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

[malfeasance]

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.

 

[heavyiron]

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?

 

[malfeasance]

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.

 

[malfeasance]

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.

 

[GarlicChicken]

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

 

[malfeasance]

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)

 

[GarlicChicken]

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

 

[chocolatemalt]

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.

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 - - -

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.

 

[malfeasance]

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

 

[malfeasance]

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.

 

[heckler7]

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

 

[zwhit]

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.

 

[zwhit]

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.

 

[zwhit]

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"

 

[zwhit]

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.

 

[malfeasance]

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.

Following somebody while armed is not a crime either.

The only evidence the jury had in that situation was that he followed Trayvon Martin and that Trayvon Martin attacked him, knocked him to the ground and began pounding his head into the sidewalk. George Zimmerman drew his firearm and shot. The prosecution did not dispute any of that. The only claim that they made was that Trayvon Martin may have tried to get up (or away) when he realized Zimmerman was about to shoot.

There wasn't really any evidence of Martin trying to retreat, though, so there was nothing for the jury to convict.

It was pure self defense, plain and simple.

I actually watched most of that case live streamed. I was rather shocked at (A) how wrong most of the media got it, and (B) that the prosecution brought this case at all. The whole presentation to the jury seemed desperate and theatrical from the prosecution side.

Zimmerman committed no crime under Florida law, nor was there evidence of a crime. Your new post is not any better than what you claim was my mischaracterization of your old post.

Putting yourself in the position of confrontation does not change self defense. What you are trying to find is that the aggressor cannot later claim self defense unless he first tries to disengage. There is no evidence, however, that George Zimmerman was the aggressor. The ONLY evidence presented was that he followed Trayvon Martin, who got freaked out and attacked him and was winning quite handily until Zimmerman pulled his pistol and shot him.

At that point his head was being banged into the concrete. He was on his back. You would shoot Martin, too, zwhit, in that circumstance.

 

[malfeasance]

By the way, the jury in the Zimmerman trial was presented with manslaughter, which in Florida requires a reckless disregard for human life. They found him not guilty. Other lesser offenses were thrown out by the judge (and deservedly so in each case).

 

[zwhit]

Following somebody while armed is not a crime either.

The only evidence the jury had in that situation was that he followed Trayvon Martin and that Trayvon Martin attacked him, knocked him to the ground and began pounding his head into the sidewalk. George Zimmerman drew his firearm and shot. The prosecution did not dispute any of that. The only claim that they made was that Trayvon Martin may have tried to get up (or away) when he realized Zimmerman was about to shoot.

There wasn't really any evidence of Martin trying to retreat, though, so there was nothing for the jury to convict.

It was pure self defense, plain and simple.

I actually watched most of that case live streamed. I was rather shocked at (A) how wrong most of the media got it, and (B) that the prosecution brought this case at all. The whole presentation to the jury seemed desperate and theatrical from the prosecution side.

Zimmerman committed no crime under Florida law, nor was there evidence of a crime. Your new post is not any better than what you claim was my mischaracterization of your old post.

Putting yourself in the position of confrontation does not change self defense. What you are trying to find is that the aggressor cannot later claim self defense unless he first tries to disengage. There is no evidence, however, that George Zimmerman was the aggressor. The ONLY evidence presented was that he followed Trayvon Martin, who got freaked out and attacked him and was winning quite handily until Zimmerman pulled his pistol and shot him.

At that point his head was being banged into the concrete. He was on his back. You would shoot Martin, too, zwhit, in that circumstance.

There was no evidence that he committed the crime he was charged with, murder.

So you think if I'm carrying a weapon and confront you about whatever I want, start a fight with you, at which point you beat my ass, I can kill you with my firearm and walk away free of any charge?

- - - Updated - - -

If that's what you think, I hope you don't carry a weapon

 

[Milford King]

The girl that shot dude on the couch immediately acts like the victim. Crying that she has to live with this mistake the rest of her life. Lol

 

[Milford King]

Trayvon already getting his grave-on. Old news. We got several new ones that are undecided that we should weigh in on....

 

[malfeasance]

There was no evidence that he committed the crime he was charged with, murder.

So you think if I'm carrying a weapon and confront you about whatever I want, start a fight with you, at which point you beat my ass, I can kill you with my firearm and walk away free of any charge?

- - - Updated - - -

If that's what you think, I hope you don't carry a weapon

And I hope you don't pound my head into the concrete, because I have made no secrete of the fact that if my pants are on I have a gun, and I will absolutely shoot you rather than have my head bashed in and get brain damage or death.

Fact.

And the law will back me up, so take that into consideration before you attack somebody because you think that they may have "Dissed" you.

You keep using the word "confront."

Martin was being "followed." Zimmerman followed him and was on the phone quite 911. It's not really the same as "confront." And "confront" is not the same as "attack." Attack is what you need to be the aggressor.

Once you get these words sorted out, you can better understand my posts (and the laws of most states). Because right now you obviously have no clear understanding of self defense law.

YES zwhit, if malfeasance thinks zwhit is carrying a weapon and malfeasance confronts [zwhit] about whatever [malfeasance] want(s) (I put those in brackets because I think you meant to write them this way, not backwards), start a fight with malfeasance, at which point malfeasance beats my ass, I can kill you with my firearm and walk away free of any charge? YES, assuming "beats my ass" is equivalent to "is presently bashing my head into the concert and zwhit fears death or great bodily injury." It also can't be done as revenge, which is why the prosecutors were trying to argue that Martin was trying to disengage when he was shot. The problem for them was that there was no evidence of this.

So, you stated the law correctly. Your hope that I don't carry a weapon is silly. Millions of Americans carry weapons, and that is the law, so please think carefully before being the aggressor. Yes, it is basic self defense law that you can shoot a man who attacks you to save your own life or save yourself from grievous bodily injury. You can also shoot to save a third person from these things.

Be peaceful. You'll live longer.

 

[malfeasance]

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.

 

[malfeasance]

One of those is still backwards (but that's the way zwhit wrote it), but too much time has passed for me to edit it . . .

 

[malfeasance]

The girl that shot dude on the couch immediately acts like the victim. Crying that she has to live with this mistake the rest of her life. Lol

In fairness, you'd probably be crying, too, if you shot somebody completely innocent to death and had to talk about it out loud.

 

[GarlicChicken]

Trayvon already getting his grave-on. Old news. We got several new ones that are undecided that we should weigh in on....

I see what you did there lol

 

[Milford King]

In fairness, you'd probably be crying, too, if you shot somebody completely innocent to death and had to talk about it out loud.

sure, but I wouldn’t act like the victim... id cry and apologize and say things like ‘nothing I can do or say to make this easier for the victims loved one’

crying and saying “now I gotta live my life with this guilt” makes one sound like a pretentious lil bitch... least you got a life. I’d rather live with my mistakes than be dead... at least today... tomorrow might be different #trenlife

 

[Milford King]

I see what you did there lol

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

 

[zwhit]

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.

 

[zwhit]

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?

 

[Milford King]

I agree with malf on the Trayvon case, because the facts did say he was only following him and calling the cops. Martin coulda evaded Zimmerman if that’s what he wanted to do...

however the original post, no way. That woman needs to do time for 2nd degree murder even if dude was charging her because, after all, it was the victims home. Mistakes happen but there are consequences for those mistakes