the law on self defense does not say the perp must be armed before you can use lethal force to defend your life.
The only requisite to use lethal force in self defense is that you must be in reasonable fear of your life or of great bodily harm.
Try and get your head around that...apparently a lot of folks on here cannot. We saw that in the Zimmerman case as well.
You clearly do not know the law.
If someone tries to use their hands to kill you, then you are free to use your hands to try to kill them back.
You are NOT free to shoot them.
The law does NOT allow you to use a weapon if they do not use a weapon.
Being in fear of your life is not enough.
And for you to have a reasonable fear for your life, the person has to already have committed a crime by trying to use a weapon on you.
In this case, there was not a single clue of any possible violent or life threatening action by Jean.
And it is foolish to bring up the Zimmerman case, because not only was there lots of blood and images of broken skin, but most people thing the jury was wrong and Zimmerman was guilty.
Police officers are SUPPOSED to be trained to back away to find cover, and Amber was NOT a police officer at the time, but was off duty and a civilian.
The wall and door IS cover.
And the risk to other is higher is she stays in the dark apartment than if she retreats into the light.
How was the jury NOT of her peers?
Were they not US citizens?
There was no evidence that an expert witness was not allowed.
If true, that would be for an appeal court to hear.
There is no evidence he yelled, nor is there anything wrong with him yelling, since it was his apartment.
No one has to obey an illegal command by a police officer or anyone, and she had no legal authority to command anyone to do anything at that point. She was off duty so had no legal authority, and she was trespassing, so was committing a crime.
And police can NOT shoot when someone just does not obey a command.
Somebody else can put up with your nonsense...I'm done here.
You clearly do not know the law.
If someone tries to use their hands to kill you, then you are free to use your hands to try to kill them back.
You are NOT free to shoot them.
The law does NOT allow you to use a weapon if they do not use a weapon.
Being in fear of your life is not enough.
And for you to have a reasonable fear for your life, the person has to already have committed a crime by trying to use a weapon on you.
In this case, there was not a single clue of any possible violent or life threatening action by Jean.
And it is foolish to bring up the Zimmerman case, because not only was there lots of blood and images of broken skin, but most people thing the jury was wrong and Zimmerman was guilty.
You clearly do not know the law. If a person is assaulting you, you're under no obligation to match his method of assault. If you think your life is in danger, you are entitled to use any means necessary to end the attack. I taught Okinawan Karate for years and the question often came up, can I use these tactics in a fight? Hell yes you can but remember a simple code.....do not fight to kill unless a weapon becomes involved...incapacitate before injury, injury before disfigurement, disfigurement before death. In other words, it's your decision whether you break a wrist, or crush a windpipe, take an eye or break a nose....the decision you make, under fight or flight conditions, will be a result of what i taught you. And before advanced techniques were taught in my dojos, it was my responsibility to learn if the personality in question should be given these skills....I took that very seriously.
You clearly do not know the law.
If someone tries to use their hands to kill you, then you are free to use your hands to try to kill them back.
You are NOT free to shoot them.
The law does NOT allow you to use a weapon if they do not use a weapon.
Being in fear of your life is not enough.
And for you to have a reasonable fear for your life, the person has to already have committed a crime by trying to use a weapon on you.
In this case, there was not a single clue of any possible violent or life threatening action by Jean.
And it is foolish to bring up the Zimmerman case, because not only was there lots of blood and images of broken skin, but most people thing the jury was wrong and Zimmerman was guilty.
You clearly do not know the law. If a person is assaulting you, you're under no obligation to match his method of assault. If you think your life is in danger, you are entitled to use any means necessary to end the attack. I taught Okinawan Karate for years and the question often came up, can I use these tactics in a fight? Hell yes you can but remember a simple code.....do not fight to kill unless a weapon becomes involved...incapacitate before injury, injury before disfigurement, disfigurement before death. In other words, it's your decision whether you break a wrist, or crush a windpipe, take an eye or break a nose....the decision you make, under fight or flight conditions, will be a result of what i taught you. And before advanced techniques were taught in my dojos, it was my responsibility to learn if the personality in question should be given these skills....I took that very seriously.
