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.
I don't think she was reckless. For me, she was dumb. This is wreckless:Some dumbass TRUCKER that that killed 4 people that cant speak English given parole. Yeah. Recklessness...but is it MURDER?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.
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?
I already did quote the law on the use of deadly force for self defense.
You can not just be afraid, but have to have some valid reason to think your life in in danger, such as verbal threats to kill, a weapon, past examples of attempts to kill, etc.
Someone getting up from a couch and eating ice cream, does not justify the use of deadly force.
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.
Drlunk drivers are sometimes charged with 2nd degree murder...but usually just negligent homicide.
Vehicular homicide - Wikipedia
2nd degree murder does not exist in Texas. Amber was charged with murder.
She was thus falsely charged....in order for murder to exist there must be malice.
Legal Dictionary - Law.com
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?
I already did quote the law on the use of deadly force for self defense.
You can not just be afraid, but have to have some valid reason to think your life in in danger, such as verbal threats to kill, a weapon, past examples of attempts to kill, etc.
Someone getting up from a couch and eating ice cream, does not justify the use of deadly force.
The law says one must have a 'reasonable' belief that one's life is in danger or that one might suffer grievious bodily harm' in order to justifiably use lethal force to defend your life.
The key word of course being reasonable....thus a jury has the power to decide what is reasonable or what is not reasonable. Too often they get it wrong.
Juries now are making it more difficult to claim self defense when the victim is black due to the politics of black victimhood...blacks are given extra protection because of political considerations....as in cities are fearful of blacks rioting or suing them...thus they will attempt to placate the masses by offering up a sacrifical lamb such as Amber.
I don't think she was reckless. For me, she was dumb. This is wreckless:Some dumbass TRUCKER that that killed 4 people that cant speak English given parole. Yeah. Recklessness...but is it MURDER?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.
It is incredibly reckless to carry a gun if you do not even realize you are in the wrong apartment, and do not even notice a bright red door mat that is not yours, in front of the door.
And pulling the gun was even more incredibly reckless.
There was no weapon, threats, or any reason at all to pull the weapon.
Not to mention firing it twice.
That is the height of deliberate criminal intent, when there is not even a justification for being in the wrong apt.
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?
I already did quote the law on the use of deadly force for self defense.
You can not just be afraid, but have to have some valid reason to think your life in in danger, such as verbal threats to kill, a weapon, past examples of attempts to kill, etc.
Someone getting up from a couch and eating ice cream, does not justify the use of deadly force.
The law says one must have a 'reasonable' belief that one's life is in danger or that one might suffer grievious bodily harm' in order to justifiably use lethal force to defend your life.
The key word of course being reasonable....thus a jury has the power to decide what is reasonable or what is not reasonable. Too often they get it wrong.
Juries now are making it more difficult to claim self defense when the victim is black due to the politics of black victimhood...blacks are given extra protection because of political considerations....as in cities are fearful of blacks rioting or suing them...thus they will attempt to placate the masses by offering up a sacrifical lamb such as Amber.
That is silly in this case because the Black guy said or did nothing that was remotely threatening.
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.
Drlunk drivers are sometimes charged with 2nd degree murder...but usually just negligent homicide.
Vehicular homicide - Wikipedia
2nd degree murder does not exist in Texas. Amber was charged with murder.
She was thus falsely charged....in order for murder to exist there must be malice.
Legal Dictionary - Law.com
From your own legal dictionary link, which you obviously did not even read.
{... or it was as an incident to another crime (as during a hold-up or rape), to be first degree murder, with or without premeditation and with malice presumed. ...}
So since the shooting was during the criminal act of tesspassing, it gets elevated to murder instead of manslaughter.
Since she was carrying a gun while committing the crime, it also gets elevated.
Since it is incredibly reckless to not recognize the apartment differences, it also gets elevated.
Your link explains why a reckless act does not require intent or malice.
{... Second degree murder is such a killing without premeditation, as in the heat of passion or in a sudden quarrel or fight. Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life of others (such as firing a gun into a crowd or bashing someone with any deadly weapon). ...}
There is a second degree murder charge in Texas, but they do not differentiate it by name.
{...
