• 👋Hello, please SIGN-UP FOR A FREE account and become a member of our community!
    You will then be able to start threads, post comments and send messages to other members. Thanks!
  • 💪Check Out IronMag Labs Andro Hard® - Powered by R-Andro & Epi-Andro! 💊
  • 👉Check Out Platinum Pharms🌽Corn Hole Sale!🌽

You're watching tv on the couch with a bowl of vanilla ice cream when someone barges in...

IML Gear Cream!
zwhit said:
No, I wrote it the way I intended it to be written. Read it again. If you provoke someone to attack you, you shouldn't be able to kill someone in self defense. Which is what Zimmerman did, in my opinion. If Zimmerman hadn't been carrying a weapon, he wouldn't have gotten himself into that situation. And if you think that's ok, I hope you dont carry a weapon. You're demented as fuck if you think it's ok.
Click to expand...
You do not understand criminal law. This discussion has nothin to do with what I "think is ok," which is what you repeated twice. I was discussing the law. You are discussing, I think, what you wish the law was, rather than what it is.

You just need to study more of what the law actually is, then maybe we can discuss it.

Your beef is with the law. If you were on the jury, following the law, you would have cut Zimmerman loose, too.

- - - Updated - - -

Milford King said:
true story... was at a bar with a lawyer buddy of mine (real estate lawyer not a cool one) when this story was on the tv.. loud as hell and he turns to me and says “well
i guess Trayvon be getting his grave-on” ... soon as he opened his lips it got completely quiet... some brothers in there gave us some dirty looks... I slowly side stepped my bud and slipped out the back haha
Click to expand...
LOL! That could have turned out badly.
 
zwhit said:
People like malfeasance are the reason why our 2nd amendment right is under attack.

Malf, answer this, please. You said earlier you believe no crime was committed in the case on the OP, correct?
Click to expand...

The Botham Jean murder trial? I have predicted an acquittal on the murder charge. I think I have been very careful to explain that I am not aware of lesser charges and can't find a reliable source for what lesser charges the jury may consider, so I have not predicted anything with respect to potential convictions other than murder. I am completely in the dark and do not even want to venture a guess in absolute ignorance.

I think your first sentence is so far off base as to be laughable. You obviously do not know me at all, even though you pretend to.
 
By the way, I am all ears to hear why I am wrong, that former Officer Gugyer is going down for murder. But your explanation has to involve evidence. You can't just say, "This whole situation is just wrong. What she did is completely fucked up." Because I would just agree with you and nod my head, but those statements do not mean she is going down for murder. That requires proving a case, and, as we saw, the burden on her defenses is on the prosecution.

What do that have to disprove her defense?

Seriously? What?

A number of you have pointed out that she could not possibly have thought this was her apartment, that she had to have noticed it was different. Well, then, you are asking the jury to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she knew this was not her apartment, and that knowing this, she decided to barge in and kill an innocent man. That does not even make sense, and no jury is going to unanimously agree to that.

Anything else?

What other evidence is there to offer to disprove her defense?

Like I said, I am all ears.
 
Last edited:
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/cri...uyger-s-murder-trial-for-killing-botham-jean/

Here are the highlights from the trial last week. Read through it and examine it for clues as to what evidence the prosecution can use to disprove Guyger's defense. They can't just say, "Hey, she turned out to be wrong." In order to commit murder, she has to know she was committing wrong. She has to know this was not her apartment. She has to know she was not defending herself from an intruder in her apartment - at the time, right there in the few seconds when this was happening, not after the fact. How are they going to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt in the mind of every single juror for a unanimous verdict?

By the way, the prosecution has rested. All of their evidence is in. The rest of the trial is putting forward her defense.
 
malfeasance said:
Her testimony is that it was dark, and the first thing she noticed is this man (silhouette) get up and come toward her. She drew her gun and ordered him to show his hands. He did not and sped up toward her, she yelled, Hey! Hey! Hey! and then shot him twice.

It was only after this that she noticed it was not her apartment (I don't know if she turned the light on or what, I have not been able to find a transcript of video of her actual testimony and did not watch it live streamed).

So how do you convict her of murder if you are on the jury and that is the evidence with which you are presented.

The prosecutors aren't really questioning whether she thought it was her apartment, but why (they were making a big deal out of the fact that she was apparently "Sexting" at the time and so maybe was not as tired as she claimed). I do not think that is particularly compelling to a jury.

Remember how a criminal trial works. The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. There is not burden on her to prove anything.

If the jury has any doubt whatsoever (and it's reasonable), then they find not guilty.

The prosecution is going to have a very hard time proving beyond a doubt that she went into a strange man's apartment, knew it, and shot him anyway.

The more I hear about the evidence, the less I think a trial was brought for any other reason than public outcry. I am starting to think the Ranger (lead investigator who thinks no crime was committed) was right.

