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.
Says you, citing your imagination.
Again, Green.....you may believe that your imagination defines the law. But as Amber Guyger's conviction for murder demonstrates, your imagination has no legal relevance. Your 'feelings' don't change the statutes or the facts in the case.
And as Amber Guyger committed murder in Texas, she was subject to Texas law. Not the standards of 'law.com'.
You don't have the slightest clue how jurisdiction works at all, do you?Says you, citing your imagination.
Again, Green.....you may believe that your imagination defines the law. But as Amber Guyger's conviction for murder demonstrates, your imagination has no legal relevance. Your 'feelings' don't change the statutes or the facts in the case.
And as Amber Guyger committed murder in Texas, she was subject to Texas law. Not the standards of 'law.com'.
You don't have the slightest clue how jurisdiction works at all, do you?
I have cited competent legal authorities like Blacks Law Dictionary........
On TORT law from Georgia. Which isn't recognized in Texas. And isn't applied to criminal homicides if it was. You laughably conflate civil and criminal law, and insist that state ruling from OUTSIDE Texas override Texas state law.
Um, no. They don't.
Worse, you've ignored the Texas Statutes on Murder, insisting that Texas is bound to the 'malice standard'.......when it isn't. 'Malice' isn't mentioned once in the entire Texas statute o
18 U.S. Code § 1111.Murder
prev | next
arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse,child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree.
Any other murder is murder in the second degree.
18 U.S. Code § 1111 - Murder
That's a federal statute. This was a state crime.
Your incompetence regarding jurisdiction is against hampering your argument.
Try again.
The feds rule over all state courts...they are the ultimate deciders....thus if this case goes to the supreme court....it will be over turned.
she simply made a mistake.....and that is all there is to it...she made a mistake....a very big mistake she went to someone elses apartment...a tragic mistake for both parties. But that is all it was a huge tragic mistake....yet the state wants to send her to prison because she made a mistake.....who said it? To err is human.
All murders are a huge tragic mistake.
she simply made a mistake.....and that is all there is to it...she made a mistake....a very big mistake she went to someone elses apartment...a tragic mistake for both parties. But that is all it was a huge tragic mistake....yet the state wants to send her to prison because she made a mistake.....who said it? To err is human.
All murders are a huge tragic mistake.
Mistake is not the right word. All murders are tragic.
Example: Somone hires a hitman to kill their wife...no mistake involved...just malice...a wish,desire and intention to do evil.
Still don't, but here's what your link says, genius:Hearsay repeated ad nauseum. Murder is obviously homicide. You have nothing.Homicide is not murder.
The essential element of murder is malice.
Nope....homicide is not murder........
What's the difference between homicide, murder and manslaughter? - Murphy Law Office
Obviously you did not know I went to Harvard Law
School.
Dope.Murder is a homicide committed with “malice aforethought.” That doesn’t mean it is a malicious killing. Malice aforethought is the common law way of saying that it is an unjustified killing. And, for a killing to be a murder, there typically has to be either an intent to kill, or, at minimum, conduct so reckless that it is punishable as murder.
I have cited competent legal authorities like Blacks Law Dictionary........
On TORT law from Georgia. Which isn't recognized in Texas. And isn't applied to criminal homicides if it was. You laughably conflate civil and criminal law, and insist that state ruling from OUTSIDE Texas override Texas state law.
Um, no. They don't.
Worse, you've ignored the Texas Statutes on Murder, insisting that Texas is bound to the 'malice standard'.......when it isn't. 'Malice' isn't mentioned once in the entire Texas statute o
18 U.S. Code § 1111.Murder
prev | next
arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse,child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree.
Any other murder is murder in the second degree.
18 U.S. Code § 1111 - Murder
That's a federal statute. This was a state crime.
Your incompetence regarding jurisdiction is against hampering your argument.
Try again.
The feds rule over all state courts...they are the ultimate deciders....thus if this case goes to the supreme court....it will be over turned.
