Racist Black Judge Railroading Amber Guyger

[Grumblenuts]

Shooting a man to death who is sitting in his own apartment, minding his own business isn't 'self defense'.

Wait.. Lemme think.. Yeah, I suppose.. Sounds to be, at minimum, conduct so reckless that it is punishable as murder.

Wait, what color was he?!

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

I do not think it will go that high...most likely the state supreme court will reverse this lower court mistake.

You should be happy she only got 10 years and move on.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

a lot of black judges are racists [ a lot of blacks are ]
they want payback for perceived/fake grievances

At least you got an AV.

 

[KissMy]

Even if you are dumb enough to fall for all the bullshit she is peddling, she refused to take cover, call for back-up, de-escalate, negotiate surrender, but instead entered his apartment and shot an unarmed man multiple times while was sitting on his couch watching TV & eating ice-cream. She never said she feared for her life. She refused to give him lifesaving aid, only worried about her image, career, lied & destroyed evidence!

 

[Grumblenuts]

But,.. but,.. ah c,mon,.. black guy, McFly, hello?

 

[TheGreenHornet]

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.

Shooting a man to death who is sitting in his own apartment, minding his own business isn't 'self defense'.

Which is why the jury rejected it as a defense when presented with it by Amber's own lawyers.

: 66394"]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.

Shooting a man to death who is sitting in his own apartment, minding his own business isn't 'self defense'.

Which is why the jury rejected it as a defense when presented with it by Amber's own lawyers.[/QUOTE

The key to whether the defendant w[/QUOTE]

Homicide is not murder.

The essential element of murder is malice.

Hearsay repeated ad nauseum. Murder is obviously homicide. You have nothing.

Nope homicide is not murder....a homicide does not require malice...murder does.

Not in Texas it doesn't. The word 'malice' is never used in the entire statute on criminal homicide. Nor is it a requirement for a murder per the statutes of Texas.

Your legal incompetence again hampers your argument.

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

Let's say it is overturned. They try her again and then find her guilty of manslaughter. How would you feel if they then gave her more than 10 years?

To tell you the truth from what I have seen and heard about this lady....I really do not like her but I am convinced she is innocent. Anyhow...the good guys do not always win...what will be will be.

The real damage done by this jury and others of a similar nature is to make it more difficult to engage in self defense without the possibility of going to prison.

These juries have too many politically correct people who have no understanding of the law and are easily controlled by the prosecutor

Shooting an unarmed man to death in his own home for committing no crime isn't 'self defense'.

Which might explain why Amber Guyger was convicted of murder for doing it.

Anyone who thinks that a woman coming home to find a nigha sitting on her couch could not possibly be in fear of her life and or of getting raped is beyond my comprehension. Being a police officer she knew how blacks are prone to rape white women....even though a minority they comitt over half of all violent crime in America....most do not know this but the police have to deal with blacks all the time and they well understand their propensity for violence...our jails are full of them

The add to that....da nigha had to know she was a police officer because she was still in uniform and yet when she yells at him to show his hands he refuses....why?

Perhaps because the mariujana he was smoking prevented him from understanding that a police officer pointing a gun at him might actually shoot him if he did not show his hands.

Bottom Line it is very reasonable she was in fear of her life and any reasonable person would recognize that.

Unfortunately black jurors will always refuse to judge white cops fairly....their hatred of white folks is only superseded by their hatred of police officers....that is the reality and that is why Amber was convicted...they could not have cared less whether or not she was in fear of her life.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Shooting a man to death who is sitting in his own apartment, minding his own business isn't 'self defense'.

Which is why the jury rejected it as a defense when presented with it by Amber's own lawyers.

: 66394"]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.

Shooting a man to death who is sitting in his own apartment, minding his own business isn't 'self defense'.

Which is why the jury rejected it as a defense when presented with it by Amber's own lawyers.[/QUOTE

The key to whether the defendant w

Hearsay repeated ad nauseum. Murder is obviously homicide. You have nothing.

Nope homicide is not murder....a homicide does not require malice...murder does.