The crime of second degree murder, simply called "murder" in Texas, is a serious crime with harsh penalties. Second degree murder is a crime involving a death that resulted from the accused's wrongful acts. These include deaths that occur during the commission of a crime, or on account of the accused's recklessness. The following chart includes information about the Texas crime of second degree murder, including potential defenses and penalties.
Statute Texas Murder Statute (Penal Code, Title 5, Chapter 19)
Elements of Second Degree Murder
Texas does not officially use the term "second degree murder" which can sometimes be a little bit confusing. Instead, the equivalent in Texas is known as just "murder," which is a first degree felony. To convict a defendant of murder, prosecutors must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that:
Defenses Against Second Degree Murder Charges
- The defendant intentionally and knowingly caused the death of another person;
- The defendant intended to cause serious bodily injury and committed an act that was clearly dangerous to human life and this act caused the death of an individual; or
- The defendant committed or attempted to commit a felony (other than manslaughter) and in performing that felony, committed an act that was clearly dangerous to human life and this act caused the death of an individual.
NOTE: If none of the criteria are met, the defendant may still be found guilty of a lesser homicide charge.
- Lack of intent
- Lack of knowledge
- Insanity
- Intoxication
- Self-defense
- "Heat of passion" defense (i.e. The defendant was provoked to commit the crime by fear, rage, terror or some other extreme emotion.)
See Second Degree Murder Defenses for more information.
Penalties and Sentences
Murder in Texas is a first degree felony. This charge will typically carry a sentence of between five and 99 years in a state prison and/or a fine of no more than $10,000. At the sentencing stage of the defendant's trial, the defendant can raise the issue of having committed the crime in the "heat of passion" arising from an adequate cause. If the defendant is found to have been in the heat of passion at the time of the homicide, then the charge will be reduced to second degree felony. A second degree felony carries a sentence of between two and twenty years in a state prison and a fine of no more than $10,000.
...}
Texas Second Degree Murder Laws - FindLaw
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
Wrong, and your link is not at all valid.
A drunk driver that kills can be charged with a wide variety of things, including murder.
That is because they deliberately committed the reckless act of drinking and then driving.
Is Drunk Driving Murder?
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.
Drlunk drivers are sometimes charged with 2nd degree murder...but usually just negligent homicide.
Vehicular homicide - Wikipedia
2nd degree murder does not exist in Texas. Amber was charged with murder.
She was thus falsely charged....in order for murder to exist there must be malice.
Legal Dictionary - Law.com
From your own legal dictionary link, which you obviously did not even read.
{... or it was as an incident to another crime (as during a hold-up or rape), to be first degree murder, with or without premeditation and with malice presumed. ...}
So since the shooting was during the criminal act of tesspassing, it gets elevated to murder instead of manslaughter.
Since she was carrying a gun while committing the crime, it also gets elevated.
Since it is incredibly reckless to not recognize the apartment differences, it also gets elevated.
Your link explains why a reckless act does not require intent or malice.
{... Second degree murder is such a killing without premeditation, as in the heat of passion or in a sudden quarrel or fight. Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life of others (such as firing a gun into a crowd or bashing someone with any deadly weapon). ...}
There is a second degree murder charge in Texas, but they do not differentiate it by name.
{...
The crime of second degree murder, simply called "murder" in Texas, is a serious crime with harsh penalties. Second degree murder is a crime involving a death that resulted from the accused's wrongful acts. These include deaths that occur during the commission of a crime, or on account of the accused's recklessness. The following chart includes information about the Texas crime of second degree murder, including potential defenses and penalties.
Statute Texas Murder Statute (Penal Code, Title 5, Chapter 19)
Elements of Second Degree Murder
Texas does not officially use the term "second degree murder" which can sometimes be a little bit confusing. Instead, the equivalent in Texas is known as just "murder," which is a first degree felony. To convict a defendant of murder, prosecutors must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that:
Defenses Against Second Degree Murder Charges
- The defendant intentionally and knowingly caused the death of another person;
- The defendant intended to cause serious bodily injury and committed an act that was clearly dangerous to human life and this act caused the death of an individual; or
- The defendant committed or attempted to commit a felony (other than manslaughter) and in performing that felony, committed an act that was clearly dangerous to human life and this act caused the death of an individual.
NOTE: If none of the criteria are met, the defendant may still be found guilty of a lesser homicide charge.