This does not mean I do not think what happened was tragic, horrifying, and wrong. But that does not necessarily make it illegal under Texas law.
Click to expand...

You say you are starting to think the ranger, who thinks no crime was committed, is right.

If so, you think I can walk in someone's apartment, kill them, and I DID NOT commit ANY crime.

I understand the law fine. This is not murder. But it is a crime. Someone is dead because she accidentally went into the wrong apartment. If you think no crime was committed, again, I hope you do not carry a weapon.
 
Last edited:
We're not in disagreement that it isn't murder. Jesus christ.

I really don't care enough to try to lay my point out for you any longer
 
zwhit said:
If so, you think I can walk in someone's apartment, kill them, and I DID NOT commit ANY crime.
Click to expand...
It entirely depends upon the circumstances, and every case is different. There are absolutely circumstances where this could be the case. Would it be rare? Sure. Extraordinarily rare? Sure. Based only on news reports I have read, this is starting to look like it is an extraordinarily rare case.

You keep wanting to make this about me, somehow personal.

I am just discussing the evidence that has been presented.

And I DO carry a weapon, holy crap, don't you read what I write? How many times do I have to say it?

But whether I carry a weapon or not does not change the evidence in this case, does it? It also does not change the law. The evidence is certainly not adding up to murder. I stand by my prediction.
 
Get Shredded!
malfeasance said:
LOL! You had a point?
Click to expand...

Yeah. See if you can understand this. If you think no crime is committed if you walk into someone's apartment and shoot them dead, you are a demented old fuck. Regardless if she thinks it was her apartment, someone was negligently killed.
 
Law enforcement just need to start hiring higher IQ individuals and many of these problems would go away, ignorance and fear is a bad combination
 
malfeasance said:
And just to be clear, there was no evidence of ANY crime committed by George Zimmerman. Not just murder. As I posted above, lesser charges were pushed by the prosecution, including manslaughter.

The one juror who has come forward complaining about sleepless nights and all still says she had no choice. It was like checking a box.

That's because the law is what it is. George Zimmerman did not break it.
Click to expand...

Just because someone beats a charge doesn’t mean their actions were right. The legal system is filled with stories of those that were wrongly convicted and others that never received the punishment that they deserved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
My wife heard a news report yesterday that said there were lesser charges for the jury to consider, but she did not remember what the charges where. She said the reporter listed at least three. I guess we'll see when we get to jury instructions.
 
_BeastMode said:
Just because someone beats a charge doesn’t mean their actions were right. The legal system is filled with stories of those that were wrongly convicted and others that never received the punishment that they deserved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I haven't said anything differently from that, _BeastMode.
 
I can't figure out whether they are headed into closing arguments. The jury has not been seated, and the judge is hearing arguments on jury instructions. The judge ruled over a prosecution objection that she is going to permit a jury instruction on "Castle Doctrine." This means the jury will be instructed on defending a home using lethal force and that (in Texas) one is not required to retreat before resorting to deadly force.

This is important, because one of the prosecution's main arguments has been that she should have retreated and called for backup. This instruction kind of throws that consideration out for the jury.
 
Usually jury instructions are argued right before the case goes to the jury, because the evidence presented can determine which instructions are proper. My opinion here only (I am not a Texas lawyer, so take it with a grain of salt) is that this case is going to the jury very soon. We should know a lot more soon.
 
selfmademonster said:
Law enforcement just need to start hiring higher IQ individuals and many of these problems would go away, ignorance and fear is a bad combination
Click to expand...
Higher IQ individuals typically go into fields where they can make six figures or better. If they do go into law enforcement, their career is typically short-lived. It is not a job with a lot of intellectual stimulation after the first couple of years worth of learning curve.

If you have the brain power to be an orthopaedic surgeon and make $650,000 annually, why would you be a police officer. Besides, higher than average IQ means the average person is not included, so this means we would have a small supply from which to draw law enforcement candidates. The way police departments are growing (police cars - they're like swarming gnats out there now) they need a larger candidate pool, which means lower IQ candidates. It's just the way it is.
 
zwhit said:
Yeah. See if you can understand this. If you think no crime is committed if you walk into someone's apartment and shoot them dead, you are a demented old fuck. Regardless if she thinks it was her apartment, someone was negligently killed.
Click to expand...
Maybe there is some "negligently killed" type charge on which the jury will receive instructions. Like I said, I have no info about that. You're too busy posting ad hominem fallacies even to pay attention to what I write.

- - - Updated - - -

Judge ordered a recess. Jury will be seated at 10:15 a.m.
 
IML Gear Cream!
Prosecutor arguing that Botham Jean was shot as he was getting up and walked toward her only after he was shot and then collapsed.
 
