Racist Black Judge Railroading Amber Guyger

[TheGreenHornet]

Because it has to be the white cop's fault.


HAS TO BE.

Ummmm...whose else fault was it?

Explain why you call it "murder". That is the issue here. It was not murder -- unless, in usual tard fashion, you want to change the real meaning of words whenever it suits your agenda.

No, the issue is the poor decisions she made and the result being an innocent man being dead

There is no question she is criminally liable. But liable of what?
The jury heard all the definitions of murder and manslaughter and decided murder was the best definition

And a jury decided OJ didnt slice the necks of two people.

I don’t think it really mattered

Amber Guyger was going to be found guilty of something. Mainly, because she was guilty

As it was, she was found guilty of murder and sentenced to a low end ten years

If they found her guilty of manslaughter, they would have sentenced her to a high end ten years

You are about half right.....it was pre-determined she would be found guilty...but not because she did anything whatsoever illegal....she was guilty because the black community demanded it. Otherwise they would riot,loot and burn.

To squash even the possibility of that the state offered up a sacrifical lamb....called Amber.

 

[Skylar]

Ummmm...whose else fault was it?

Explain why you call it "murder". That is the issue here. It was not murder -- unless, in usual tard fashion, you want to change the real meaning of words whenever it suits your agenda.

No, the issue is the poor decisions she made and the result being an innocent man being dead

There is no question she is criminally liable. But liable of what?
The jury heard all the definitions of murder and manslaughter and decided murder was the best definition

And a jury decided OJ didnt slice the necks of two people.

I don’t think it really mattered

Amber Guyger was going to be found guilty of something. Mainly, because she was guilty

As it was, she was found guilty of murder and sentenced to a low end ten years

If they found her guilty of manslaughter, they would have sentenced her to a high end ten years

You are about half right.....it was pre-determined she would be found guilty...but not because she did anything whatsoever illegal....she was guilty because the black community demanded it. Otherwise they would riot,loot and burn.

To squash even the possibility of that the state offered up a sacrifical lamb....called Amber.

She was guilty because she murdered a man in his own home......for nothing.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Did you feel the need to shoot anyone that was sitting in “your car”. ???

I came out of a store and broke into a car that looked like mine. It was a MISTAKE. Oops!
Then I shot all these black people in there 'cause them is some scary MFers. Oops! MISTAKE!
Oopsies! Liddle innocent flower,.. That's me! A cutey pie! See, I did nothing wrong!

If you own a gun, you really can’t make a mistake

Whatever you decide when you shoot must be the right decision

I actually agree with this. If she thought someone was in her apartment, she did the wrong thing. But she did not MURDER him.

Ain't hindsight precious? Lets get real here....she did not have the benefit of hindsight....she lived and acted in real time.

She walked through that open door into a dark apartment which she thought was her own.... she took just a couple of steps into the apartment and saw the silouhette of this black guy....can you imagine the shock? Can you imagine what went through her mind or what would have went through the mind of any reasonable person who came home and found an intruder in their apartment? With the lights turned off---of course she thought.....'this black dude is a threat'....very reasonable to believe ...it would be stupid and unreasonable not to recognize that...thus she ordered him to show his hands that is police procedure in which she was well trained.... If he had been rational and reasonable he would have done so.

Instead he gets up off the couch begins to holler at her and advance on her.

All of this happened in about 2 or 3 seconds at the most....she had to make a life or death decision very,very quickly.

No one and I mean no one can reasonably argue that she was not in reasonable fear of her life.

Who would not be in such a scenario?

Now of course with the benefit of hindsight and all the facts of the case...some on here say oh but there was no threat--outrageous.

 

[Skylar]

Did you feel the need to shoot anyone that was sitting in “your car”. ???

I came out of a store and broke into a car that looked like mine. It was a MISTAKE. Oops!
Then I shot all these black people in there 'cause them is some scary MFers. Oops! MISTAKE!
Oopsies! Liddle innocent flower,.. That's me! A cutey pie! See, I did nothing wrong!

If you own a gun, you really can’t make a mistake

Whatever you decide when you shoot must be the right decision

I actually agree with this. If she thought someone was in her apartment, she did the wrong thing. But she did not MURDER him.

