Racist Black Judge Railroading Amber Guyger

[TheGreenHornet]

I am well aware of The Texas law on murder.

Laughing....which is why quoted Law.com and applying the 'malice' standard to Amber's case.....when Texas doesn't use the Malice standard?

Either you didn't know that Texas didn't use the Malice standard......in which case you're incompetent.

Or you did know that Texas didn't use the Malice standard, and intentionally tried to mislead us. In which case you're dishonest.

Either way, you're unreliable and an an utterly inadequate 'source' on the law.

The Texas definition of murder:

'1. Murder: You commit murder when you intentionally and knowingly take someone else’s life, or when you intend to commit an act that is clearly extremely dangerous to human life and in effect, causes death to another person. Murder is usually a felony of the first degree'

Amber was engaged in self defense not in an act of murder.

Says you, the same pseudo-legal incompetent that just tried to fallaciously apply the 'malice' standard to this case when Texas didn't use the Malice standard.

And the same pseudo-legal incompetent that laughably insisted that the jury was bound to the TORT standard of 'innocent trespass' which is used to determine civil liability. And NOT recognized in Texas civil law. Nor applied to Texas criminal homicides.

And yet after these two comic blunders on the BASIC application of Texas law, you're again trying to insist that your judgment supercedes the the judge, jury and prosecutors?

Laughing.....nope.

The Texas definition of murder is enough reason alone to appeal this miscarriage of justice to the U.S. Supreme ct.

Nope. As you've demonstrated repeatedly, you're legal judgment is meaningless. You don't understand jurisdiction, you conflate civil and criminal law, you insist that the jury is bound to requirements that don't even exist in Texas law. At every stage, you're clueless.

And your demonstrated incompetence certainly doesn't override the lawful judgment of a jury.

I am well aware of The Texas law on murder.

Laughing....which is why quoted Law.com and applying the 'malice' standard to Amber's case.....when Texas doesn't use the Malice standard?

Either you didn't know that Texas didn't use the Malice standard......in which case you're incompetent.

Or you did know that Texas didn't use the Malice standard, and intentionally tried to mislead us. In which case you're dishonest.

Either way, you're unreliable and an an utterly inadequate 'source' on the law.

The Texas definition of murder:

'1. Murder: You commit murder when you intentionally and knowingly take someone else’s life, or when you intend to commit an act that is clearly extremely dangerous to human life and in effect, causes death to another person. Murder is usually a felony of the first degree'

Amber was engaged in self defense not in an act of murder.

Says you, the same pseudo-legal incompetent that just tried to fallaciously apply the 'malice' standard to this case when Texas didn't use the Malice standard.

And the same pseudo-legal incompetent that laughably insisted that the jury was bound to the TORT standard of 'innocent trespass' which is used to determine civil liability. And NOT recognized in Texas civil law. Nor applied to Texas criminal homicides.

And yet after these two comic blunders on the BASIC application of Texas law, you're again trying to insist that your judgment supercedes the the judge, jury and prosecutors?

Laughing.....nope.

The Texas definition of murder is enough reason alone to appeal this miscarriage of justice to the U.S. Supreme ct.

Do you believe anytime a police officer in Texas kills someone it is murder?

The odds of that are very high when the dead person is not guilty of anything.

Since the legal expert avoids questions...perhaps you can stand in for him: Do you believe doctors performing abortions in Texas are guilty of murder.

Murder is a legal concept. Abortion is legal in Texas, so no.

There have been instances before of police officers going to the wrong address and killing a innocent person...none have ever been charged with murder.

Which is the issue. That has to change. That can no longer be simply excused away.

Yet....this case is very unique....perhaps the only case of a police officer thinking she is entering her own apartment but goes to anothers apartment by mistake and then as a result of what she perceives as an intruder in her apartment shoots and kills the innocent guy.

This case definitely nees to be appealed as the jury neglected to consider the state of mind of the defendant which is critical in a case of self defense.

Mens Rea

They considered it. It was a part of the case presented. They simply did not believe it an excuse. The person texting and driving didn't mean to kill anyone either. They are going to be charged with killing someone if their actions end up doing that.

Did you consider the Texas definition of murder?

Texas definition of murder:

Murder: You commit murder when you intentionally and knowingly take someone else’s life, or when you intend to commit an act that is clearly extremely dangerous to human life and in effect, causes death to another person. Murder is usually a felony of the first degree.

 

[Skylar]

Laughing....which is why quoted Law.com and applying the 'malice' standard to Amber's case.....when Texas doesn't use the Malice standard?

Either you didn't know that Texas didn't use the Malice standard......in which case you're incompetent.