Gyger made a mistake. Dumb, and shooting a guy eating ice-cream? In his own house even. That wasn't self defense. I get it. I have done some dumb things too, and so have the rest of you. But then I have seen blacks do drive by shootings, or seen them murder innocent people. for no obvious reason , statistically in larger numbers than anyone else. So...where do you go with that?White female cop off duty gets stupid, becomes human and does something dumb. Of course, that was manslaughter. But if you are white and a cop, no excuse. Jesus Christ, no wonder people are leaving the police force. They expect you to be god and be able to second guess everything...
I do not think she did anything wrong other than to be a innocent trespasser.
You are definitely right that most folks want to believe cops should be super human.
Everyone makes mistakes....it is just human nature...
Trespassing is never innocent.
And she obviously was absurdly reckless and irresponsible.
What she did wrong was to shoot without any provocation at all.
It has nothing at all to do with her being a cop.
Anyone who carries a firearm has to reach a higher standard.
That is why it takes classes, extensive background checks, and more stringent laws.
Shooting someone who had no weapon is not a mistake, but an extremely serious crime.
And no, it is not human nature to make mistakes.
Mistakes do happen, but when they harm others, you have to pay for those mistakes,
There are no do overs when you kill someone.
Wrong.................
White female cop off duty gets stupid, becomes human and does something dumb. Of course, that was manslaughter. But if you are white and a cop, no excuse. Jesus Christ, no wonder people are leaving the police force. They expect you to be god and be able to second guess everything...
I do not think she did anything wrong other than to be a innocent trespasser.
You are definitely right that most folks want to believe cops should be super human.
Everyone makes mistakes....it is just human nature...
Trespassing is never innocent.
And she obviously was absurdly reckless and irresponsible.
What she did wrong was to shoot without any provocation at all.
It has nothing at all to do with her being a cop.
Anyone who carries a firearm has to reach a higher standard.
That is why it takes classes, extensive background checks, and more stringent laws.
Shooting someone who had no weapon is not a mistake, but an extremely serious crime.
And no, it is not human nature to make mistakes.
Mistakes do happen, but when they harm others, you have to pay for those mistakes,
There are no do overs when you kill someone.
Wrong..................What is INNOCENT TRESPASSER? definition of INNOCENT TRESPASSER (Black's Law Dictionary)
She was in reasonable fear of her life as in she thought she was in her apartment and confronted by an intruder/burglar or who knows what.
Again...it is not a crime in and of itself to shoot an unarmed person...this myth has been promoted by the media far and wide and they have convinced a lot of gullible people that it is true.
Animals do not make mistakes but all humans do.
Now of course this case was a tragedy for all concerned....but destroying another innocent life only doubles the tragedy.
You clearly do not know the law.
If someone tries to use their hands to kill you, then you are free to use your hands to try to kill them back.
You are NOT free to shoot them.
The law does NOT allow you to use a weapon if they do not use a weapon.
Being in fear of your life is not enough.
And for you to have a reasonable fear for your life, the person has to already have committed a crime by trying to use a weapon on you.
In this case, there was not a single clue of any possible violent or life threatening action by Jean.
And it is foolish to bring up the Zimmerman case, because not only was there lots of blood and images of broken skin, but most people thing the jury was wrong and Zimmerman was guilty.
You clearly do not know the law. If a person is assaulting you, you're under no obligation to match his method of assault. If you think your life is in danger, you are entitled to use any means necessary to end the attack. I taught Okinawan Karate for years and the question often came up, can I use these tactics in a fight? Hell yes you can but remember a simple code.....do not fight to kill unless a weapon becomes involved...incapacitate before injury, injury before disfigurement, disfigurement before death. In other words, it's your decision whether you break a wrist, or crush a windpipe, take an eye or break a nose....the decision you make, under fight or flight conditions, will be a result of what i taught you. And before advanced techniques were taught in my dojos, it was my responsibility to learn if the personality in question should be given these skills....I took that very seriously.
Yes you are required to refrain from the use of a deadly weapon as long as the other person is not armed.