Not in Texas it doesn't. The word 'malice' is never used in the entire statute on criminal homicide. Nor is it a requirement for a murder per the statutes of Texas.

Your legal incompetence again hampers your argument.

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

Let's say it is overturned. They try her again and then find her guilty of manslaughter. How would you feel if they then gave her more than 10 years?

To tell you the truth from what I have seen and heard about this lady....I really do not like her but I am convinced she is innocent. Anyhow...the good guys do not always win...what will be will be.

The real damage done by this jury and others of a similar nature is to make it more difficult to engage in self defense without the possibility of going to prison.

These juries have too many politically correct people who have no understanding of the law and are easily controlled by the prosecutor

Shooting an unarmed man to death in his own home for committing no crime isn't 'self defense'.

Which might explain why Amber Guyger was convicted of murder for doing it.

Anyone who thinks that a woman coming home to find a nigha sitting on her couch could not possibly be in fear of her life and or of getting raped is beyond my comprehension. Being a police officer she knew how blacks are prone to rape white women....even though a minority they comitt over half of all violent crime in America....most do not know this but the police have to deal with blacks all the time and they well understand their propensity for violence...our jails are full of them

The add to that....da nigha had to know she was a police officer because she was still in uniform and yet when she yells at him to show his hands he refuses....why?

Perhaps because the mariujana he was smoking prevented him from understanding that a police officer pointing a gun at him might actually shoot him if he did not show his hands.

Bottom Line it is very reasonable she was in fear of her life and any reasonable person would recognize that.

Unfortunately black jurors will always refuse to judge white cops fairly....their hatred of white folks is only superseded by their hatred of police officers....that is the reality and that is why Amber was convicted...they could not have cared less whether or not she was in fear of her life.
Some

She didn't come into her home at night. She came into another person's home and intentionally murdered an unarmed man who was watching TV and eating ice cream.

You keep ignoring the actual facts of the case. The jury didn't.

Bottom line, that's not self defense. Which is why Amber Guyger is wearing prison orange and spending at least the next half decade in prison.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

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.

Shooting a man to death who is sitting in his own apartment, minding his own business isn't 'self defense'.

Which is why the jury rejected it as a defense when presented with it by Amber's own lawyers.

: 66394"]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.

Shooting a man to death who is sitting in his own apartment, minding his own business isn't 'self defense'.

Which is why the jury rejected it as a defense when presented with it by Amber's own lawyers.[/QUOTE

The key to whether the defendant w

Hearsay repeated ad nauseum. Murder is obviously homicide. You have nothing.

Nope homicide is not murder....a homicide does not require malice...murder does.

Not in Texas it doesn't. The word 'malice' is never used in the entire statute on criminal homicide. Nor is it a requirement for a murder per the statutes of Texas.

Your legal incompetence again hampers your argument.

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

Let's say it is overturned. They try her again and then find her guilty of manslaughter. How would you feel if they then gave her more than 10 years?

To tell you the truth from what I have seen and heard about this lady....I really do not like her but I am convinced she is innocent. Anyhow...the good guys do not always win...what will be will be.

The real damage done by this jury and others of a similar nature is to make it more difficult to engage in self defense without the possibility of going to prison.

These juries have too many politically correct people who have no understanding of the law and are easily controlled by the prosecutor

Shooting an unarmed man to death in his own home for committing no crime isn't 'self defense'.

Which might explain why Amber Guyger was convicted of murder for doing it.

Anyone who thinks that a woman coming home to find a nigha sitting on her couch could not possibly be in fear of her life and or of getting raped is beyond my comprehension. Being a police officer she knew how blacks are prone to rape white women....even though a minority they comitt over half of all violent crime in America....most do not know this but the police have to deal with blacks all the time and they well understand their propensity for violence...our jails are full of them

The add to that....da nigha had to know she was a police officer because she was still in uniform and yet when she yells at him to show his hands he refuses....why?

Perhaps because the mariujana he was smoking prevented him from understanding that a police officer pointing a gun at him might actually shoot him if he did not show his hands.