Or you did know that Texas didn't use the Malice standard, and intentionally tried to mislead us. In which case you're dishonest.

Either way, you're unreliable and an an utterly inadequate 'source' on the law.

Says you, the same pseudo-legal incompetent that just tried to fallaciously apply the 'malice' standard to this case when Texas didn't use the Malice standard.

And the same pseudo-legal incompetent that laughably insisted that the jury was bound to the TORT standard of 'innocent trespass' which is used to determine civil liability. And NOT recognized in Texas civil law. Nor applied to Texas criminal homicides.

And yet after these two comic blunders on the BASIC application of Texas law, you're again trying to insist that your judgment supercedes the the judge, jury and prosecutors?

Laughing.....nope.

The Texas definition of murder is enough reason alone to appeal this miscarriage of justice to the U.S. Supreme ct.

Nope. As you've demonstrated repeatedly, you're legal judgment is meaningless. You don't understand jurisdiction, you conflate civil and criminal law, you insist that the jury is bound to requirements that don't even exist in Texas law. At every stage, you're clueless.

And your demonstrated incompetence certainly doesn't override the lawful judgment of a jury.

Laughing....which is why quoted Law.com and applying the 'malice' standard to Amber's case.....when Texas doesn't use the Malice standard?

Either you didn't know that Texas didn't use the Malice standard......in which case you're incompetent.

Or you did know that Texas didn't use the Malice standard, and intentionally tried to mislead us. In which case you're dishonest.

Either way, you're unreliable and an an utterly inadequate 'source' on the law.

Says you, the same pseudo-legal incompetent that just tried to fallaciously apply the 'malice' standard to this case when Texas didn't use the Malice standard.

And the same pseudo-legal incompetent that laughably insisted that the jury was bound to the TORT standard of 'innocent trespass' which is used to determine civil liability. And NOT recognized in Texas civil law. Nor applied to Texas criminal homicides.

And yet after these two comic blunders on the BASIC application of Texas law, you're again trying to insist that your judgment supercedes the the judge, jury and prosecutors?

Laughing.....nope.

The Texas definition of murder is enough reason alone to appeal this miscarriage of justice to the U.S. Supreme ct.

Do you believe anytime a police officer in Texas kills someone it is murder?

The odds of that are very high when the dead person is not guilty of anything.

Since the legal expert avoids questions...perhaps you can stand in for him: Do you believe doctors performing abortions in Texas are guilty of murder.

Unless you're arguing that Amber Guyger was performing an abortion, your latest attempt to ignore the facts of the case are as meaningless as your other attempts to ignore the facts of the case.

Remember.....your argument is deeply hampered by the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.

You are guilty of shallow thinking not understanding the implications of The Texas definition of murder.

And by 'shallow thinking', you mean applying the ACTUAL law, actual statutes, actual legal standards, the actual facts of this case.... and not the meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish you make up?

Guilty as charged.

Your refusal to answer questions about the Texas definition of murder indicates poor thinking are an attempt to obfusicate.

Says the man who cited the 'malice' standard being applied to the Amber Guyger case, knowing full well that Texas doesn't use the Malice standard.

You intentionally tried to mislead us by citing a standard you knew was irrelevant to the case.

Making all your babble about 'obfuscation' just another tired exercise is projection. I'll stick with the actual law, thanks.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

The Texas definition of murder is enough reason alone to appeal this miscarriage of justice to the U.S. Supreme ct.

Nope. As you've demonstrated repeatedly, you're legal judgment is meaningless. You don't understand jurisdiction, you conflate civil and criminal law, you insist that the jury is bound to requirements that don't even exist in Texas law. At every stage, you're clueless.

And your demonstrated incompetence certainly doesn't override the lawful judgment of a jury.

The Texas definition of murder is enough reason alone to appeal this miscarriage of justice to the U.S. Supreme ct.

Do you believe anytime a police officer in Texas kills someone it is murder?

The odds of that are very high when the dead person is not guilty of anything.

Since the legal expert avoids questions...perhaps you can stand in for him: Do you believe doctors performing abortions in Texas are guilty of murder.

Unless you're arguing that Amber Guyger was performing an abortion, your latest attempt to ignore the facts of the case are as meaningless as your other attempts to ignore the facts of the case.

Remember.....your argument is deeply hampered by the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.

You are guilty of shallow thinking not understanding the implications of The Texas definition of murder.

And by 'shallow thinking', you mean applying the ACTUAL law, actual statutes, actual legal standards, the actual facts of this case.... and not the meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish you make up?

Guilty as charged.