A physical assault is not considered deadly usually, so you can not then respond with deadly force.
But if you use professional combat skills, like Karate, then that is considered deadly force, and others then can use weapons.
Here is a legal explanation.
{...
Thus, under our law of justification, it is not sufficient that the defendant honestly believed in his own mind that he was faced with defending himself/herself [or someone else] against the use or imminent use of deadly physical force. An honest belief, no matter how genuine or sincere, may yet be unreasonable. To have been justified in the use of deadly physical force, the defendant must have honestly believed that it was necessary to defend himself/herself [or someone else] from what he/she honestly believed to be the use or imminent use of such force by (specify), and a "reasonable person" in the defendant's position, knowing what the defendant knew and being in the same circumstances, would have believed that too.
...}
Amber, having been trained in self defense, should not have felt at all at risk in being able to handle any physical situation, and there was not even any indication that a physical situation would even occur. For Amber to have a reasonable belief, she would have to have seen a weapon, heard of crimes by Jean in the past, or some actual basis for fear.
http://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/1-General/Defenses/CJI2d.Justification.Person.Deadly_Force.pdf
Everyone is racist...certainly most intelligent people are racist. Our founding fathers were racist...Abraham Lincoln was a white supremacits.
You are probably right that everyone is a racist even if they do not admit it, but people in responsible jobs are expected to know better. No one is supposed to shoot someone else unless they see a weapon about to be wrongly used.
An off duty cop is under the same duty to retreat as anyone.
Again....you are another one that does not understand the law.
I do understand why you think that...simply because the media for a long while now has preached hard that blacks that are unarmed should not be shot...ridiculous.
There are probably more folks killed by unarmed perps than armed perps.....every heard of strangulation or being beaten to death ...quite common.
Thus just because someone is unarmed does not mean they are not a threat...especially if they are bigger and stronger than the defendant....thus the law on self defense does not say the perp must be armed before you can use lethal force to defend your life.
The only requisite to use lethal force in self defense is that you must be in reasonable fear of your life or of great bodily harm.
Try and get your head around that...apparently a lot of folks on here cannot. We saw that in the Zimmerman case as well.
You clearly do not know the law.
If someone tries to use their hands to kill you, then you are free to use your hands to try to kill them back.
You are NOT free to shoot them.
The law does NOT allow you to use a weapon if they do not use a weapon.
Being in fear of your life is not enough.
And for you to have a reasonable fear for your life, the person has to already have committed a crime by trying to use a weapon on you.
In this case, there was not a single clue of any possible violent or life threatening action by Jean.
And it is foolish to bring up the Zimmerman case, because not only was there lots of blood and images of broken skin, but most people thing the jury was wrong and Zimmerman was guilty.
Nonsense....quote the law on self defense ....you will then prove yourself wrong.
Your statement on self defense is one of the most ridiculous I have ever seen.
Go ahead post the law on self defense from your state. i dare you.
If you do not ...I will...what state are you from?
Murder is a clear intent to harm or end a life that was planed ahead of time, a scheme or plan to do bodily harm meant to end a life...I don't think what Gyger did fits that definition. No, it was manslaughter: The killing of a human being without malice of forethought , accidentally as an unforeseen consequence.
Murder is a clear intent to harm or end a life that was planed ahead of time, a scheme or plan to do bodily harm meant to end a life...I don't think what Gyger did fits that definition. No, it was manslaughter: The killing of a human being without malice of forethought , accidentally as an unforeseen consequence.
Murder is a clear intent to harm or end a life that was planed ahead of time, a scheme or plan to do bodily harm meant to end a life...I don't think what Gyger did fits that definition. No, it was manslaughter: The killing of a human being without malice of forethought , accidentally as an unforeseen consequence.
Wrong.
This has been brought up dozens of times.
Murder does not have to have have malicious intent at all.
All that is required is a degree of recklessness.
For example, a drunk driver that kills someone can and often times is charged with murder, without any malicious intent.
Amber committed murder because it is incredibly irresponsible to not recognize the door mat, furniture, etc. as being different, and it was reckless to shoot without knowing intentions.