Ain't hindsight precious? Lets get real here....she did not have the benefit of hindsight....she lived and acted in real time.

She walked through that open door into a dark apartment which she thought was her own.... she took just a couple of steps into the apartment and saw the silouhette of this black guy....can you imagine the shock? Can you imagine what went through her mind or what would have went through the mind of any reasonable person who came home and found an intruder in their apartment? With the lights turned off---of course she thought.....'this black dude is a threat'....very reasonable to believe ...it would be stupid and unreasonable not to recognize that...thus she ordered him to show his hands that is police procedure in which she was well trained.... If he had been rational and reasonable he would have done so.

Instead he gets up off the couch begins to holler at her and advance on her.

All of this happened in about 2 or 3 seconds at the most....she had to make a life or death decision very,very quickly.

No one and I mean no one can reasonably argue that she was not in reasonable fear of her life.

Who would not be in such a scenario?

Now of course with the benefit of hindsight and all the facts of the case...some on here say oh but there was no threat--outrageous.

Says you. The prosecutor and jury didn't find anything about her actions 'reasonable'. She murdered a man in his own home who did *nothing* to her.

And worse, she's a trained police officer. Its her job to think cooly, to assess a situation, and to notice life or death details. Like.....that she was in the wrong apartment.

She was rightly convicted and should spend at least half a decade in jail for her crimes.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Explain why you call it "murder". That is the issue here. It was not murder -- unless, in usual tard fashion, you want to change the real meaning of words whenever it suits your agenda.

No, the issue is the poor decisions she made and the result being an innocent man being dead

There is no question she is criminally liable. But liable of what?
The jury heard all the definitions of murder and manslaughter and decided murder was the best definition

And a jury decided OJ didnt slice the necks of two people.

I don’t think it really mattered

Amber Guyger was going to be found guilty of something. Mainly, because she was guilty

As it was, she was found guilty of murder and sentenced to a low end ten years

If they found her guilty of manslaughter, they would have sentenced her to a high end ten years

You are about half right.....it was pre-determined she would be found guilty...but not because she did anything whatsoever illegal....she was guilty because the black community demanded it. Otherwise they would riot,loot and burn.

To squash even the possibility of that the state offered up a sacrifical lamb....called Amber.

She was guilty because she murdered a man in his own home......for nothing.

Someone else who is blinded by hate.

 

[Skylar]

No, the issue is the poor decisions she made and the result being an innocent man being dead

There is no question she is criminally liable. But liable of what?
The jury heard all the definitions of murder and manslaughter and decided murder was the best definition

And a jury decided OJ didnt slice the necks of two people.

I don’t think it really mattered

Amber Guyger was going to be found guilty of something. Mainly, because she was guilty

As it was, she was found guilty of murder and sentenced to a low end ten years

If they found her guilty of manslaughter, they would have sentenced her to a high end ten years

You are about half right.....it was pre-determined she would be found guilty...but not because she did anything whatsoever illegal....she was guilty because the black community demanded it. Otherwise they would riot,loot and burn.

To squash even the possibility of that the state offered up a sacrifical lamb....called Amber.

She was guilty because she murdered a man in his own home......for nothing.

Someone else who is blinded by hate.

Or, someone who is looking at the facts of the case, rather than ignoring them as you are.

Your view is so twisted by what you *want* to be true, that you've laughably attempted to apply TORT law to a criminal case. And worse, tort law that isn't recognized by the State of Texas.

You're being irrational.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

And a jury decided OJ didnt slice the necks of two people.

I don’t think it really mattered

Amber Guyger was going to be found guilty of something. Mainly, because she was guilty

As it was, she was found guilty of murder and sentenced to a low end ten years

If they found her guilty of manslaughter, they would have sentenced her to a high end ten years

You are about half right.....it was pre-determined she would be found guilty...but not because she did anything whatsoever illegal....she was guilty because the black community demanded it. Otherwise they would riot,loot and burn.

To squash even the possibility of that the state offered up a sacrifical lamb....called Amber.

She was guilty because she murdered a man in his own home......for nothing.

Someone else who is blinded by hate.

Or, someone who is looking at the facts of the case, rather than ignoring them as you are.

First of all you do not know the facts of the case....but irregardless...let me ask you one question.