Nope. The Feds and States operate under a system called 'concurrent jurisdiction'. As Amber was indicted, tried and convicted under Texas State law, Texas state law applies.
Sorry, Green.....but your ignorance of the basics of how our system works isn't helping your argument.
she simply made a mistake.....and that is all there is to it...she made a mistake....a very big mistake she went to someone elses apartment...a tragic mistake for both parties. But that is all it was a huge tragic mistake....yet the state wants to send her to prison because she made a mistake.....who said it? To err is human.
All murders are a huge tragic mistake.
Mistake is not the right word. All murders are tragic.
Example: Somone hires a hitman to kill their wife...no mistake involved...just malice...a wish,desire and intention to do evil.
Here we go with the century old+ 2nd edition Black's Law drivel again..Anyhow....Amber had no malice towards the black guy....murder requires malice.
None? Putting a bullet in his heart is rather malicious.
Murder does not require malice in Texas. In fact, the word 'malice' isn't used once in the entire section of Texas law on criminal homicide, including Murder.
The Texas definition of murder is wrong...it needs to be re-written. Hopefully they will bring that up in the appeal....that in and of itself is a big reason this case should be taken to the
Supreme Court...that texas definition was probably written way back in the old days when politicians had little or no legal training.
All competent legal scholars today say malice is an essential element of murder.
Says you, citing your imagination.
Again, Green.....you may believe that your imagination defines the law. But as Amber Guyger's conviction for murder demonstrates, your imagination has no legal relevance. Your 'feelings' don't change the statutes or the facts in the case.
And as Amber Guyger committed murder in Texas, she was subject to Texas law. Not the standards of 'law.com'.
You don't have the slightest clue how jurisdiction works at all, do you?Anyhow....Amber had no malice towards the black guy....murder requires malice.
None? Putting a bullet in his heart is rather malicious.
Murder does not require malice in Texas. In fact, the word 'malice' isn't used once in the entire section of Texas law on criminal homicide, including Murder.
The Texas definition of murder is wrong...it needs to be re-written. Hopefully they will bring that up in the appeal....that in and of itself is a big reason this case should be taken to the
Supreme Court...that texas definition was probably written way back in the old days when politicians had little or no legal training.
All competent legal scholars today say malice is an essential element of murder.
Says you, citing your imagination.
Again, Green.....you may believe that your imagination defines the law. But as Amber Guyger's conviction for murder demonstrates, your imagination has no legal relevance. Your 'feelings' don't change the statutes or the facts in the case.
And as Amber Guyger committed murder in Texas, she was subject to Texas law. Not the standards of 'law.com'.
You don't have the slightest clue how jurisdiction works at all, do you?
I have cited competent legal authorities like Blacks Law Dictionary........
Black's Law is the most widely used law dictionary in the United States. It was founded by Henry Campbell Black (1860–1927). It is the reference of choice for terms in legal briefs and court opinions and has been cited as a secondary legal authority in many U.S. Supreme Court cases
Sorry, Green....but Amber wasn't tried in federal court. Thus, federal laws don't apply to her conviction. She was tried in State court. Thus, Texas State laws apply.On TORT law from Georgia. Which isn't recognized in Texas. And isn't applied to criminal homicides if it was. You laughably conflate civil and criminal law, and insist that state ruling from OUTSIDE Texas override Texas state law.
Um, no. They don't.
Worse, you've ignored the Texas Statutes on Murder, insisting that Texas is bound to the 'malice standard'.......when it isn't. 'Malice' isn't mentioned once in the entire Texas statute o
18 U.S. Code § 1111.Murder
prev | next
arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse,child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree.
Any other murder is murder in the second degree.
18 U.S. Code § 1111 - Murder
That's a federal statute. This was a state crime.
Your incompetence regarding jurisdiction is against hampering your argument.
Try again.
The feds rule over all state courts...they are the ultimate deciders....thus if this case goes to the supreme court....it will be over turned.