Bottom Line it is very reasonable she was in fear of her life and any reasonable person would recognize that.

Unfortunately black jurors will always refuse to judge white cops fairly....their hatred of white folks is only superseded by their hatred of police officers....that is the reality and that is why Amber was convicted...they could not have cared less whether or not she was in fear of her life.[/QUOTE]
Exactly why this is being appealed

 

[Skylar]

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.

Shooting a man to death who is sitting in his own apartment, minding his own business isn't 'self defense'.

Which is why the jury rejected it as a defense when presented with it by Amber's own lawyers.

: 66394"]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.

Shooting a man to death who is sitting in his own apartment, minding his own business isn't 'self defense'.

Which is why the jury rejected it as a defense when presented with it by Amber's own lawyers.[/QUOTE

The key to whether the defendant w

Hearsay repeated ad nauseum. Murder is obviously homicide. You have nothing.

Nope homicide is not murder....a homicide does not require malice...murder does.

Not in Texas it doesn't. The word 'malice' is never used in the entire statute on criminal homicide. Nor is it a requirement for a murder per the statutes of Texas.

Your legal incompetence again hampers your argument.

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

Let's say it is overturned. They try her again and then find her guilty of manslaughter. How would you feel if they then gave her more than 10 years?

To tell you the truth from what I have seen and heard about this lady....I really do not like her but I am convinced she is innocent. Anyhow...the good guys do not always win...what will be will be.

The real damage done by this jury and others of a similar nature is to make it more difficult to engage in self defense without the possibility of going to prison.

These juries have too many politically correct people who have no understanding of the law and are easily controlled by the prosecutor

Shooting an unarmed man to death in his own home for committing no crime isn't 'self defense'.

Which might explain why Amber Guyger was convicted of murder for doing it.

Anyone who thinks that a woman coming home to find a nigha sitting on her couch could not possibly be in fear of her life and or of getting raped is beyond my comprehension. Being a police officer she knew how blacks are prone to rape white women....even though a minority they comitt over half of all violent crime in America....most do not know this but the police have to deal with blacks all the time and they well understand their propensity for violence...our jails are full of them

The add to that....da nigha had to know she was a police officer because she was still in uniform and yet when she yells at him to show his hands he refuses....why?

Perhaps because the mariujana he was smoking prevented him from understanding that a police officer pointing a gun at him might actually shoot him if he did not show his hands.

Bottom Line it is very reasonable she was in fear of her life and any reasonable person would recognize that.

Unfortunately black jurors will always refuse to judge white cops fairly....their hatred of white folks is only superseded by their hatred of police officers....that is the reality and that is why Amber was convicted...they could not have cared less whether or not she was in fear of her life.

Exactly why this is being appealed

Again, she didn't come into her home at night. She came into another person's home and intentionally murdered an unarmed man who was watching TV and eating ice cream.

Bottom line, that's not self defense. Which is why Amber Guyger is wearing prison orange and spending at least the next half decade in prison.

And murderers almost always appeal. They also almost always lose.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

I do not think it will go that high...most likely the state supreme court will reverse this lower court mistake.

You should be happy she only got 10 years and move on.

Would you be in fear of your life and or of getting raped if you came home to a dark apartment and found a nigha sitting on your couch smoking weed?

Shooting a man to death who is sitting in his own apartment, minding his own business isn't 'self defense'.

Which is why the jury rejected it as a defense when presented with it by Amber's own lawyers.

: 66394"]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.

Shooting a man to death who is sitting in his own apartment, minding his own business isn't 'self defense'.

Which is why the jury rejected it as a defense when presented with it by Amber's own lawyers.[/QUOTE

The key to whether the defendant w

Nope homicide is not murder....a homicide does not require malice...murder does.

Not in Texas it doesn't. The word 'malice' is never used in the entire statute on criminal homicide. Nor is it a requirement for a murder per the statutes of Texas.

Your legal incompetence again hampers your argument.

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

Let's say it is overturned. They try her again and then find her guilty of manslaughter. How would you feel if they then gave her more than 10 years?