If she had actually been in her apartment and the guy she shot was white..... would you still claim she was guilty of murder?

 

[Skylar]

I don’t think it really mattered

Amber Guyger was going to be found guilty of something. Mainly, because she was guilty

As it was, she was found guilty of murder and sentenced to a low end ten years

If they found her guilty of manslaughter, they would have sentenced her to a high end ten years

You are about half right.....it was pre-determined she would be found guilty...but not because she did anything whatsoever illegal....she was guilty because the black community demanded it. Otherwise they would riot,loot and burn.

To squash even the possibility of that the state offered up a sacrifical lamb....called Amber.

She was guilty because she murdered a man in his own home......for nothing.

Someone else who is blinded by hate.

Or, someone who is looking at the facts of the case, rather than ignoring them as you are.

First of all you do not know the facts of the case....but irregardless...let me ask you one question.

If she had actually been in her apartment and they guy she shot was white..... would you still claim she was guilty of murder?

Says you, citing whatever pseudo-legal gibbersh you care to make up.

Alas, you're simply not a reliable purveyor of the law as you've already demonstrated a disqualifying incompetence of its basic application. You laughably insisted that a TORT standard of innocent trespass, used to determine civil liability in certain State cases, is applied to a criminal homicide case.

No, it isn't.

Second, you demonstrated the irrelevance of your 'legal' pespective again by trying to apply a tort standard from ANOTHER state to the jurisdiction of texas, which doesn't recognize 'innocent trespass', holding the trespass in good or bad faith is still trespass, and the defendant would still be liable for civil damages if trespass was proven.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. Making your meaningless pseudo-legal babble useless in describing this case

 

[TheGreenHornet]

You are about half right.....it was pre-determined she would be found guilty...but not because she did anything whatsoever illegal....she was guilty because the black community demanded it. Otherwise they would riot,loot and burn.

To squash even the possibility of that the state offered up a sacrifical lamb....called Amber.

She was guilty because she murdered a man in his own home......for nothing.

Someone else who is blinded by hate.

Or, someone who is looking at the facts of the case, rather than ignoring them as you are.

First of all you do not know the facts of the case....but irregardless...let me ask you one question.

If she had actually been in her apartment and they guy she shot was white..... would you still claim she was guilty of murder?

Says you, citing whatever pseudo-legal gibbersh you care to make up.

Alas, you're simply not a reliable purveyor of the law as you've already demonstrated a disqualifying incompetence of its basic application. You laughably insisted that a TORT standard of innocent trespass, used to determine civil liability, is applied to a criminal homocide case.

No, it isn't.

Second, you demonstrated the irrelevance of your 'legal' pespective again by trying to apply a tort standard from ANOTHER state to the jurisdiction of texas, which doesn't recognize 'innocent trespass', holding the trespass in good or bad faith is still trespass, and the defendant would still be liable for civil damages if trespass was proven.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. Making your meaningless pseudo-legal babble useless in describing this case

Why wouldn't you answer the question?

 

[Skylar]

She was guilty because she murdered a man in his own home......for nothing.

Someone else who is blinded by hate.

Or, someone who is looking at the facts of the case, rather than ignoring them as you are.

First of all you do not know the facts of the case....but irregardless...let me ask you one question.

If she had actually been in her apartment and they guy she shot was white..... would you still claim she was guilty of murder?

Says you, citing whatever pseudo-legal gibbersh you care to make up.

Alas, you're simply not a reliable purveyor of the law as you've already demonstrated a disqualifying incompetence of its basic application. You laughably insisted that a TORT standard of innocent trespass, used to determine civil liability, is applied to a criminal homocide case.

No, it isn't.

Second, you demonstrated the irrelevance of your 'legal' pespective again by trying to apply a tort standard from ANOTHER state to the jurisdiction of texas, which doesn't recognize 'innocent trespass', holding the trespass in good or bad faith is still trespass, and the defendant would still be liable for civil damages if trespass was proven.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. Making your meaningless pseudo-legal babble useless in describing this case

Why wouldn't you answer the question?

She wasn't in her apartment. She was in HIS apartment. Making your hypothetical irrelevant to the actual facts surrounding this case.