- Lack of intent
- Lack of knowledge
- Insanity
- Intoxication
- Self-defense
- "Heat of passion" defense (i.e. The defendant was provoked to commit the crime by fear, rage, terror or some other extreme emotion.)
See Second Degree Murder Defenses for more information.
Penalties and Sentences
Murder in Texas is a first degree felony. This charge will typically carry a sentence of between five and 99 years in a state prison and/or a fine of no more than $10,000. At the sentencing stage of the defendant's trial, the defendant can raise the issue of having committed the crime in the "heat of passion" arising from an adequate cause. If the defendant is found to have been in the heat of passion at the time of the homicide, then the charge will be reduced to second degree felony. A second degree felony carries a sentence of between two and twenty years in a state prison and a fine of no more than $10,000.
...}
Texas Second Degree Murder Laws - FindLaw
I never have, but then, I've never lived anywhere with a dozen identical homes the same number of steps from the same elevator. I've never once used my key to unlock the door of someone else's home.If all true the Judge is a problem BUT how often have YOU mistaken someone else's home for yours?
I never have, but then, I've never lived anywhere with a dozen identical homes the same number of steps from the same elevator. I've never once used my key to unlock the door of someone else's home.If all true the Judge is a problem BUT how often have YOU mistaken someone else's home for yours?
If you were the officer and got off the identical elevator at the 5th floor instead of the 6th, lets say and walked your normal 32 paces and put your identical key into an identical door and it fit, would you not expect the man in your identical living room to be an intruder? I know, I'd be unholstering my weapon prepared to make loud noises. Had the key not fit, the officer would likely have realized her mistake.
I would lay more blame on the apartment building management for having the same lock on one door and on the door directly above it.
OK... I was making up a story to explain how easy it could be to enter the wrong apartment is many large apartment buildings I was wrong about the key.I never have, but then, I've never lived anywhere with a dozen identical homes the same number of steps from the same elevator. I've never once used my key to unlock the door of someone else's home.If all true the Judge is a problem BUT how often have YOU mistaken someone else's home for yours?
If you were the officer and got off the identical elevator at the 5th floor instead of the 6th, lets say and walked your normal 32 paces and put your identical key into an identical door and it fit, would you not expect the man in your identical living room to be an intruder? I know, I'd be unholstering my weapon prepared to make loud noises. Had the key not fit, the officer would likely have realized her mistake.
I would lay more blame on the apartment building management for having the same lock on one door and on the door directly above it.
She did not open the door with her key....when she started to put her key in...the door obviously ajar-- just opened....and then she took a couple of steps inside and noted the silouhette of what she considered a intruder/burglar or whatever but definitely a threat and reasonably so.
The lights were off and that prevented her from seeing it was not her apartment...after she shot the guy....she turned on the lights and immediately recognized it was not her apartment and then she panicked understanding she had shot a innocent guy.
The motivation in upping this accident to "murder." It doesnt fit the definition of murder.What the hell does race have anything to do with this issue anyway?
I've shown you several times how this was a MOB VERDICT designed to appease the black mob.
It most certainly does fit the defintion of murder.
When you accept the privilege of carrying a gun in public, you agree to the higher standards where negligence is prosecuted as murder. And rightfully so. Carrying a gun in public is huge responsibility.
She knew what she had agreed to. If she was not up to it, then she should not have agreed to take the job and the gun.
Carrying a gun does not make one legally subject to higher standards of any sort...all you need to do is get a license.
Carrying a gun or even owning a gun carries responsibility as does many other things such as driving a car etc.
you have no valid point.
She was a veteran cop of 4 yrs. obviously, she was up to it.
...like the professional boxer who is charged with murder if he kills someone with a punch that an ordinary person would not be charged with murder for.
....
Thanks! Been looking for that previous shooting incident. Seemed much easier to find the first time. I lived in apartments for a few years and often just wedged in trash or something to keep the door ajar for various reasons.We have no idea what she said as she entered the apartment or if she said anything.Well, you have to remember as has been presented numerous times already....over a hundred other people that are known of had gotten confused and gone to the wrong apartment. Obviously there was a big problem in that complex because all the apartments looked the same...and there were not adequate signs to keep folks from getting confused.