To tell you the truth from what I have seen and heard about this lady....I really do not like her but I am convinced she is innocent. Anyhow...the good guys do not always win...what will be will be.

The real damage done by this jury and others of a similar nature is to make it more difficult to engage in self defense without the possibility of going to prison.

These juries have too many politically correct people who have no understanding of the law and are easily controlled by the prosecutor

Shooting an unarmed man to death in his own home for committing no crime isn't 'self defense'.

Which might explain why Amber Guyger was convicted of murder for doing it.

Anyone who thinks that a woman coming home to find a nigha sitting on her couch could not possibly be in fear of her life and or of getting raped is beyond my comprehension. Being a police officer she knew how blacks are prone to rape white women....even though a minority they comitt over half of all violent crime in America....most do not know this but the police have to deal with blacks all the time and they well understand their propensity for violence...our jails are full of them

The add to that....da nigha had to know she was a police officer because she was still in uniform and yet when she yells at him to show his hands he refuses....why?

Perhaps because the mariujana he was smoking prevented him from understanding that a police officer pointing a gun at him might actually shoot him if he did not show his hands.

Bottom Line it is very reasonable she was in fear of her life and any reasonable person would recognize that.

Unfortunately black jurors will always refuse to judge white cops fairly....their hatred of white folks is only superseded by their hatred of police officers....that is the reality and that is why Amber was convicted...they could not have cared less whether or not she was in fear of her life.
Some

She didn't come into her home at night. She came into another person's home and intentionally murdered an unarmed man who was watching TV and eating ice cream.

You keep ignoring the actual facts of the case. The jury didn't.

Bottom line, that's not self defense. Which is why Amber Guyger is wearing prison orange and spending at least the next half decade in prison.

You are ignoring her state of mind which is critical to her belief she was in fear of her life....she believed she was in her own apartment...and she acted accordingly.

Likewise the jury.....simply refused to consider her state of mind....hung up on the fact that she was not in her apartment...thus not understanding how she was in a reasonable fear of her life.

 

[Skylar]

I do not think it will go that high...most likely the state supreme court will reverse this lower court mistake.

You should be happy she only got 10 years and move on.

Would you be in fear of your life and or of getting raped if you came home to a dark apartment and found a nigha sitting on your couch smoking weed?

: 66394"]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.

Shooting a man to death who is sitting in his own apartment, minding his own business isn't 'self defense'.

Which is why the jury rejected it as a defense when presented with it by Amber's own lawyers.[/QUOTE

The key to whether the defendant w

Not in Texas it doesn't. The word 'malice' is never used in the entire statute on criminal homicide. Nor is it a requirement for a murder per the statutes of Texas.

Your legal incompetence again hampers your argument.

Let's say it is overturned. They try her again and then find her guilty of manslaughter. How would you feel if they then gave her more than 10 years?

To tell you the truth from what I have seen and heard about this lady....I really do not like her but I am convinced she is innocent. Anyhow...the good guys do not always win...what will be will be.

The real damage done by this jury and others of a similar nature is to make it more difficult to engage in self defense without the possibility of going to prison.

These juries have too many politically correct people who have no understanding of the law and are easily controlled by the prosecutor

Shooting an unarmed man to death in his own home for committing no crime isn't 'self defense'.

Which might explain why Amber Guyger was convicted of murder for doing it.

Anyone who thinks that a woman coming home to find a nigha sitting on her couch could not possibly be in fear of her life and or of getting raped is beyond my comprehension. Being a police officer she knew how blacks are prone to rape white women....even though a minority they comitt over half of all violent crime in America....most do not know this but the police have to deal with blacks all the time and they well understand their propensity for violence...our jails are full of them

The add to that....da nigha had to know she was a police officer because she was still in uniform and yet when she yells at him to show his hands he refuses....why?

Perhaps because the mariujana he was smoking prevented him from understanding that a police officer pointing a gun at him might actually shoot him if he did not show his hands.

Bottom Line it is very reasonable she was in fear of her life and any reasonable person would recognize that.