Your refusal to answer questions about the Texas definition of murder indicates poor thinking are an attempt to obfusicate.

Says the man who cited the 'malice' standard being applied to the Amber Guyger case, knowing full well that Texas doesn't use the Malice standard.

You intentionally tried to mislead us by citing a standard you knew was irrelevant to the case.

Making all your babble about 'obfuscation' just another tired exercise is projection. I'll stick with the actual law, thanks.

The Texas definition and law on murder is obviously part of the problem.

As pointed out already.

The Texas definition of murder is in desperate need of being re-written.

This case should be taken all the way to the supreme ct. if necessary to get justice.

The Texas definition of murder.........'1. Murder: 'You commit murder when you intentionally and knowingly take someone else’s life, or when you intend to commit an act that is clearly extremely dangerous to human life and in effect, causes death to another person. Murder is usually a felony of the first degree.'

I wonder what idiot wrote that...probably goes way back when politicians had little legal knowledge.

To appreciate just how lacking the Texas definition is: Compare it to this:

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

Legal Dictionary - Law.com

 

[Skylar]

Laughing....which is why quoted Law.com and applying the 'malice' standard to Amber's case.....when Texas doesn't use the Malice standard?

Either you didn't know that Texas didn't use the Malice standard......in which case you're incompetent.

Or you did know that Texas didn't use the Malice standard, and intentionally tried to mislead us. In which case you're dishonest.

Either way, you're unreliable and an an utterly inadequate 'source' on the law.

Says you, the same pseudo-legal incompetent that just tried to fallaciously apply the 'malice' standard to this case when Texas didn't use the Malice standard.

And the same pseudo-legal incompetent that laughably insisted that the jury was bound to the TORT standard of 'innocent trespass' which is used to determine civil liability. And NOT recognized in Texas civil law. Nor applied to Texas criminal homicides.

And yet after these two comic blunders on the BASIC application of Texas law, you're again trying to insist that your judgment supercedes the the judge, jury and prosecutors?

Laughing.....nope.

The Texas definition of murder is enough reason alone to appeal this miscarriage of justice to the U.S. Supreme ct.

Nope. As you've demonstrated repeatedly, you're legal judgment is meaningless. You don't understand jurisdiction, you conflate civil and criminal law, you insist that the jury is bound to requirements that don't even exist in Texas law. At every stage, you're clueless.

And your demonstrated incompetence certainly doesn't override the lawful judgment of a jury.

Laughing....which is why quoted Law.com and applying the 'malice' standard to Amber's case.....when Texas doesn't use the Malice standard?

Either you didn't know that Texas didn't use the Malice standard......in which case you're incompetent.

Or you did know that Texas didn't use the Malice standard, and intentionally tried to mislead us. In which case you're dishonest.

Either way, you're unreliable and an an utterly inadequate 'source' on the law.

Says you, the same pseudo-legal incompetent that just tried to fallaciously apply the 'malice' standard to this case when Texas didn't use the Malice standard.

And the same pseudo-legal incompetent that laughably insisted that the jury was bound to the TORT standard of 'innocent trespass' which is used to determine civil liability. And NOT recognized in Texas civil law. Nor applied to Texas criminal homicides.

And yet after these two comic blunders on the BASIC application of Texas law, you're again trying to insist that your judgment supercedes the the judge, jury and prosecutors?

Laughing.....nope.

The Texas definition of murder is enough reason alone to appeal this miscarriage of justice to the U.S. Supreme ct.

Do you believe anytime a police officer in Texas kills someone it is murder?

The odds of that are very high when the dead person is not guilty of anything.

Since the legal expert avoids questions...perhaps you can stand in for him: Do you believe doctors performing abortions in Texas are guilty of murder.

Murder is a legal concept. Abortion is legal in Texas, so no.

There have been instances before of police officers going to the wrong address and killing a innocent person...none have ever been charged with murder.

Which is the issue. That has to change. That can no longer be simply excused away.

Yet....this case is very unique....perhaps the only case of a police officer thinking she is entering her own apartment but goes to anothers apartment by mistake and then as a result of what she perceives as an intruder in her apartment shoots and kills the innocent guy.

This case definitely nees to be appealed as the jury neglected to consider the state of mind of the defendant which is critical in a case of self defense.

Mens Rea

They considered it. It was a part of the case presented. They simply did not believe it an excuse. The person texting and driving didn't mean to kill anyone either. They are going to be charged with killing someone if their actions end up doing that.

Did you consider the Texas definition of murder?