And then............add on to the top of that she was very tired having worked a 13 hr. shift. Accidents happen...but the bottom line is she was a innocent trespasser and the black guy should have listened to her command to show his hands.
So, they got confused and went to the wrong apartment. Did those hundred others open fire on an innocent person?
Sure, let's blame the apartment complex for the incident because all the apartments look alike and there weren't adequate signs to warn all the dumbasses who can't pay attention. So fucking ridiculous.
And boo hoo, she worked a 13-hour shift and was tired. Wah wah. That makes me feel soooo sorry for the poor little woman. That was justified for her to enter someone else's apartment and commit murder, huh?
The black guy didn't need to obey her command. He was in his own apartment doing nothing wrong. She lost her job and will be behind bars for her stupid mistake. Serves her right.
How many are willing to die to abstain from following the legal order of a policemen? You are being ridiculous.....I doubt any of the others who went to the wrong apartment found one with a open door and the lights out nor were they police officers.
Get real.
She was allowed to frame the encounter to best justify the shooting.
The dead man was not
Police departments weed out liars....she had been a cop for years with no credibility problems....everything she says makes sense....no reason to doubt her.
That is not true.
Amber had been investigated for a previous shooting.
Amber Guyger Shot Suspect Uvaldo Perez Before Botham Jean | Heavy.com
{...
Amber Guyger Shot Suspect Uvaldo Perez Before Botham Jean
Amber Guyger, who was on the Dallas police force for four years and was involved in a previous shooting, ...
Stories posted online and a database of police shootings identified Amber Guyger as having been involved in a previous officer-involved shooting. In that one, the man lived and she was on duty, news reports show.
The Dallas Police Department’s website wrote in 2017, “The suspect in this offense has been identified as Uvaldo Perez L/M/46. He is being charged with Taking A Weapon from an Officer, Possession of Meth, Possession of Marijuana, and Parole Violation. Mr. Perez remains hospitalized at this time. The officer involved in this incident is Officer Amber Guyger, #10702. She is assigned to the Southeast Crime Response Team (CRT) and has been on the department for three years and six months.”
The police website included this description of the Perez shooting:
On May 12, 2017, at about 8:58 am, Dallas officers from the Crime Response Team responded to the 8300 block of Reva Street after receiving information from undercover officers that a wanted female was at the location. When the uniformed officers arrived, they observed the female they believed to be wanted sitting in the front passenger seat of a vehicle with a male sitting in the front driver seat and another male sitting in the back seat. While officers were attempting to identify the female passenger, the male passenger sitting in the rear seat exited the vehicle after being told repeatedly by officers to remain seated. The male suspect then engaged in a physical confrontation with the officers. The suspect was able to gain control of one of the officer’s taser causing an officer to draw their firearm and shoot the suspect. The suspect was transported to an area hospital where he is listed in stable condition. There were no officers injured. This incident will be documented on case number 106261-2017
Mundo Hispanico, a Spanish-language publication, also wrote a story on the Perez shooting. The translation indicates that police were searching for a woman and made a traffic stop. During it, Perez is accused of trying to take the officer’s taser, and it was at that point that he was shot. He was shot in the abdomen but was listed as being in stable condition.
Perez entered a plea deal and admitted the charges against him, receiving a two-year prison sentence. ...}
And it is very clear she is lying.
The door in the apartment are self locking.
They are a spring closed firedoor that can not be ajar as she claimed.
Wow, tough love self-analysis complete with recommended treatment right out in public. Shrinks suggest doing that these days? Keep the faith in any case, sonny. May be hope for you yet, doggonit! ...Now there might be a market out there for writing cheap fiction....you should check into that. Why waste your time writing fiction on here when you might could make a buck writing it for the market.
Yeah, it is. It's just that those apt to injure or kill someone require taking reasonable preventative measures (demonstrably exercising caution) else risk being found criminally negligent (civilly liable as well).And no, it is not human nature to make mistakes.
Against the rules and shows she has disciplinary problemsShe was dating a married officerThey did weed out a liar......they fired herWe have no idea what she said as she entered the apartment or if she said anything.
She was allowed to frame the encounter to best justify the shooting.
The dead man was not
Police departments weed out liars....she had been a cop for years with no credibility problems....everything she says makes sense....no reason to doubt her.