Again, you've already demonstrated your incompetence in applying legal standards, laughably insisting that TORT standards must be applied to a State criminal homicide case. And worse, Tort standards that Texas doesn't recognize.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. The prosecutor did. The jury did.

You're being irrational.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Someone else who is blinded by hate.

Or, someone who is looking at the facts of the case, rather than ignoring them as you are.

First of all you do not know the facts of the case....but irregardless...let me ask you one question.

If she had actually been in her apartment and they guy she shot was white..... would you still claim she was guilty of murder?

Says you, citing whatever pseudo-legal gibbersh you care to make up.

Alas, you're simply not a reliable purveyor of the law as you've already demonstrated a disqualifying incompetence of its basic application. You laughably insisted that a TORT standard of innocent trespass, used to determine civil liability, is applied to a criminal homocide case.

No, it isn't.

Second, you demonstrated the irrelevance of your 'legal' pespective again by trying to apply a tort standard from ANOTHER state to the jurisdiction of texas, which doesn't recognize 'innocent trespass', holding the trespass in good or bad faith is still trespass, and the defendant would still be liable for civil damages if trespass was proven.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. Making your meaningless pseudo-legal babble useless in describing this case

Why wouldn't you answer the question?

She wasn't in her apartment. She was in HIS apartment. Making your hypothetical irrelevant to the actual facts surrounding this case.

Again, you've already demonstrated your incompetence in applying legal standards, laughably insisting that TORT standards must be applied to a State criminal homicide case. And worse, Tort standards that Texas doesn't recognize.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. The prosecutor did. The jury did.

You're being irrational.

Here is the texas law on criminal trespass.........

'Criminal Trespass is defined in Texas Penal Code 30.05 and is defined as a person entering or remaining in or on the property of another, without the effective consent of the owner, and the accused had notice that entry was forbidden or was given notice to depart and failed to do so. A criminal trespass charge in Texas is typically a Class B misdemeanor. However Criminal Trespass of a Habitation is a Class A misdemeanor in Texas.

Amber had no notice that entry was forbidden as in she thought she was going into her own apartment.

The intent, belief or frame of mind of a defendant is paramount in self defense aka...one must be in reasonable fear their life is in danger.

The jury obviously did not even consider all the reasons amber had for being in a reasonable fear of her life.

Another question: how would you define murder?

 

[TheGreenHornet]

You are about half right.....it was pre-determined she would be found guilty...but not because she did anything whatsoever illegal....she was guilty because the black community demanded it. Otherwise they would riot,loot and burn.

To squash even the possibility of that the state offered up a sacrifical lamb....called Amber.

She was guilty because she murdered a man in his own home......for nothing.

Someone else who is blinded by hate.

Or, someone who is looking at the facts of the case, rather than ignoring them as you are.

First of all you do not know the facts of the case....but irregardless...let me ask you one question.

If she had actually been in her apartment and they guy she shot was white..... would you still claim she was guilty of murder?

Says you, citing whatever pseudo-legal gibbersh you care to make up.

Alas, you're simply not a reliable purveyor of the law as you've already demonstrated a disqualifying incompetence of its basic application. You laughably insisted that a TORT standard of innocent trespass, used to determine civil liability in certain State cases, is applied to a criminal homicide case.

No, it isn't.

Second, you demonstrated the irrelevance of your 'legal' pespective again by trying to apply a tort standard from ANOTHER state to the jurisdiction of texas, which doesn't recognize 'innocent trespass', holding the trespass in good or bad faith is still trespass, and the defendant would still be liable for civil damages if trespass was proven.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. Making your meaningless psWeudo-legal babble useless in describing this case

Why were you afraid to answer the question?

 

[Skylar]

Or, someone who is looking at the facts of the case, rather than ignoring them as you are.

First of all you do not know the facts of the case....but irregardless...let me ask you one question.

If she had actually been in her apartment and they guy she shot was white..... would you still claim she was guilty of murder?

Says you, citing whatever pseudo-legal gibbersh you care to make up.

Alas, you're simply not a reliable purveyor of the law as you've already demonstrated a disqualifying incompetence of its basic application. You laughably insisted that a TORT standard of innocent trespass, used to determine civil liability, is applied to a criminal homocide case.

No, it isn't.