Texas definition of murder:

Murder: You commit murder when you intentionally and knowingly take someone else’s life, or when you intend to commit an act that is clearly extremely dangerous to human life and in effect, causes death to another person. Murder is usually a felony of the first degree.

The jury certainly did.

Again, you keep trying to insert my feelings or yours as if they have some legal relevance to the outcome of the trial. They don't. That you don'tt like the legal definition of murder in Texas is legally meaningless.

No where in the US Constitution or the laws of any state is your personal agreement a prerequisite for a legal definition to be legally valid.

Your continued attempt to replace the actual statute and facts of the case with your feelings and emotions.....is why you keep failing.

 

[Skylar]

Nope. As you've demonstrated repeatedly, you're legal judgment is meaningless. You don't understand jurisdiction, you conflate civil and criminal law, you insist that the jury is bound to requirements that don't even exist in Texas law. At every stage, you're clueless.

And your demonstrated incompetence certainly doesn't override the lawful judgment of a jury.

The odds of that are very high when the dead person is not guilty of anything.

Since the legal expert avoids questions...perhaps you can stand in for him: Do you believe doctors performing abortions in Texas are guilty of murder.

Unless you're arguing that Amber Guyger was performing an abortion, your latest attempt to ignore the facts of the case are as meaningless as your other attempts to ignore the facts of the case.

Remember.....your argument is deeply hampered by the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.

You are guilty of shallow thinking not understanding the implications of The Texas definition of murder.

And by 'shallow thinking', you mean applying the ACTUAL law, actual statutes, actual legal standards, the actual facts of this case.... and not the meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish you make up?

Guilty as charged.

Your refusal to answer questions about the Texas definition of murder indicates poor thinking are an attempt to obfusicate.

Says the man who cited the 'malice' standard being applied to the Amber Guyger case, knowing full well that Texas doesn't use the Malice standard.

You intentionally tried to mislead us by citing a standard you knew was irrelevant to the case.

Making all your babble about 'obfuscation' just another tired exercise is projection. I'll stick with the actual law, thanks.

The Texas definition and law on murder is obviously part of the problem.

Says you, citing you.

And as we've established, your source sucks.

This case should be taken all the way to the supreme ct. if necessary to get justice.

Justice has already been served. Remember, your emotions and pseudo-legal gibberish have no relevance to the validity or outcome of the case.

No court is going to overturn the lawful judgment of a jury because you have an emotion.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

The Texas definition of murder is enough reason alone to appeal this miscarriage of justice to the U.S. Supreme ct.

Nope. As you've demonstrated repeatedly, you're legal judgment is meaningless. You don't understand jurisdiction, you conflate civil and criminal law, you insist that the jury is bound to requirements that don't even exist in Texas law. At every stage, you're clueless.

And your demonstrated incompetence certainly doesn't override the lawful judgment of a jury.

The Texas definition of murder is enough reason alone to appeal this miscarriage of justice to the U.S. Supreme ct.

Do you believe anytime a police officer in Texas kills someone it is murder?

The odds of that are very high when the dead person is not guilty of anything.

Since the legal expert avoids questions...perhaps you can stand in for him: Do you believe doctors performing abortions in Texas are guilty of murder.

Murder is a legal concept. Abortion is legal in Texas, so no.

There have been instances before of police officers going to the wrong address and killing a innocent person...none have ever been charged with murder.

Which is the issue. That has to change. That can no longer be simply excused away.

Yet....this case is very unique....perhaps the only case of a police officer thinking she is entering her own apartment but goes to anothers apartment by mistake and then as a result of what she perceives as an intruder in her apartment shoots and kills the innocent guy.

This case definitely nees to be appealed as the jury neglected to consider the state of mind of the defendant which is critical in a case of self defense.

Mens Rea

They considered it. It was a part of the case presented. They simply did not believe it an excuse. The person texting and driving didn't mean to kill anyone either. They are going to be charged with killing someone if their actions end up doing that.

Did you consider the Texas definition of murder?

Texas definition of murder:

Murder: You commit murder when you intentionally and knowingly take someone else’s life, or when you intend to commit an act that is clearly extremely dangerous to human life and in effect, causes death to another person. Murder is usually a felony of the first degree.

The jury certainly did.

Again, you keep trying to insert my feelings or yours as if they have some legal relevance to the outcome of the trial. They don't. That you don'tt like the legal definition of murder in Texas is legally meaningless.

No where in the US Constitution or the laws of any state is your personal agreement a prerequisite for a legal definition to be legally valid.

Your continued attempt to replace the actual statute and facts of the case with your feelings and emotions.....is why you keep failing.