Nope. The Feds and States operate under a system called 'concurrent jurisdiction'. As Amber was indicted, tried and convicted under Texas State law, Texas state law applies.
Sorry, Green.....but your ignorance of the basics of how our system works isn't helping your argument.
What you seem not to know:
If a federal issue is part of a state court's decision then the Federal court has jurisdiction.
Got dat chump....bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Sorry, Green....but Amber wasn't tried in federal court. Thus, federal laws don't apply to her conviction. She was tried in State court. Thus, Texas State laws apply.
That's a federal statute. This was a state crime.
Your incompetence regarding jurisdiction is against hampering your argument.
Try again.
The feds rule over all state courts...they are the ultimate deciders....thus if this case goes to the supreme court....it will be over turned.
Nope. The Feds and States operate under a system called 'concurrent jurisdiction'. As Amber was indicted, tried and convicted under Texas State law, Texas state law applies.
Sorry, Green.....but your ignorance of the basics of how our system works isn't helping your argument.
What you seem not to know:
If a federal issue is part of a state court's decision then the Federal court has jurisdiction.
Got dat chump....bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Remember, you don't understand how jurisdiction works. And your ignorance doesn't magically change a jury's lawful determination.
Here we go with the century old+ 2nd edition Black's Law drivel again..None? Putting a bullet in his heart is rather malicious.
Murder does not require malice in Texas. In fact, the word 'malice' isn't used once in the entire section of Texas law on criminal homicide, including Murder.
The Texas definition of murder is wrong...it needs to be re-written. Hopefully they will bring that up in the appeal....that in and of itself is a big reason this case should be taken to the
Supreme Court...that texas definition was probably written way back in the old days when politicians had little or no legal training.
All competent legal scholars today say malice is an essential element of murder.
Says you, citing your imagination.
Again, Green.....you may believe that your imagination defines the law. But as Amber Guyger's conviction for murder demonstrates, your imagination has no legal relevance. Your 'feelings' don't change the statutes or the facts in the case.
And as Amber Guyger committed murder in Texas, she was subject to Texas law. Not the standards of 'law.com'.
You don't have the slightest clue how jurisdiction works at all, do you?None? Putting a bullet in his heart is rather malicious.
Murder does not require malice in Texas. In fact, the word 'malice' isn't used once in the entire section of Texas law on criminal homicide, including Murder.
The Texas definition of murder is wrong...it needs to be re-written. Hopefully they will bring that up in the appeal....that in and of itself is a big reason this case should be taken to the
Supreme Court...that texas definition was probably written way back in the old days when politicians had little or no legal training.
All competent legal scholars today say malice is an essential element of murder.
Says you, citing your imagination.
Again, Green.....you may believe that your imagination defines the law. But as Amber Guyger's conviction for murder demonstrates, your imagination has no legal relevance. Your 'feelings' don't change the statutes or the facts in the case.
And as Amber Guyger committed murder in Texas, she was subject to Texas law. Not the standards of 'law.com'.
You don't have the slightest clue how jurisdiction works at all, do you?
I have cited competent legal authorities like Blacks Law Dictionary........
Black's Law is the most widely used law dictionary in the United States. It was founded by Henry Campbell Black (1860–1927). It is the reference of choice for terms in legal briefs and court opinions and has been cited as a secondary legal authority in many U.S. Supreme Court cases
Here we go with the century old+ 2nd edition Black's Law drivel again..Murder does not require malice in Texas. In fact, the word 'malice' isn't used once in the entire section of Texas law on criminal homicide, including Murder.
The Texas definition of murder is wrong...it needs to be re-written. Hopefully they will bring that up in the appeal....that in and of itself is a big reason this case should be taken to the
Supreme Court...that texas definition was probably written way back in the old days when politicians had little or no legal training.
All competent legal scholars today say malice is an essential element of murder.
Says you, citing your imagination.
Again, Green.....you may believe that your imagination defines the law. But as Amber Guyger's conviction for murder demonstrates, your imagination has no legal relevance. Your 'feelings' don't change the statutes or the facts in the case.