Second, you demonstrated the irrelevance of your 'legal' pespective again by trying to apply a tort standard from ANOTHER state to the jurisdiction of texas, which doesn't recognize 'innocent trespass', holding the trespass in good or bad faith is still trespass, and the defendant would still be liable for civil damages if trespass was proven.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. Making your meaningless pseudo-legal babble useless in describing this case

Why wouldn't you answer the question?

She wasn't in her apartment. She was in HIS apartment. Making your hypothetical irrelevant to the actual facts surrounding this case.

Again, you've already demonstrated your incompetence in applying legal standards, laughably insisting that TORT standards must be applied to a State criminal homicide case. And worse, Tort standards that Texas doesn't recognize.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. The prosecutor did. The jury did.

You're being irrational.

Here is the texas law on criminal trespass.........

'Criminal Trespass is defined in Texas Penal Code 30.05 and is defined as a person entering or remaining in or on the property of another, without the effective consent of the owner, and the accused had notice that entry was forbidden or was given notice to depart and failed to do so. A criminal trespass charge in Texas is typically a Class B misdemeanor. However Criminal Trespass of a Habitation is a Class A misdemeanor in Texas.

Amber had no notice that entry was forbidden as in she thought she was going into her own apartment.

The intent, belief or frame of mind of a defendant is paramount in self defense aka...one must be in reasonable fear their life is in danger.

The jury obviously did not even consider all the reasons amber had for being in a reasonable fear of her life.

Says you, an incompetent of the law.

Again, oh legally incompetent one......you insisted this was a case of 'innocent trespass'. Which, of course, it wasn't. Innocent tresspass is a TORT standard, which you laughably and incompetently applied to a criminal homicide case. Worse, Texas doesn't recognize innocent trespass in determining tort liability.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. Amber wasn't convicted of criminal trespass. She was charged and convicted of MURDER.

You keep replacing the actual elements of the law with your feelings and perceptions. And then laughably insist that the jury was bound to your emotions.

No, they aren't.

Another question: how would you define murder?

And demonstrating my point elegantly, you ask me what MY definition of murder is....when discussing the application of the law. It doesn't matter what my definition is, any more than it matters what 'your' definition of murder is. It matters what the definition of murder is under the laws of Texas.

Try as you may, you simply can't replace the *actual* legal standards with your emotions, your subjective definitions, or whatever pseudo-legal babble you invent.

Your emotions are irrelevant. Your incompetence regarding the law is irrelevant. Your personal definitions are irrelevant.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I guess that even Texas law holds that just because a police officer has a gun, and has been trained to use it, such police officer should refrain from doing so unless someone's life is in danger.

 

[Skylar]

She was guilty because she murdered a man in his own home......for nothing.

Someone else who is blinded by hate.

Or, someone who is looking at the facts of the case, rather than ignoring them as you are.

First of all you do not know the facts of the case....but irregardless...let me ask you one question.

If she had actually been in her apartment and they guy she shot was white..... would you still claim she was guilty of murder?

Says you, citing whatever pseudo-legal gibbersh you care to make up.

Alas, you're simply not a reliable purveyor of the law as you've already demonstrated a disqualifying incompetence of its basic application. You laughably insisted that a TORT standard of innocent trespass, used to determine civil liability in certain State cases, is applied to a criminal homicide case.

No, it isn't.

Second, you demonstrated the irrelevance of your 'legal' pespective again by trying to apply a tort standard from ANOTHER state to the jurisdiction of texas, which doesn't recognize 'innocent trespass', holding the trespass in good or bad faith is still trespass, and the defendant would still be liable for civil damages if trespass was proven.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. Making your meaningless psWeudo-legal babble useless in describing this case

Why were you afraid to answer the question?

Because your question is predicated on events that didn't occur.....while you ignore the events that *did* occur.

I refuse to ignore what you must to hold your irrational, emotional perspective. The jury too refused to ignore what you do. Nor did the jury apply your pseudo-legal standards, TORT law, or laws from other states in their decision, as you do.

You're being irrational.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Someone else who is blinded by hate.

Or, someone who is looking at the facts of the case, rather than ignoring them as you are.

First of all you do not know the facts of the case....but irregardless...let me ask you one question.

If she had actually been in her apartment and they guy she shot was white..... would you still claim she was guilty of murder?