If the jury had considered the state of mind of the defendant they would not have voted to convict her of murder.

Since you agree with the Texas definition of murder you must think anytime a police officer kills someone it is murder...likewise with doctors performing abortions.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Since the legal expert avoids questions...perhaps you can stand in for him: Do you believe doctors performing abortions in Texas are guilty of murder.

Unless you're arguing that Amber Guyger was performing an abortion, your latest attempt to ignore the facts of the case are as meaningless as your other attempts to ignore the facts of the case.

Remember.....your argument is deeply hampered by the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.

You are guilty of shallow thinking not understanding the implications of The Texas definition of murder.

And by 'shallow thinking', you mean applying the ACTUAL law, actual statutes, actual legal standards, the actual facts of this case.... and not the meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish you make up?

Guilty as charged.

Your refusal to answer questions about the Texas definition of murder indicates poor thinking are an attempt to obfusicate.

Says the man who cited the 'malice' standard being applied to the Amber Guyger case, knowing full well that Texas doesn't use the Malice standard.

You intentionally tried to mislead us by citing a standard you knew was irrelevant to the case.

Making all your babble about 'obfuscation' just another tired exercise is projection. I'll stick with the actual law, thanks.

The Texas definition and law on murder is obviously part of the problem.

Says you, citing you.

And as we've established, your source sucks.

This case should be taken all the way to the supreme ct. if necessary to get justice.

Justice has already been served. Remember, your emotions and pseudo-legal gibberish have no relevance to the validity or outcome of the case.

No court is going to overturn the lawful judgment of a jury because you have an emotion.

Jury decisions are constantly over-turned for various reasons....using a incompetent definition of murder would be one good reason in this case.

 

[Skylar]

Nope. As you've demonstrated repeatedly, you're legal judgment is meaningless. You don't understand jurisdiction, you conflate civil and criminal law, you insist that the jury is bound to requirements that don't even exist in Texas law. At every stage, you're clueless.

And your demonstrated incompetence certainly doesn't override the lawful judgment of a jury.

The odds of that are very high when the dead person is not guilty of anything.

Since the legal expert avoids questions...perhaps you can stand in for him: Do you believe doctors performing abortions in Texas are guilty of murder.

Murder is a legal concept. Abortion is legal in Texas, so no.

There have been instances before of police officers going to the wrong address and killing a innocent person...none have ever been charged with murder.

Which is the issue. That has to change. That can no longer be simply excused away.

Yet....this case is very unique....perhaps the only case of a police officer thinking she is entering her own apartment but goes to anothers apartment by mistake and then as a result of what she perceives as an intruder in her apartment shoots and kills the innocent guy.

This case definitely nees to be appealed as the jury neglected to consider the state of mind of the defendant which is critical in a case of self defense.

Mens Rea

They considered it. It was a part of the case presented. They simply did not believe it an excuse. The person texting and driving didn't mean to kill anyone either. They are going to be charged with killing someone if their actions end up doing that.

Did you consider the Texas definition of murder?

Texas definition of murder:

Murder: You commit murder when you intentionally and knowingly take someone else’s life, or when you intend to commit an act that is clearly extremely dangerous to human life and in effect, causes death to another person. Murder is usually a felony of the first degree.

The jury certainly did.

Again, you keep trying to insert my feelings or yours as if they have some legal relevance to the outcome of the trial. They don't. That you don'tt like the legal definition of murder in Texas is legally meaningless.

No where in the US Constitution or the laws of any state is your personal agreement a prerequisite for a legal definition to be legally valid.

Your continued attempt to replace the actual statute and facts of the case with your feelings and emotions.....is why you keep failing.

If the jury had considered the state of mind of the defendant they would not have voted to convict her of murder.

Says you citing your imagination. Back in reality, the defense explicitly cited the defendant's state of mind as part of their defense. The jury didn't find the argument compelling.

Again, your imagination isn't a legal standard. Your incompetent misunderstandings about the law create no obligation on the jury. ANd their lawful judgmet won't be overturned because you have a feeling.

Sorry, Green......but legally, you're nobody in this case. Your personal opinion is irrelevant.

 

[pknopp]

Laughing....which is why quoted Law.com and applying the 'malice' standard to Amber's case.....when Texas doesn't use the Malice standard?

Either you didn't know that Texas didn't use the Malice standard......in which case you're incompetent.

Or you did know that Texas didn't use the Malice standard, and intentionally tried to mislead us. In which case you're dishonest.

Either way, you're unreliable and an an utterly inadequate 'source' on the law.

Says you, the same pseudo-legal incompetent that just tried to fallaciously apply the 'malice' standard to this case when Texas didn't use the Malice standard.