Unfortunately black jurors will always refuse to judge white cops fairly....their hatred of white folks is only superseded by their hatred of police officers....that is the reality and that is why Amber was convicted...they could not have cared less whether or not she was in fear of her life.
Some

She didn't come into her home at night. She came into another person's home and intentionally murdered an unarmed man who was watching TV and eating ice cream.

You keep ignoring the actual facts of the case. The jury didn't.

Bottom line, that's not self defense. Which is why Amber Guyger is wearing prison orange and spending at least the next half decade in prison.

You are ignoring her state of mind which is critical to her belief she was in fear of her life....she believed she was in her own apartment...and she acted accordingly.

No, I'm finding her argument that her only option was to murder an unarmed man in his own apartment to be uncompelling. She wasn't 'cornered'. She had training that was more than sufficient to defuse the situation, call for back up, or a myriad of other responses than shooting a man to death in his own apartment.

Again, her lawyers argued self defense....and the jury didn't find it compelling either. Murdering a man in his own apartment as he's watching TV....isn't self defense.

Which is why she was convicted of murder and will spend at least the next half decade behind bars. As she should.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Anyone who thinks that a woman coming home to find a nigha

Anyone who thinks that a woman coming home to find a nigha

'Nuff said. Both of you dismissed.. with prejudice!

 

[Skylar]

Anyone who thinks that a woman coming home to find a nigha

Anyone who thinks that a woman coming home to find a nigha

'Nuff said. Both of you dismissed.. with prejudice!

It does remove any ambiguity on what is motivating their irrational perspective, doesn't it.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

I do not think it will go that high...most likely the state supreme court will reverse this lower court mistake.

You should be happy she only got 10 years and move on.

Would you be in fear of your life and or of getting raped if you came home to a dark apartment and found a nigha sitting on your couch smoking weed?

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.

Shooting a man to death who is sitting in his own apartment, minding his own business isn't 'self defense'.

Which is why the jury rejected it as a defense when presented with it by Amber's own lawyers.[/QUOTE

The key to whether the defendant w

To tell you the truth from what I have seen and heard about this lady....I really do not like her but I am convinced she is innocent. Anyhow...the good guys do not always win...what will be will be.

The real damage done by this jury and others of a similar nature is to make it more difficult to engage in self defense without the possibility of going to prison.

These juries have too many politically correct people who have no understanding of the law and are easily controlled by the prosecutor

Shooting an unarmed man to death in his own home for committing no crime isn't 'self defense'.

Which might explain why Amber Guyger was convicted of murder for doing it.

Anyone who thinks that a woman coming home to find a nigha sitting on her couch could not possibly be in fear of her life and or of getting raped is beyond my comprehension. Being a police officer she knew how blacks are prone to rape white women....even though a minority they comitt over half of all violent crime in America....most do not know this but the police have to deal with blacks all the time and they well understand their propensity for violence...our jails are full of them

The add to that....da nigha had to know she was a police officer because she was still in uniform and yet when she yells at him to show his hands he refuses....why?

Perhaps because the mariujana he was smoking prevented him from understanding that a police officer pointing a gun at him might actually shoot him if he did not show his hands.

Bottom Line it is very reasonable she was in fear of her life and any reasonable person would recognize that.

Unfortunately black jurors will always refuse to judge white cops fairly....their hatred of white folks is only superseded by their hatred of police officers....that is the reality and that is why Amber was convicted...they could not have cared less whether or not she was in fear of her life.
Some

She didn't come into her home at night. She came into another person's home and intentionally murdered an unarmed man who was watching TV and eating ice cream.

You keep ignoring the actual facts of the case. The jury didn't.

Bottom line, that's not self defense. Which is why Amber Guyger is wearing prison orange and spending at least the next half decade in prison.

You are ignoring her state of mind which is critical to her belief she was in fear of her life....she believed she was in her own apartment...and she acted accordingly.

No, I'm finding her argument that her only option was to murder an unarmed man in his own apartment to be uncompelling. She wasn't 'cornered'. She had training that was more than sufficient to defuse the situation, call for back up, or a myriad of other responses than shooting a man to death in his own apartment.

