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

Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 183
  1. #61
    Senior Member

    malfeasance's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,964

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    263
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,358
    Thanked in
    973 Posts
    Rep Points
    2147483647

    Quote Originally Posted by heavyiron View Post
    lol, no she is toast. You cant "mistakenly" walk in someones house and murder them and get off.
    She's a trained cop. They know they cant pull that trigger under these circumstances and I think her training is going to be part of what convicts her. They are trained to notice everything.
    We'll know soon enough, heavy iron, but I do not think you are analyzing this carefully enough. I had the same opinion you did at first.

  2. #62
    Community Veteran
    ADMINISTRATOR

    heavyiron's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    8,663

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    518
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,118
    Thanked in
    619 Posts
    Rep Points
    2147483647

    Quote Originally Posted by malfeasance View Post
    We'll know soon enough, heavy iron, but I do not think you are analyzing this carefully enough. I had the same opinion you did at first.
    Is there a historical precedent?

  3. #63
    Senior Member

    malfeasance's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,964

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    263
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,358
    Thanked in
    973 Posts
    Rep Points
    2147483647

    Looked it up. In Texas, once the defendant has raised self defense, the burden shifts to the prosecution, who must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

    That just is not going to happen in this case. There is no evidence from which to disprove it. The jury's hands will be tied. The burden cannot be overcome. All of the evidence is in her possession, other than forensic evidence, and there probably is not any dispute about the forensic evidence.

    She gave the testimony she needed to give to raise the doubt. There is no evidence with which to disprove it.

  4. #64
    Senior Member

    malfeasance's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,964

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    263
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,358
    Thanked in
    973 Posts
    Rep Points
    2147483647

    Quote Originally Posted by heavyiron View Post
    Is the a historical precedent?
    Sorry, LOL! Not that familiar with Texas criminal law to know prior cases and such. I am just going off what I know generally about criminal law and what I have read about murder and self defense in Texas.

  5. #65
    Senior Member

    GarlicChicken's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    9,927

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    5,037
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,833
    Thanked in
    1,995 Posts
    Rep Points
    2147483647

    Quote Originally Posted by malfeasance View Post
    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.
    Finally someone who understands criminal law.

    I got a guy off the hook for some bullshit because the prosecution was a fucking joke and failed to prove timelines and circumstantial evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The guy was obviously trying to hide out from his previous gang life and stay clean off all that shit, and someone found him and tried to whack him. They were trying to say that he possessed the weapon that shot him (which was literally impossible based on the trajectory and length of the weapon) and it was a parole violation, so he should get a third felony and do 25 to life. Myself and a tax assessor were the only ones smart enough to not just follow the lead of a juror who had a blatent bias and think for ourselves.

    Makes me think I should participate in jury duty whenever I get called

  6. #66
    Senior Member

    malfeasance's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,964

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    263
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,358
    Thanked in
    973 Posts
    Rep Points
    2147483647

    Quote Originally Posted by GarlicChicken View Post
    Makes me think I should participate in jury duty whenever I get called
    The founders wrote the right to a trial by jury into the constitution for a reason - this group of citizens hearing the evidence is the only thing standing between you and the government. The judge, the prosecutor, everybody involved works for the government. They at least have to get it past twelve of your fellow citizens before they kill you, imprison you, or fine you.


    (unless it is a municipal ordinance violation, which has somehow gotten around that in spite of the enormous power they wield to ruin your life)

  7. #67
    Senior Member

    GarlicChicken's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    9,927

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    5,037
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,833
    Thanked in
    1,995 Posts
    Rep Points
    2147483647

    Quote Originally Posted by malfeasance View Post
    The founders wrote the right to a trial by jury into the constitution for a reason - this group of citizens hearing the evidence is the only thing standing between you and the government. The judge, the prosecutor, everybody involved works for the government. They at least have to get it past twelve of your fellow citizens before they kill you, imprison you, or fine you.


    (unless it is a municipal ordinance violation, which has somehow gotten around that in spite of the enormous power they wield to ruin your life)
    Exactly. I've always showed up and didn't make any excuses to get out of it. If it happens to be something important I'd hate to let it be heard by a solid dozen morons without at least one thinker

  8. #68
    Senior Member

    chocolatemalt's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Purple Mountains
    Posts
    5,613

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    358
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    478
    Thanked in
    304 Posts
    Rep Points
    2147483647

    Quote Originally Posted by malfeasance View Post
    chocolatemalt, no doubt this was intentional, but so is every justified homicide (and I am using "justified" only in the sense that the law does, I think this was a travesty, and I am angry at this stupid bitch, but I still predict a not guilty verdict).

    I would predict that even if YOU were on the jury, you would vote to acquit. You wouldn't like it. You would feel like something is wrong here, but after hearing the evidence at trial and listening to the judge's instructions, you would end up feeling like the law in Texas left you with no choice.
    Quote Originally Posted by malfeasance View Post
    I don't think Texas has "degrees" of murder. It has Capital Murder, which does not apply here, and murder.

    Here are the elements:

    (1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;

    (2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual;  or

    (3) commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.


    - - - Updated - - -

    But those same elements can be committed and be justified by self defense or defense of habitation, which is what she is arguing.

    Very helpful info there about Texas state law, and yes I was making assumptions based on laws in states I'm more familiar with. Michigan mainly, where I had an awesome civics teacher who was also a public defender, took us down to observe real criminal trials in action, and made damn sure we knew the precise delineations between 1st & 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, etc. I think he was mostly trying to keep us scared straight so he wouldn't have to see our faces at the courthouse later.