And the same pseudo-legal incompetent that laughably insisted that the jury was bound to the TORT standard of 'innocent trespass' which is used to determine civil liability. And NOT recognized in Texas civil law. Nor applied to Texas criminal homicides.

And yet after these two comic blunders on the BASIC application of Texas law, you're again trying to insist that your judgment supercedes the the judge, jury and prosecutors?

Laughing.....nope.

The Texas definition of murder is enough reason alone to appeal this miscarriage of justice to the U.S. Supreme ct.

Nope. As you've demonstrated repeatedly, you're legal judgment is meaningless. You don't understand jurisdiction, you conflate civil and criminal law, you insist that the jury is bound to requirements that don't even exist in Texas law. At every stage, you're clueless.

And your demonstrated incompetence certainly doesn't override the lawful judgment of a jury.

Laughing....which is why quoted Law.com and applying the 'malice' standard to Amber's case.....when Texas doesn't use the Malice standard?

Either you didn't know that Texas didn't use the Malice standard......in which case you're incompetent.

Or you did know that Texas didn't use the Malice standard, and intentionally tried to mislead us. In which case you're dishonest.

Either way, you're unreliable and an an utterly inadequate 'source' on the law.

Says you, the same pseudo-legal incompetent that just tried to fallaciously apply the 'malice' standard to this case when Texas didn't use the Malice standard.

And the same pseudo-legal incompetent that laughably insisted that the jury was bound to the TORT standard of 'innocent trespass' which is used to determine civil liability. And NOT recognized in Texas civil law. Nor applied to Texas criminal homicides.

And yet after these two comic blunders on the BASIC application of Texas law, you're again trying to insist that your judgment supercedes the the judge, jury and prosecutors?

Laughing.....nope.

The Texas definition of murder is enough reason alone to appeal this miscarriage of justice to the U.S. Supreme ct.

Do you believe anytime a police officer in Texas kills someone it is murder?

The odds of that are very high when the dead person is not guilty of anything.

Since the legal expert avoids questions...perhaps you can stand in for him: Do you believe doctors performing abortions in Texas are guilty of murder.

Murder is a legal concept. Abortion is legal in Texas, so no.

There have been instances before of police officers going to the wrong address and killing a innocent person...none have ever been charged with murder.

Which is the issue. That has to change. That can no longer be simply excused away.

Yet....this case is very unique....perhaps the only case of a police officer thinking she is entering her own apartment but goes to anothers apartment by mistake and then as a result of what she perceives as an intruder in her apartment shoots and kills the innocent guy.

This case definitely nees to be appealed as the jury neglected to consider the state of mind of the defendant which is critical in a case of self defense.

Mens Rea

They considered it. It was a part of the case presented. They simply did not believe it an excuse. The person texting and driving didn't mean to kill anyone either. They are going to be charged with killing someone if their actions end up doing that.

Did you consider the Texas definition of murder?

Texas definition of murder:

Murder: You commit murder when you intentionally and knowingly take someone else’s life, or when you intend to commit an act that is clearly extremely dangerous to human life and in effect, causes death to another person. Murder is usually a felony of the first degree.

Pulling a gun on someone sitting in their home and opening fire is incredibly dangerous to human life.

 

[Skylar]

Unless you're arguing that Amber Guyger was performing an abortion, your latest attempt to ignore the facts of the case are as meaningless as your other attempts to ignore the facts of the case.

Remember.....your argument is deeply hampered by the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.

You are guilty of shallow thinking not understanding the implications of The Texas definition of murder.

And by 'shallow thinking', you mean applying the ACTUAL law, actual statutes, actual legal standards, the actual facts of this case.... and not the meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish you make up?

Guilty as charged.

Your refusal to answer questions about the Texas definition of murder indicates poor thinking are an attempt to obfusicate.

Says the man who cited the 'malice' standard being applied to the Amber Guyger case, knowing full well that Texas doesn't use the Malice standard.

You intentionally tried to mislead us by citing a standard you knew was irrelevant to the case.

Making all your babble about 'obfuscation' just another tired exercise is projection. I'll stick with the actual law, thanks.

The Texas definition and law on murder is obviously part of the problem.

Says you, citing you.

And as we've established, your source sucks.

This case should be taken all the way to the supreme ct. if necessary to get justice.

Justice has already been served. Remember, your emotions and pseudo-legal gibberish have no relevance to the validity or outcome of the case.

No court is going to overturn the lawful judgment of a jury because you have an emotion.

Jury decisions are constantly over-turned for various reasons....using a incompetent definition of murder would be one good reason in this case.