You clearly do not know the law.
If someone tries to use their hands to kill you, then you are free to use your hands to try to kill them back.
You are NOT free to shoot them.
The law does NOT allow you to use a weapon if they do not use a weapon.
Being in fear of your life is not enough.
And for you to have a reasonable fear for your life, the person has to already have committed a crime by trying to use a weapon on you.
In this case, there was not a single clue of any possible violent or life threatening action by Jean.
And it is foolish to bring up the Zimmerman case, because not only was there lots of blood and images of broken skin, but most people thing the jury was wrong and Zimmerman was guilty.
You clearly do not know the law. If a person is assaulting you, you're under no obligation to match his method of assault. If you think your life is in danger, you are entitled to use any means necessary to end the attack. I taught Okinawan Karate for years and the question often came up, can I use these tactics in a fight? Hell yes you can but remember a simple code.....do not fight to kill unless a weapon becomes involved...incapacitate before injury, injury before disfigurement, disfigurement before death. In other words, it's your decision whether you break a wrist, or crush a windpipe, take an eye or break a nose....the decision you make, under fight or flight conditions, will be a result of what i taught you. And before advanced techniques were taught in my dojos, it was my responsibility to learn if the personality in question should be given these skills....I took that very seriously.
Yes you are required to refrain from the use of a deadly weapon as long as the other person is not armed.
A physical assault is not considered deadly usually, so you can not then respond with deadly force.
But if you use professional combat skills, like Karate, then that is considered deadly force, and others then can use weapons.
Here is a legal explanation.
{...
Thus, under our law of justification, it is not sufficient that the defendant honestly believed in his own mind that he was faced with defending himself/herself [or someone else] against the use or imminent use of deadly physical force. An honest belief, no matter how genuine or sincere, may yet be unreasonable. To have been justified in the use of deadly physical force, the defendant must have honestly believed that it was necessary to defend himself/herself [or someone else] from what he/she honestly believed to be the use or imminent use of such force by (specify), and a "reasonable person" in the defendant's position, knowing what the defendant knew and being in the same circumstances, would have believed that too.
...}
Amber, having been trained in self defense, should not have felt at all at risk in being able to handle any physical situation, and there was not even any indication that a physical situation would even occur. For Amber to have a reasonable belief, she would have to have seen a weapon, heard of crimes by Jean in the past, or some actual basis for fear.
http://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/1-General/Defenses/CJI2d.Justification.Person.Deadly_Force.pdf
Laughable....i could really ridicule you but i have to feel sorry for someone as mixed up as you obviously are.
Why do you refuse to post the actual law on self defense from your state?
Murder is a clear intent to harm or end a life that was planed ahead of time, a scheme or plan to do bodily harm meant to end a life...I don't think what Gyger did fits that definition. No, it was manslaughter: The killing of a human being without malice of forethought , accidentally as an unforeseen consequence.
You got it.
Now quote the part of that you think agrees with your statement that the perp must have a weapon for the defandant to be justified to use lethal force.
You clearly do not know the law.
If someone tries to use their hands to kill you, then you are free to use your hands to try to kill them back.
You are NOT free to shoot them.
The law does NOT allow you to use a weapon if they do not use a weapon.
Being in fear of your life is not enough.
And for you to have a reasonable fear for your life, the person has to already have committed a crime by trying to use a weapon on you.
In this case, there was not a single clue of any possible violent or life threatening action by Jean.
And it is foolish to bring up the Zimmerman case, because not only was there lots of blood and images of broken skin, but most people thing the jury was wrong and Zimmerman was guilty.
You clearly do not know the law. If a person is assaulting you, you're under no obligation to match his method of assault. If you think your life is in danger, you are entitled to use any means necessary to end the attack. I taught Okinawan Karate for years and the question often came up, can I use these tactics in a fight? Hell yes you can but remember a simple code.....do not fight to kill unless a weapon becomes involved...incapacitate before injury, injury before disfigurement, disfigurement before death. In other words, it's your decision whether you break a wrist, or crush a windpipe, take an eye or break a nose....the decision you make, under fight or flight conditions, will be a result of what i taught you. And before advanced techniques were taught in my dojos, it was my responsibility to learn if the personality in question should be given these skills....I took that very seriously.