Again, her lawyers argued self defense....and the jury didn't find it compelling either. Murdering a man in his own apartment as he's watching TV....isn't self defense.

Which is why she was convicted of murder and will spend at least the next half decade behind bars. As she should.

I do not think it will go that high...most likely the state supreme court will reverse this lower court mistake.

You should be happy she only got 10 years and move on.

Would you be in fear of your life and or of getting raped if you came home to a dark apartment and found a nigha sitting on your couch smoking weed?

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.

Shooting a man to death who is sitting in his own apartment, minding his own business isn't 'self defense'.

Which is why the jury rejected it as a defense when presented with it by Amber's own lawyers.[/QUOTE

The key to whether the defendant w

To tell you the truth from what I have seen and heard about this lady....I really do not like her but I am convinced she is innocent. Anyhow...the good guys do not always win...what will be will be.

The real damage done by this jury and others of a similar nature is to make it more difficult to engage in self defense without the possibility of going to prison.

These juries have too many politically correct people who have no understanding of the law and are easily controlled by the prosecutor

Shooting an unarmed man to death in his own home for committing no crime isn't 'self defense'.

Which might explain why Amber Guyger was convicted of murder for doing it.

Anyone who thinks that a woman coming home to find a nigha sitting on her couch could not possibly be in fear of her life and or of getting raped is beyond my comprehension. Being a police officer she knew how blacks are prone to rape white women....even though a minority they comitt over half of all violent crime in America....most do not know this but the police have to deal with blacks all the time and they well understand their propensity for violence...our jails are full of them

The add to that....da nigha had to know she was a police officer because she was still in uniform and yet when she yells at him to show his hands he refuses....why?

Perhaps because the mariujana he was smoking prevented him from understanding that a police officer pointing a gun at him might actually shoot him if he did not show his hands.

Bottom Line it is very reasonable she was in fear of her life and any reasonable person would recognize that.

Unfortunately black jurors will always refuse to judge white cops fairly....their hatred of white folks is only superseded by their hatred of police officers....that is the reality and that is why Amber was convicted...they could not have cared less whether or not she was in fear of her life.
Some

She didn't come into her home at night. She came into another person's home and intentionally murdered an unarmed man who was watching TV and eating ice cream.

You keep ignoring the actual facts of the case. The jury didn't.

Bottom line, that's not self defense. Which is why Amber Guyger is wearing prison orange and spending at least the next half decade in prison.

You are ignoring her state of mind which is critical to her belief she was in fear of her life....she believed she was in her own apartment...and she acted accordingly.

No, I'm finding her argument that her only option was to murder an unarmed man in his own apartment to be uncompelling. She wasn't 'cornered'. She had training that was more than sufficient to defuse the situation, call for back up, or a myriad of other responses than shooting a man to death in his own apartment.

Again, her lawyers argued self defense....and the jury didn't find it compelling either. Murdering a man in his own apartment as he's watching TV....isn't self defense.

Which is why she was convicted of murder and will spend at least the next half decade behind bars. As she should.

Another thing you are missing is how quickly all this went down...she had no more than 2 or 3 seconds to make a life or death decision...remembering how shocked she must have been to see an intruder in her apartment.

You are letting your benefit of hindsight affect your judgement of her....Amber did not know if the guy was armed or not....what if he were armed and she is on the phone calling for back up. That would put her in a very dangerous position....she would have been gambling with her life...betting the intruder would take no action to harm her.

Look what happened to George Zimmerman...he had a pistol in his pocket but when Trayvon came back...george got on his phone to call the police again...that is when he got sucker punched.

To follow your ridiculous recommendation on how she should have behaved could of had disastrous consequences if the the black dude had been someone like trayvon.

To make a good analysis of this situation one has to realize she based all her actions on the belief she was in her own home.

I think on appeal they will reduce the charge to negligent homicide.

 

[Skylar]

I do not think it will go that high...most likely the state supreme court will reverse this lower court mistake.

You should be happy she only got 10 years and move on.

Would you be in fear of your life and or of getting raped if you came home to a dark apartment and found a nigha sitting on your couch smoking weed?