Not one is overturned because you have an emotion, Green. And your feelings about this case are your argument.

Your feelings are irrelevant. Your understanding of the law is utterly inadequate. And your pseudo-legal gibberish has nothing to do with this case.

 

[Skylar]

The Texas definition of murder is enough reason alone to appeal this miscarriage of justice to the U.S. Supreme ct.

Nope. As you've demonstrated repeatedly, you're legal judgment is meaningless. You don't understand jurisdiction, you conflate civil and criminal law, you insist that the jury is bound to requirements that don't even exist in Texas law. At every stage, you're clueless.

And your demonstrated incompetence certainly doesn't override the lawful judgment of a jury.

The Texas definition of murder is enough reason alone to appeal this miscarriage of justice to the U.S. Supreme ct.

Do you believe anytime a police officer in Texas kills someone it is murder?

The odds of that are very high when the dead person is not guilty of anything.

Since the legal expert avoids questions...perhaps you can stand in for him: Do you believe doctors performing abortions in Texas are guilty of murder.

Murder is a legal concept. Abortion is legal in Texas, so no.

There have been instances before of police officers going to the wrong address and killing a innocent person...none have ever been charged with murder.

Which is the issue. That has to change. That can no longer be simply excused away.

Yet....this case is very unique....perhaps the only case of a police officer thinking she is entering her own apartment but goes to anothers apartment by mistake and then as a result of what she perceives as an intruder in her apartment shoots and kills the innocent guy.

This case definitely nees to be appealed as the jury neglected to consider the state of mind of the defendant which is critical in a case of self defense.

Mens Rea

They considered it. It was a part of the case presented. They simply did not believe it an excuse. The person texting and driving didn't mean to kill anyone either. They are going to be charged with killing someone if their actions end up doing that.

Did you consider the Texas definition of murder?

Texas definition of murder:

Murder: You commit murder when you intentionally and knowingly take someone else’s life, or when you intend to commit an act that is clearly extremely dangerous to human life and in effect, causes death to another person. Murder is usually a felony of the first degree.

Pulling a gun on someone sitting in their home and opening fire is incredibly dangerous to human life.

Indeed. And it was the *actual* Texas statute that the jury was asked to consider.

Not Green's litany of pseudo-legal drivel.....from the TORT standard of 'innocent trespasser (which Texas doesn't recognize), to the 'malice' standard of murder (which Texas doesn't use).

The jury used Texas law as the basis for a crime commited in Texas. As they should have.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

What this wrongful decision by the jury in Texas is doing is to whittle down the ability of anyone to engage in self defense.

And there are other juries outside of Texas making similar mistakes in regards to self defense.

The gun phobia along with fallacious claims of racism is making it more and more of a problem for those whose lives are in danger and are forced to use lethal force to defend their lives.

It will also particularly affect the police...and will result in more cops geting shot because they will hesitate when confronted with a legitimate threat.

A lot of folks that carry concealed weapons have no idea what is happening in regards to these precedent setting cases regarding self defense.

What it boils down to --it may be legal to carry a concealed weapon but if you dare use it when confronted with a threat to your life....you may wind up going to jail.

I used to carry but I stopped...just too dangerous....many juries will consider you to be guilty for just carrying a concealed weapon. The media and the gun control crowd have had a lot of influence on a lot of potential jurors.

I do carry a knife...very effective at close ranges....and the jury will be much more sympathetic towards you if you ever have to defend your life.

Legal experts say Amber Guyger guilty verdict signals major shift in how juries view police officers

 

[Skylar]

What this wrongful decision by the jury in Texas is doing is to whittle down the ability of anyone to engage in self defense.

Shooting an unarmed man to death in his own apartment who has commited not crime isn't 'self defense'.

The jury heard Amber's claims of self defense and rightfully rejected them

 

[TheGreenHornet]

What this wrongful decision by the jury in Texas is doing is to whittle down the ability of anyone to engage in self defense.

Shooting an unarmed man to death in his own apartment who has commited not crime isn't 'self defense'.

The jury heard Amber's claims of self defense and rightfully rejected them

The jury was racially motivated as most blacks are and in addition did not consider the defendant's state of mind.

 

[pknopp]

What this wrongful decision by the jury in Texas is doing is to whittle down the ability of anyone to engage in self defense.

And there are other juries outside of Texas making similar mistakes in regards to self defense.

The gun phobia along with fallacious claims of racism is making it more and more of a problem for those whose lives are in danger and are forced to use lethal force to defend their lives.