And as Amber Guyger committed murder in Texas, she was subject to Texas law. Not the standards of 'law.com'.
You don't have the slightest clue how jurisdiction works at all, do you?Murder does not require malice in Texas. In fact, the word 'malice' isn't used once in the entire section of Texas law on criminal homicide, including Murder.
The Texas definition of murder is wrong...it needs to be re-written. Hopefully they will bring that up in the appeal....that in and of itself is a big reason this case should be taken to the
Supreme Court...that texas definition was probably written way back in the old days when politicians had little or no legal training.
All competent legal scholars today say malice is an essential element of murder.
Says you, citing your imagination.
Again, Green.....you may believe that your imagination defines the law. But as Amber Guyger's conviction for murder demonstrates, your imagination has no legal relevance. Your 'feelings' don't change the statutes or the facts in the case.
And as Amber Guyger committed murder in Texas, she was subject to Texas law. Not the standards of 'law.com'.
You don't have the slightest clue how jurisdiction works at all, do you?
I have cited competent legal authorities like Blacks Law Dictionary........
Black's Law is the most widely used law dictionary in the United States. It was founded by Henry Campbell Black (1860–1927). It is the reference of choice for terms in legal briefs and court opinions and has been cited as a secondary legal authority in many U.S. Supreme Court cases
You vainly try to denigrate a highly reputable legal source.
Bears repeating.The Feds and States operate under a system called 'concurrent jurisdiction'. As Amber was indicted, tried and convicted under Texas State law, Texas state law applies.
Sorry, Green.....but your ignorance of the basics of how our system works isn't helping your argument.
Nah, you should take it more personally.Here we go with the century old+ 2nd edition Black's Law drivel again..Murder does not require malice in Texas. In fact, the word 'malice' isn't used once in the entire section of Texas law on criminal homicide, including Murder.
The Texas definition of murder is wrong...it needs to be re-written. Hopefully they will bring that up in the appeal....that in and of itself is a big reason this case should be taken to the
Supreme Court...that texas definition was probably written way back in the old days when politicians had little or no legal training.
All competent legal scholars today say malice is an essential element of murder.
Says you, citing your imagination.
Again, Green.....you may believe that your imagination defines the law. But as Amber Guyger's conviction for murder demonstrates, your imagination has no legal relevance. Your 'feelings' don't change the statutes or the facts in the case.
And as Amber Guyger committed murder in Texas, she was subject to Texas law. Not the standards of 'law.com'.
You don't have the slightest clue how jurisdiction works at all, do you?No, you should really take it more personally.Murder does not require malice in Texas. In fact, the word 'malice' isn't used once in the entire section of Texas law on criminal homicide, including Murder.
The Texas definition of murder is wrong...it needs to be re-written. Hopefully they will bring that up in the appeal....that in and of itself is a big reason this case should be taken to the
Supreme Court...that texas definition was probably written way back in the old days when politicians had little or no legal training.
All competent legal scholars today say malice is an essential element of murder.
Says you, citing your imagination.
Again, Green.....you may believe that your imagination defines the law. But as Amber Guyger's conviction for murder demonstrates, your imagination has no legal relevance. Your 'feelings' don't change the statutes or the facts in the case.
And as Amber Guyger committed murder in Texas, she was subject to Texas law. Not the standards of 'law.com'.
You don't have the slightest clue how jurisdiction works at all, do you?
I have cited competent legal authorities like Blacks Law Dictionary........
Black's Law is the most widely used law dictionary in the United States. It was founded by Henry Campbell Black (1860–1927). It is the reference of choice for terms in legal briefs and court opinions and has been cited as a secondary legal authority in many U.S. Supreme Court cases
You vainly try to denigrate a highly reputable legal source.
The Supremes don't have the time nor inclination to fuck this one up.Sorry, Green....but Amber wasn't tried in federal court. Thus, federal laws don't apply to her conviction. She was tried in State court. Thus, Texas State laws apply.That's a federal statute. This was a state crime.