    And yeah you may be right that TX law could mandate this cop's acquittal.

    I once had a gf who served on a grand jury in NYC, one particularly gruesome case involved an armed robber who had a hostage (young woman) with him at gunpoint up on a stoop in front of a house. At some point he waved his gun around a little too much and one cop opened fire... then they all did. Many dozens of bullets, both robber and hostage blown to bits. NONE of the grand jurors felt this was justifiable use of force by the cops but NY law completely exonerated them and they were forced to drop the case.

    ---

    There's a well done legal mini-series based on a real case on Netflix currently, "Unbelievable". I've seen only 2 of the 8 episodes but it's excellent so far.

    If anyone here hasn't seen "Twelve Angry Men", that's also excellent. 1957 (I think), Henry Fonda and many other top-tier actors.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by GarlicChicken View Post
    Exactly. I've always showed up and didn't make any excuses to get out of it. If it happens to be something important I'd hate to let it be heard by a solid dozen morons without at least one thinker
    Meh, thinkers mostly cause trouble.

  9. #69
    Senior Member

    malfeasance's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,964

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    263
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,358
    Thanked in
    973 Posts
    Rep Points
    2147483647

    I heard on the radio today that there are lesser charges for the jury to consider, but I did not catch what they were . . .

  10. #70
    Senior Member

    malfeasance's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,964

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    263
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,358
    Thanked in
    973 Posts
    Rep Points
    2147483647

    Quote Originally Posted by chocolatemalt View Post
    There's a well done legal mini-series based on a real case on Netflix currently, "Unbelievable". I've seen only 2 of the 8 episodes but it's excellent so far.
    I'll check it out, thanks.

  11. #71
    IM>ASF

    heckler7's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    trolling ASF pit
    Posts
    12,436

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,196
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,752
    Thanked in
    1,710 Posts
    Rep Points
    2147483647

    you dont have a need for an AR15, let the government take them, they will protect you

  12. #72
    Senior Member


    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,331

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    6
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    140
    Thanked in
    103 Posts
    Rep Points
    2147483647

    Quote Originally Posted by malfeasance View Post
    A good question, zwhit, to which I do not know the answer. The George Zimmerman case had the attention of the entire nation and even the President commenting on it. Legal experts were giving all sorts of analysis all over the news (but side note, here, there is no crime of "pursuing while armed and not LEO," LOL!). This case is much more difficult to get any detailed information - every news story has to squeeze the racial angle in, and that is going to be just about the least important thing in this case, at least from the perspective of her guilt or innocence. It's not even clear from the evidence so far that she knew he was black when she pulled the trigger, so the relevance drops to about zero.

    I wish the reporting was better, but it is what it is.

    We should know the outcome soon.
    I didn't say he should've been convicted of "pursuing while armed and not being LEO" but he put himself in the position for confrontation and then used his weapon to defend himself after getting HIMSELF into the situation. A manslaughter charge (lesser charge) probably would've been an easy conviction but the prosecutor went big and struck out. Wondering if that's how this might play out as well.

  13. #73
    Senior Member


    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,331

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    6
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    140
    Thanked in
    103 Posts
    Rep Points
    2147483647

    Quote Originally Posted by malfeasance View Post
    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.
    A man is dead because of a grave mistake. A crime was committed. It just wasn't murder.

  14. #74
    Senior Member


    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,331

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    6
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    140
    Thanked in
    103 Posts
    Rep Points
    2147483647

    Quote Originally Posted by chocolatemalt View Post

    Hermus asked Guyger if when she shot Jean, did she intend to kill him.

    She responded: "I did."

    Prosecutors have raised questions as to how Guyger could have missed sensory cues before entering Jean's apartment, including a red doormat that the outside of Guyger's unit didn't have.



    There's the red doormat again, though it's just one item of many things out of place that a "reasonable person" should've noticed.

    I agree with you and others here that she had no evident malice and there's no indication of any sinister motive -- racism, vendetta, drugged rage, etc.

    But, she did use deadly force and intended to kill him. She said so on the stand. That sounds like Second Degree Murder to me. Can't be manslaughter because that requires absence of intent.

    I'll be surprised if she's exonerated simply because of the message it sends that you can screw up to this extreme degree, kill someone (with intent), and suffer no consequence for your actions.
    I think she did mean to kill him but that's based on the her thinking she was in her own apartment which will probably get her off on the murder charge. But, IMO, she shouldn't walk free from killing a man for HER mistake. The moment she walked into the apartment thinking it was her own she couldn't be guilty of murder. That takes us back to the moment she made the mistake of going into the wrong apartment. Her mistake and a man is dead for it. That's manslaughter.

    man·slaugh·ter
    /ˈmanˌslôdər/

    noun
    the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder.
    "the defendant was convicted of manslaughter"

  15. #75
    Senior Member


    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,331

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    6
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    140
    Thanked in
    103 Posts
    Rep Points
    2147483647

    You accidentally kill someone by driving recklessly and you get a manslaughter charge. She recklessly went into the wrong apartment and killed a man. The prosecutors here are probably hoping for a murder conviction based on the jury convicting on outside pressure from the white/black narrative. Or either Texas allows the jury to convict of a lesser charge.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-30-2019, 03:22 PM
  2. Cream of wheat vs cream of rice
    By Superman in forum Diet & Nutrition
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-26-2016, 01:09 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Copyright© 2012-2019 Anabolic Steroid Discussion Forums