Says you, citing whatever pseudo-legal gibbersh you care to make up.

Alas, you're simply not a reliable purveyor of the law as you've already demonstrated a disqualifying incompetence of its basic application. You laughably insisted that a TORT standard of innocent trespass, used to determine civil liability in certain State cases, is applied to a criminal homicide case.

No, it isn't.

Second, you demonstrated the irrelevance of your 'legal' pespective again by trying to apply a tort standard from ANOTHER state to the jurisdiction of texas, which doesn't recognize 'innocent trespass', holding the trespass in good or bad faith is still trespass, and the defendant would still be liable for civil damages if trespass was proven.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. Making your meaningless psWeudo-legal babble useless in describing this case

Why were you afraid to answer the question?

Because your question is predicated on events that didn't occur.....while you ignore the events that *did* occur.

I refuse to ignore what you must to hold your irrational, emotional perspective. The jury too refused to ignore what you do. Nor did the jury apply your pseudo-legal standards, TORT law, or laws from other states in their decision, as you do.

You're being irrational.

Hypothetical questions are often used to illustrate a point of law....you refused to answer because you were afraid it might expose your flawed analysis.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Black's Law Dictionary
The most widely cited law book in the world,

What is INNOCENT TRESPASSER? definition of INNOCENT TRESPASSER (Black's Law Dictionary)

 

[Skylar]

Or, someone who is looking at the facts of the case, rather than ignoring them as you are.

First of all you do not know the facts of the case....but irregardless...let me ask you one question.

If she had actually been in her apartment and they guy she shot was white..... would you still claim she was guilty of murder?

Says you, citing whatever pseudo-legal gibbersh you care to make up.

Alas, you're simply not a reliable purveyor of the law as you've already demonstrated a disqualifying incompetence of its basic application. You laughably insisted that a TORT standard of innocent trespass, used to determine civil liability in certain State cases, is applied to a criminal homicide case.

No, it isn't.

Second, you demonstrated the irrelevance of your 'legal' pespective again by trying to apply a tort standard from ANOTHER state to the jurisdiction of texas, which doesn't recognize 'innocent trespass', holding the trespass in good or bad faith is still trespass, and the defendant would still be liable for civil damages if trespass was proven.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. Making your meaningless psWeudo-legal babble useless in describing this case

Why were you afraid to answer the question?

Because your question is predicated on events that didn't occur.....while you ignore the events that *did* occur.

I refuse to ignore what you must to hold your irrational, emotional perspective. The jury too refused to ignore what you do. Nor did the jury apply your pseudo-legal standards, TORT law, or laws from other states in their decision, as you do.

You're being irrational.

Hypothetical questions are often used to illustrate a point of law....you refused to answer because you were afraid it might expose your flawed analysis.

A 'flawed analysis' says the poor, hapless legal incompetent that tried to insist that the Georgia TORT standard of 'innocent trespass' used in deciding civil liability that isn't even recognized in Texas......must be applied to a Texas criminal homicide case.

Which is not only pseudo-legal nonsense, but wildly irrational.

Worse, you insist we ignore the ACTUAL events of the case, the actual law, the actual legal definitions...in favor of events that never occured, using TORT standards that aren't recognized in a Texas Criminal case, and whatever subjective definition of 'murder' you can to invent.

You ignore the actual events of the case, the actual legal standards and the applicable legal definitions because you know your legal analysis is uselessly flawed.

I, and the jury, simply refused to ignore what you do to hold your irrational, emotional perspective.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

First of all you do not know the facts of the case....but irregardless...let me ask you one question.

If she had actually been in her apartment and they guy she shot was white..... would you still claim she was guilty of murder?

Says you, citing whatever pseudo-legal gibbersh you care to make up.

Alas, you're simply not a reliable purveyor of the law as you've already demonstrated a disqualifying incompetence of its basic application. You laughably insisted that a TORT standard of innocent trespass, used to determine civil liability in certain State cases, is applied to a criminal homicide case.

No, it isn't.

Second, you demonstrated the irrelevance of your 'legal' pespective again by trying to apply a tort standard from ANOTHER state to the jurisdiction of texas, which doesn't recognize 'innocent trespass', holding the trespass in good or bad faith is still trespass, and the defendant would still be liable for civil damages if trespass was proven.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. Making your meaningless psWeudo-legal babble useless in describing this case

Why were you afraid to answer the question?