Basically closed his argument with a statement that there will be consequences for killing an unarmed, defenseless man. This is the same thing persons are arguing in this thread.

- - - Updated - - -

Now it's up to the jury.
 
There appear to be only two charges for the jury to consider. From the jury instructions (the order is reversed):

10:38 A.M. CT - FRANK HEINZ
Judge Kemp said if members of the jury are torn on whether they should find Guyger guilty of murder or manslaughter, they should resolve that conflict in the defendant's favor by finding her guilty of manslaughter.

10:36 A.M. CT - FRANK HEINZ
Judge Kemp told the jury they must first consider the murder charge and that then if they do not find Amber Guyger guilty of the murder charge they can consider the included offense of manslaughter against Amber Guyger.
 
Manslaughter:

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.19.htm

[FONT=&quot]Sec. 19.04. MANSLAUGHTER. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.[/FONT]

- - - Updated - - -

That's literally all it says.

So the case is going to come down to her defenses and what the jury thinks of them (as posted earlier, the judge gave the Castle Doctrine instruction that the prosecution did not want her to give).
 
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/closing-statements-made-amber-guyger-murder-trial-n1060401

Prosecutors argued on Monday in their closing arguments that ex-Dallas police Officer Amber Guyger was "unreasonable" when she mistakenly entered her neighbor's apartment "commando-style" last year and fatally shot him, thinking he was an intruder.
"A guilty verdict in this case does not mean you hate police. This has nothing to do with politics," prosecutor Jason Fine told the jurors.

But the defense made clear to jurors that Guyger at that moment truly believed she was acting in self-defense when she thought she was at her apartment, which is one floor directly below neighbor Botham Jean.
"It's one of those cases where there are no winners," defense attorney Toby Shook told jurors. "The evidence shows it's just a tragedy. A horrible, horrible tragedy."
The dueling statements followed state District Judge Tammy Kemp instructing the jury that they can consider a charge of either murder or manslaughter after Guyger fatally shot Jean on Sept. 6, 2018.
Murder requires the state proves that Guyger, 31, "intentionally or knowingly" caused the death of Jean, while the lesser charge of manslaughter requires she "recklessly" caused his death.

- - - Updated - - -

Shook, in his closing statements, called the case "tragic," and asked, "Who would not have sympathy for Botham Jean?" But he also asked jurors to look at the evidence without emotion.
The state, he said, "must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant wasn't acting in self-defense. And if they can't, do that, it's not guilty."

- - - Updated - - -

The closing arguments are already up on YouTube if you want to watch them.
 
malfeasance said:
Manslaughte

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.19.htm

[FONT=&quot]Sec. 19.04. MANSLAUGHTER. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.[/FONT]

- - - Updated - - -

That's literally all it says.

So the case is going to come down to her defenses and what the jury thinks of them (as posted earlier, the judge gave the Castle Doctrine instruction that the prosecution did not want her to give).
Click to expand...

No shit. That's what you were too obtuse to understand earlier. I literally posted the same thing yesterday.

If she gets off on murder (which she should), there's no doubt in MY mind it was manslaughter while you were saying no crime was committed.
 
zwhit said:
No shit. That's what you were too obtuse to understand earlier. I literally posted the same thing yesterday.

If she gets off on murder (which she should), there's no doubt in MY mind it was manslaughter while you were saying no crime was committed.
Click to expand...

This is a clear case of manslaughter. Unlikely she had the intent element necessary for murder, but she was reckless and negligent in her actions. Castle doctrine defense is misplaced in this case because it wasn’t her home. The defense is arguing it was reasonable for her to believe it was her and therefore her actions justifiable. But it will be real hard for this jury to accept that and let her go with no consequences. The reason prosecutors always upcharge like in this case and charge murder where it’s clearly not a 1st degree murder case is so they can get the real charge they want, which is manslaughter. The jury almost “feels better” hitting her with the lesser charge. Psychology at its best.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
[FONT=&quot]Guyger should have known she was in the wrong apartment, Fine said Monday, calling her claims "garbage." He said the case comes down to what is reasonable, and what is "absurd."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"It's not a mistake. It's a series of unreasonable decisions," Fine said.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Prosecutors said Jean, who grew up in the Caribbean island nation of St. Lucia, was unarmed and eating a bowl of vanilla ice cream in his living room when Guyger killed him. Fine said self-defense shouldn't apply because Jean posed no threat.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"He's not gonna throw the ice cream at her and kill her, he's not gonna throw the spoon at her and kill her," Fine told the jury. "He's sitting there the same as y'all are right now."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amber-...-heads-to-jury-today-2019-09-30-live-updates/[/FONT]
 
the dude was sitting on the couch eating ice cream? definitely manslaughter, how did she feel threatened? Couldn't she have drawn her weapon and gone through the normal arrest process which she should know.........
 
Back
Top