Shooting a man to death who is sitting in his own apartment, minding his own business isn't 'self defense'.

Which is why the jury rejected it as a defense when presented with it by Amber's own lawyers.[/QUOTE

The key to whether the defendant w

Shooting an unarmed man to death in his own home for committing no crime isn't 'self defense'.

Which might explain why Amber Guyger was convicted of murder for doing it.

Anyone who thinks that a woman coming home to find a nigha sitting on her couch could not possibly be in fear of her life and or of getting raped is beyond my comprehension. Being a police officer she knew how blacks are prone to rape white women....even though a minority they comitt over half of all violent crime in America....most do not know this but the police have to deal with blacks all the time and they well understand their propensity for violence...our jails are full of them

The add to that....da nigha had to know she was a police officer because she was still in uniform and yet when she yells at him to show his hands he refuses....why?

Perhaps because the mariujana he was smoking prevented him from understanding that a police officer pointing a gun at him might actually shoot him if he did not show his hands.

Bottom Line it is very reasonable she was in fear of her life and any reasonable person would recognize that.

Unfortunately black jurors will always refuse to judge white cops fairly....their hatred of white folks is only superseded by their hatred of police officers....that is the reality and that is why Amber was convicted...they could not have cared less whether or not she was in fear of her life.
Some

She didn't come into her home at night. She came into another person's home and intentionally murdered an unarmed man who was watching TV and eating ice cream.

You keep ignoring the actual facts of the case. The jury didn't.

Bottom line, that's not self defense. Which is why Amber Guyger is wearing prison orange and spending at least the next half decade in prison.

You are ignoring her state of mind which is critical to her belief she was in fear of her life....she believed she was in her own apartment...and she acted accordingly.

No, I'm finding her argument that her only option was to murder an unarmed man in his own apartment to be uncompelling. She wasn't 'cornered'. She had training that was more than sufficient to defuse the situation, call for back up, or a myriad of other responses than shooting a man to death in his own apartment.

Again, her lawyers argued self defense....and the jury didn't find it compelling either. Murdering a man in his own apartment as he's watching TV....isn't self defense.

Which is why she was convicted of murder and will spend at least the next half decade behind bars. As she should.

I do not think it will go that high...most likely the state supreme court will reverse this lower court mistake.

You should be happy she only got 10 years and move on.

Would you be in fear of your life and or of getting raped if you came home to a dark apartment and found a nigha sitting on your couch smoking weed?

Shooting a man to death who is sitting in his own apartment, minding his own business isn't 'self defense'.

Which is why the jury rejected it as a defense when presented with it by Amber's own lawyers.[/QUOTE

The key to whether the defendant w

Shooting an unarmed man to death in his own home for committing no crime isn't 'self defense'.

Which might explain why Amber Guyger was convicted of murder for doing it.

Anyone who thinks that a woman coming home to find a nigha sitting on her couch could not possibly be in fear of her life and or of getting raped is beyond my comprehension. Being a police officer she knew how blacks are prone to rape white women....even though a minority they comitt over half of all violent crime in America....most do not know this but the police have to deal with blacks all the time and they well understand their propensity for violence...our jails are full of them

The add to that....da nigha had to know she was a police officer because she was still in uniform and yet when she yells at him to show his hands he refuses....why?

Perhaps because the mariujana he was smoking prevented him from understanding that a police officer pointing a gun at him might actually shoot him if he did not show his hands.

Bottom Line it is very reasonable she was in fear of her life and any reasonable person would recognize that.

Unfortunately black jurors will always refuse to judge white cops fairly....their hatred of white folks is only superseded by their hatred of police officers....that is the reality and that is why Amber was convicted...they could not have cared less whether or not she was in fear of her life.
Some

She didn't come into her home at night. She came into another person's home and intentionally murdered an unarmed man who was watching TV and eating ice cream.

You keep ignoring the actual facts of the case. The jury didn't.

Bottom line, that's not self defense. Which is why Amber Guyger is wearing prison orange and spending at least the next half decade in prison.