Because your question is predicated on events that didn't occur.....while you ignore the events that *did* occur.

I refuse to ignore what you must to hold your irrational, emotional perspective. The jury too refused to ignore what you do. Nor did the jury apply your pseudo-legal standards, TORT law, or laws from other states in their decision, as you do.

You're being irrational.

Hypothetical questions are often used to illustrate a point of law....you refused to answer because you were afraid it might expose your flawed analysis.

A 'flawed analysis' says the poor, hapless legal incompetent that tried to insist that the Georgia TORT standard of 'innocent trespass' used in deciding civil liability that isn't even recognized in Texas......must be applied to a Texas criminal homicide case.

Which is not only pseudo-legal nonsense, but wildly irrational.

Worse, you insist we ignore the ACTUAL events of the case, the actual law, the actual legal definitions...in favor of events that never occured, using TORT standards that aren't recognized in a Texas Criminal case, and whatever subjective definition of 'murder' you can to invent.

You ignore the actual events of the case, the actual legal standards and the applicable legal definitions because you know your legal analysis is uselessly flawed.

I, and the jury, simply refused to ignore what you do to hold your irrational, emotional perspective.

I quoted black's law dictonary on innocent trespassing not a georgia law.

I quoted the texas law on the elements of criminal trespass.



Irregardless........since you claim to know the facts of the case ....lay them out for us.

 

[Skylar]

Says you, citing whatever pseudo-legal gibbersh you care to make up.

Alas, you're simply not a reliable purveyor of the law as you've already demonstrated a disqualifying incompetence of its basic application. You laughably insisted that a TORT standard of innocent trespass, used to determine civil liability in certain State cases, is applied to a criminal homicide case.

No, it isn't.

Second, you demonstrated the irrelevance of your 'legal' pespective again by trying to apply a tort standard from ANOTHER state to the jurisdiction of texas, which doesn't recognize 'innocent trespass', holding the trespass in good or bad faith is still trespass, and the defendant would still be liable for civil damages if trespass was proven.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. Making your meaningless psWeudo-legal babble useless in describing this case

Why were you afraid to answer the question?

Because your question is predicated on events that didn't occur.....while you ignore the events that *did* occur.

I refuse to ignore what you must to hold your irrational, emotional perspective. The jury too refused to ignore what you do. Nor did the jury apply your pseudo-legal standards, TORT law, or laws from other states in their decision, as you do.

You're being irrational.

Hypothetical questions are often used to illustrate a point of law....you refused to answer because you were afraid it might expose your flawed analysis.

A 'flawed analysis' says the poor, hapless legal incompetent that tried to insist that the Georgia TORT standard of 'innocent trespass' used in deciding civil liability that isn't even recognized in Texas......must be applied to a Texas criminal homicide case.

Which is not only pseudo-legal nonsense, but wildly irrational.

Worse, you insist we ignore the ACTUAL events of the case, the actual law, the actual legal definitions...in favor of events that never occured, using TORT standards that aren't recognized in a Texas Criminal case, and whatever subjective definition of 'murder' you can to invent.

You ignore the actual events of the case, the actual legal standards and the applicable legal definitions because you know your legal analysis is uselessly flawed.

I, and the jury, simply refused to ignore what you do to hold your irrational, emotional perspective.

I quoted black's law dictonary on innocent trespassing not a georgia law.

And if you knew the first thing about *actual* innocent trespass, or bothered to do an even passing review of the concept, you'd have found that:

1) Its a TORT standard, used to determine civil liability and damages.
2) Its defined at the STATE level.With the most well known examples from Georgia and Virginia.
3) Texas doesn't recognize the TORT standard of 'innocent trespass' at all. To say nothing of its application in CRIMINAL homicide cases.
4) Even Amber's lawyers didn't argue 'innocent trespass', as its an incompetent, incoherent, utterly inapplicable standard that doesn't apply in Texas or in criminal cases.

Again, you've demonstrated your legal incompetence.

Making your insistence that YOUR legal judgment supercedes the jury all the more irrational. Its not the judge, jury and prosecutor that was wrong.

Its just you.