Your incompetence regarding jurisdiction is against hampering your argument.
Try again.
The feds rule over all state courts...they are the ultimate deciders....thus if this case goes to the supreme court....it will be over turned.
Nope. The Feds and States operate under a system called 'concurrent jurisdiction'. As Amber was indicted, tried and convicted under Texas State law, Texas state law applies.
Sorry, Green.....but your ignorance of the basics of how our system works isn't helping your argument.
What you seem not to know:
If a federal issue is part of a state court's decision then the Federal court has jurisdiction.
Got dat chump....bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Remember, you don't understand how jurisdiction works. And your ignorance doesn't magically change a jury's lawful determination.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Conflicts of Jurisdiction: Federal Court Interference with State Courts
If I came home after working 13 hours to my own home found the door I locked earlier unlocked I believe I would call 911 prior to entering and they would advices me not to enter. Now say I didn’t call 911 but retrieved my weapon from my vehicle console and entered my own home. I then find a man drinking my beer on my couch can I shoot him?, when I startle him and he get off my couch. Legally I cannot shoot him until he presents a threat. She was in the wrong home and did not prove he presented a threat.
The Supremes don't have the time nor inclination to fuck this one up.Sorry, Green....but Amber wasn't tried in federal court. Thus, federal laws don't apply to her conviction. She was tried in State court. Thus, Texas State laws apply.The feds rule over all state courts...they are the ultimate deciders....thus if this case goes to the supreme court....it will be over turned.
Nope. The Feds and States operate under a system called 'concurrent jurisdiction'. As Amber was indicted, tried and convicted under Texas State law, Texas state law applies.
Sorry, Green.....but your ignorance of the basics of how our system works isn't helping your argument.
What you seem not to know:
If a federal issue is part of a state court's decision then the Federal court has jurisdiction.
Got dat chump....bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Remember, you don't understand how jurisdiction works. And your ignorance doesn't magically change a jury's lawful determination.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Conflicts of Jurisdiction: Federal Court Interference with State Courts
The Supremes don't have the time nor inclination to fuck this one up.Sorry, Green....but Amber wasn't tried in federal court. Thus, federal laws don't apply to her conviction. She was tried in State court. Thus, Texas State laws apply.Nope. The Feds and States operate under a system called 'concurrent jurisdiction'. As Amber was indicted, tried and convicted under Texas State law, Texas state law applies.
Sorry, Green.....but your ignorance of the basics of how our system works isn't helping your argument.
What you seem not to know:
If a federal issue is part of a state court's decision then the Federal court has jurisdiction.
Got dat chump....bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Remember, you don't understand how jurisdiction works. And your ignorance doesn't magically change a jury's lawful determination.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Conflicts of Jurisdiction: Federal Court Interference with State Courts
I do not think it will go that high...most likely the state supreme court will reverse this lower court mistake.
If I came home after working 13 hours to my own home found the door I locked earlier unlocked I believe I would call 911 prior to entering and they would advices me not to enter. Now say I didn’t call 911 but retrieved my weapon from my vehicle console and entered my own home. I then find a man drinking my beer on my couch can I shoot him?, when I startle him and he get off my couch. Legally I cannot shoot him until he presents a threat. She was in the wrong home and did not prove he presented a threat.
Under the law of self defense in most states one only has to be in reasonable fear of their life...they are not required to prove a threat.....though they must be able to convince a jury that they were in reasonable fear of their life or of serious bodily injury.
Due to a lot of recent decisions on self defense by juries that are basically incompetent/ obsessed with political correctness.....especially when a unarmed black is shot ---the capability to conduct a successful self defense is being diminished.
A lot of gun owners are not aware of this...and thus they are placing themselves in harms way....especially if they carry a concealed weapon...lots of juries now do not like that at all...having been indoctrinated by the msm into believing it is wrong if not criminal to walk around with a concealed weapon.