Yes you are required to refrain from the use of a deadly weapon as long as the other person is not armed.
A physical assault is not considered deadly usually, so you can not then respond with deadly force.
But if you use professional combat skills, like Karate, then that is considered deadly force, and others then can use weapons.
Here is a legal explanation.
{...
Thus, under our law of justification, it is not sufficient that the defendant honestly believed in his own mind that he was faced with defending himself/herself [or someone else] against the use or imminent use of deadly physical force. An honest belief, no matter how genuine or sincere, may yet be unreasonable. To have been justified in the use of deadly physical force, the defendant must have honestly believed that it was necessary to defend himself/herself [or someone else] from what he/she honestly believed to be the use or imminent use of such force by (specify), and a "reasonable person" in the defendant's position, knowing what the defendant knew and being in the same circumstances, would have believed that too.
...}
Amber, having been trained in self defense, should not have felt at all at risk in being able to handle any physical situation, and there was not even any indication that a physical situation would even occur. For Amber to have a reasonable belief, she would have to have seen a weapon, heard of crimes by Jean in the past, or some actual basis for fear.
http://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/1-General/Defenses/CJI2d.Justification.Person.Deadly_Force.pdf
Laughable....i could really ridicule you but i have to feel sorry for someone as mixed up as you obviously are.
Why do you refuse to post the actual law on self defense from your state?
Since this is a Texas case, here is Texas statutes.
Texas Penal Code § 9.32 | FindLaw
{...
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31 ; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
...}
And since Jean was either sitting on the couch or just getting up from the couch, he could not possibly have constituted a reasonable threat, no matter what she believed.
So she had no legal basis for using deadly force.
She also clearly was the person provoking the confrontation, since she entered his apt.
She was committing the criminal act of trespassing.
Amber had been trained in self defense.
Jean never got near to her and was never a reasonable threat.
I don't think she was reckless. For me, she was dumb. This is wreckless:Some dumbass TRUCKER here in Colorado that that killed 4 people that can't speak English drove past at least one runaway truck ramp given parole. Yeah. Recklessness...but is it MURDER? you tell me....Murder is a clear intent to harm or end a life that was planed ahead of time, a scheme or plan to do bodily harm meant to end a life...I don't think what Gyger did fits that definition. No, it was manslaughter: The killing of a human being without malice of forethought , accidentally as an unforeseen consequence.
Wrong.
This has been brought up dozens of times.
Murder does not have to have have malicious intent at all.
All that is required is a degree of recklessness.
For example, a drunk driver that kills someone can and often times is charged with murder, without any malicious intent.
Amber committed murder because it is incredibly irresponsible to not recognize the door mat, furniture, etc. as being different, and it was reckless to shoot without knowing intentions.
Murder is a clear intent to harm or end a life that was planed ahead of time, a scheme or plan to do bodily harm meant to end a life...I don't think what Gyger did fits that definition. No, it was manslaughter: The killing of a human being without malice of forethought , accidentally as an unforeseen consequence.
You got it.
Again, that is totally and completely wrong.
Anyone who is sufficiently reckless can and often is charged with murder.
Not recognizing the apt, pulling a gun, firing twice, etc. are all so reckless as to constitute murder, just like with a drunk driver.
Murder is a clear intent to harm or end a life that was planed ahead of time, a scheme or plan to do bodily harm meant to end a life...I don't think what Gyger did fits that definition. No, it was manslaughter: The killing of a human being without malice of forethought , accidentally as an unforeseen consequence.
Wrong.
This has been brought up dozens of times.
Murder does not have to have have malicious intent at all.
All that is required is a degree of recklessness.
For example, a drunk driver that kills someone can and often times is charged with murder, without any malicious intent.
Amber committed murder because it is incredibly irresponsible to not recognize the door mat, furniture, etc. as being different, and it was reckless to shoot without knowing intentions.
Nonsense....I have no idea why you seem to think you know the law.
Legal Dictionary - Law.com
chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html