You are ignoring her state of mind which is critical to her belief she was in fear of her life....she believed she was in her own apartment...and she acted accordingly.

No, I'm finding her argument that her only option was to murder an unarmed man in his own apartment to be uncompelling. She wasn't 'cornered'. She had training that was more than sufficient to defuse the situation, call for back up, or a myriad of other responses than shooting a man to death in his own apartment.

Again, her lawyers argued self defense....and the jury didn't find it compelling either. Murdering a man in his own apartment as he's watching TV....isn't self defense.

Which is why she was convicted of murder and will spend at least the next half decade behind bars. As she should.

Another thing you are missing is how quickly all this went down...she had no more than 2 or 3 seconds to make a life or death decision...remembering how shocked she must have been to see an intruder in her apartment.

She could have closed the door, called for back up, taken a step back into the hallway, used non-lethal force. She was a trained police officer an expert in defusing potentially dangerous situations with more than enough training to do so in this situation. Instead, she acted with criminal negligence, murdering a man in his own apartment while he watched TV.

Which isn't self defense.

You are letting your benefit of hindsight affect your judgement of her....Amber did not know if the guy was armed or not....what if he were armed and she is on the phone calling for back up. That would put her in a very dangerous position....she would have been gambling with her life...betting the intruder would take no action to harm her.

She faces far more dangerous situations than a man eating ice cream every day as a police officer. What she *doesn't* do is shoot anyone she feels might be armed. She had been extensively trained on how to deal with those situations.

And instead of using her training, she murdered an unarmed man in his own apartment who was just watching TV and eating ice cream.

Again, that's not self defense.

Which is why a jury rightly convicted her of murder.

 

[Grumblenuts]

One's hatred of others and irrational fears are just that.

Anyone who thinks that a woman coming home to find a black man, possibly her husband or brother, ...

 

[Grumblenuts]

It does remove any ambiguity on what is motivating their irrational perspective, doesn't it.

Obvious from page one along with the title actually: "Racist Black Judge Railroading Amber Guyger"

The judge is a large, belching, yawning, stretching black woman

Increasingly blacks are viewed by the judiciary as being above the law

Yep. Anybody who disagrees with the payback for whitey philosophy of meat blacks is just another white racist!

("meat blacks", WTF?). Someone mercifully started another topic (an unbigoted one) on this. We should just stop posting here and continue there.

 

[pknopp]

It was a homicide

Either murder or manslaughter
The jury said murder and gave her a low end sentence

hom·i·cide
/ˈhäməˌsīd/

1. the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another

Since killing someone in self-defense is not unlawful...no crime was committed.

Yet the state of texas charged her with murder and convicted her of murder.

Definite miscarriage of justice.

Killing someone carelessly and without cause is unlawful

Amber did not carelessly kill the black guy.....she took aim and hit her target nothing carless about that...her target was perceived by her as a threat to her life and reasonably so because she believed she was in her apartment....a honest mistake.

To accuse her of murder would be to negate the law on self defense.

Her decision to fire was careless and unnecessary
It got her fired from her job

Bullshitte she fired to defend her life. She was fired because of politics....the politicians always cave into the blacks in a case like this.

She was fired because she ignored her training.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

("meat blacks", WTF?). Someone mercifully started another topic (an unbigoted one) on this. We should just stop posting here and continue there

Doesnt mean anything. My phone tends to insert words for no reason at all and I dont always catch them.

I would have said "ghetto blacks", but my phone has it's own ideas

Btw, this thread was started first, and I dont understand why the gods chose not to merge them. Any thread I start after someone else ALWAYS gets merged.

 

[WillPower]

Even if you are dumb enough to fall for all the bullshit she is peddling, she refused to take cover, call for back-up, de-escalate, negotiate surrender, but instead entered his apartment and shot an unarmed man multiple times while was sitting on his couch watching TV & eating ice-cream. She never said she feared for her life. She refused to give him lifesaving aid, only worried about her image, career, lied & destroyed evidence!

Every word in your post is bullshit.....you didn't miss a single lie....truly amazing.