She said he was moving towards her, that makes no sense
She had been a police officer for years with a clean record and no disciplinary problems.
Irrelevant....if every body that committs adultury was sent to jail....there would be more folks in jail than out of jail....but of course if you are muslim I can understand your position.
You're then "entitled to" face the resultant criminal charges, duffus. Because "the law" outright bans some "means" and treats others as negligent. Quit talking shit. No one's buying it.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.
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 arouond that...apparantly a lot of folks on here cannot. We saw that in the Zimmerman case as well.
Most policemen go through their entire careers without firing their weapon in the line of dutyWe have no idea what she said as she entered the apartment or if she said anything.Well, you have to remember as has been presented numerous times already....over a hundred other people that are known of had gotten confused and gone to the wrong apartment. Obviously there was a big problem in that complex because all the apartments looked the same...and there were not adequate signs to keep folks from getting confused.
And then............add on to the top of that she was very tired having worked a 13 hr. shift. Accidents happen...but the bottom line is she was a innocent trespasser and the black guy should have listened to her command to show his hands.
So, they got confused and went to the wrong apartment. Did those hundred others open fire on an innocent person?
Sure, let's blame the apartment complex for the incident because all the apartments look alike and there weren't adequate signs to warn all the dumbasses who can't pay attention. So fucking ridiculous.
And boo hoo, she worked a 13-hour shift and was tired. Wah wah. That makes me feel soooo sorry for the poor little woman. That was justified for her to enter someone else's apartment and commit murder, huh?
The black guy didn't need to obey her command. He was in his own apartment doing nothing wrong. She lost her job and will be behind bars for her stupid mistake. Serves her right.
How many are willing to die to abstain from following the legal order of a policemen? You are being ridiculous.....I doubt any of the others who went to the wrong apartment found one with a open door and the lights out nor were they police officers.
Get real.
She was allowed to frame the encounter to best justify the shooting.
The dead man was not
Police departments weed out liars....she had been a cop for years with no credibility problems....everything she says makes sense....no reason to doubt her.
That is not true.
Amber had been investigated for a previous shooting.
Amber Guyger Shot Suspect Uvaldo Perez Before Botham Jean | Heavy.com
{...
Amber Guyger Shot Suspect Uvaldo Perez Before Botham Jean
Amber Guyger, who was on the Dallas police force for four years and was involved in a previous shooting, ...
Stories posted online and a database of police shootings identified Amber Guyger as having been involved in a previous officer-involved shooting. In that one, the man lived and she was on duty, news reports show.
The Dallas Police Department’s website wrote in 2017, “The suspect in this offense has been identified as Uvaldo Perez L/M/46. He is being charged with Taking A Weapon from an Officer, Possession of Meth, Possession of Marijuana, and Parole Violation. Mr. Perez remains hospitalized at this time. The officer involved in this incident is Officer Amber Guyger, #10702. She is assigned to the Southeast Crime Response Team (CRT) and has been on the department for three years and six months.”
The police website included this description of the Perez shooting:
On May 12, 2017, at about 8:58 am, Dallas officers from the Crime Response Team responded to the 8300 block of Reva Street after receiving information from undercover officers that a wanted female was at the location. When the uniformed officers arrived, they observed the female they believed to be wanted sitting in the front passenger seat of a vehicle with a male sitting in the front driver seat and another male sitting in the back seat. While officers were attempting to identify the female passenger, the male passenger sitting in the rear seat exited the vehicle after being told repeatedly by officers to remain seated. The male suspect then engaged in a physical confrontation with the officers. The suspect was able to gain control of one of the officer’s taser causing an officer to draw their firearm and shoot the suspect. The suspect was transported to an area hospital where he is listed in stable condition. There were no officers injured. This incident will be documented on case number 106261-2017
Mundo Hispanico, a Spanish-language publication, also wrote a story on the Perez shooting. The translation indicates that police were searching for a woman and made a traffic stop. During it, Perez is accused of trying to take the officer’s taser, and it was at that point that he was shot. He was shot in the abdomen but was listed as being in stable condition.
Perez entered a plea deal and admitted the charges against him, receiving a two-year prison sentence. ...}
And it is very clear she is lying.
The door in the apartment are self locking.
They are a spring closed firedoor that can not be ajar as she claimed.