It will also particularly affect the police...and will result in more cops geting shot because they will hesitate when confronted with a legitimate threat.

A lot of folks that carry concealed weapons have no idea what is happening in regards to these precedent setting cases regarding self defense.

What it boils down to --it may be legal to carry a concealed weapon but if you dare use it when confronted with a threat to your life....you may wind up going to jail.

I used to carry but I stopped...just too dangerous....many juries will consider you to be guilty for just carrying a concealed weapon. The media and the gun control crowd have had a lot of influence on a lot of potential jurors.

I do carry a knife...very effective at close ranges....and the jury will be much more sympathetic towards you if you ever have to defend your life.

You are right here. If those who "abuse" a right are not dealt with, it negatively affects those who need those rights. It's why she had to be found guilty.

 

[Skylar]

What this wrongful decision by the jury in Texas is doing is to whittle down the ability of anyone to engage in self defense.

Shooting an unarmed man to death in his own apartment who has commited not crime isn't 'self defense'.

The jury heard Amber's claims of self defense and rightfully rejected them

The jury was racially motivated as most blacks are and in addition did not consider the defendant's state of mind.

Says you, citing you. Again, your feelings aren't a legal standard. And don't negate any jury's lawful determination.

You keep arguing that your emotions are law. Sorry, Green.....they're not.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

What this wrongful decision by the jury in Texas is doing is to whittle down the ability of anyone to engage in self defense.

Shooting an unarmed man to death in his own apartment who has commited not crime isn't 'self defense'.

The jury heard Amber's claims of self defense and rightfully rejected them

The jury was racially motivated as most blacks are and in addition did not consider the defendant's state of mind.

Says you, citing you. Again, your feelings aren't a legal standard. And don't negate any jury's lawful determination.

You keep arguing that your emotions are law. Sorry, Green.....they're not.

Amber Guyger’s legal team expected to appeal murder conviction

 

[Skylar]

What this wrongful decision by the jury in Texas is doing is to whittle down the ability of anyone to engage in self defense.

Shooting an unarmed man to death in his own apartment who has commited not crime isn't 'self defense'.

The jury heard Amber's claims of self defense and rightfully rejected them

The jury was racially motivated as most blacks are and in addition did not consider the defendant's state of mind.

Says you, citing you. Again, your feelings aren't a legal standard. And don't negate any jury's lawful determination.

You keep arguing that your emotions are law. Sorry, Green.....they're not.

Amber Guyger’s legal team expected to appeal murder conviction

Yup. Murderers almost always appeal. They almost always lose.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

What this wrongful decision by the jury in Texas is doing is to whittle down the ability of anyone to engage in self defense.

And there are other juries outside of Texas making similar mistakes in regards to self defense.

The gun phobia along with fallacious claims of racism is making it more and more of a problem for those whose lives are in danger and are forced to use lethal force to defend their lives.

It will also particularly affect the police...and will result in more cops geting shot because they will hesitate when confronted with a legitimate threat.

A lot of folks that carry concealed weapons have no idea what is happening in regards to these precedent setting cases regarding self defense.

What it boils down to --it may be legal to carry a concealed weapon but if you dare use it when confronted with a threat to your life....you may wind up going to jail.

I used to carry but I stopped...just too dangerous....many juries will consider you to be guilty for just carrying a concealed weapon. The media and the gun control crowd have had a lot of influence on a lot of potential jurors.

I do carry a knife...very effective at close ranges....and the jury will be much more sympathetic towards you if you ever have to defend your life.

You are right here. If those who "abuse" a right are not dealt with, it negatively affects those who need those rights. It's why she had to be found guilty.

I do not think Amber abused any right...if that is what you mean?

When one considers her state of mind and the scenario in that apt. I think she was reasonable to be in fear of her life.

She was a well trained police officer and a 4 yr veteran....if she was terrible as most portend she would not have lasted that long.

Bottom Line....the jurors were racially motivated...to many blacks on the jury...how the defense team allowed that is beyond me.

Not even to mention the antics of the judge.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

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

The defense has presented at least two witnesses who've done the same thing and there are many others who have too.

Who were the 2 witnesses who said they went to the wrong apartment and murdered someone.

The hallways and apartment entrances all look the same. One witness, a lawyer, out walking his dog one night walked into an apartment one floor down from his and terrified a woman sitting at her kitchen table. Most of it is the parking garage not being clearly marked as to what floor the driver is on and the elevators and stair wells all look the same.

Did he shoot and kill the terrified woman?

Guyger was also hauling 40 pounds of gear and talking on her cell phone at the time she entered his apartment by mistake.

Actually she was sexting at the time.