LogFAQs > #927950371

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Amber Guyger trial live (police shooting of man in his own home)
Kastrada 09/25/19 9:41:48 PM #103:	brandunh11 posted... Calling 9-1-1 does not mean you're not in shock or flustered. People frantically call 9-1-1 all the time while still actively in a state of shock. Seriously, just go listen to some random 9-1-1 calls. You seem to think that people in shock follow a specific set of behaviors (such as not calling 9-1-1 and balling up in the fetal position) which is not the case at all. It's difficult to predict how any specific person would respond to such a stressful situation. She was definitely more worried about herself though which is selfish. Not immediately administering CPR was bad judgement on her behalf, but calling it malice pretty much implies that she wanted Botham to die though which you're gonna have a hard time proving to anyone following the facts of the case. I don't even think the prosecution is taking that angle. Again, I'm not taking this from the legal argument. I'm taking this from my perspective. I'm not saying the prosecutor should do this. A psychological shock is a mental and physical problem. I used fetal position as just an example. She would have something debilitate her from acting. But that's not the case. You take issue by saying she called 911 but that's not my point. My point is that she her calling 911 shows her understanding the severity of what had happened. The texting her partner does not show to me she was suffering from shock. Yes people in shock can call 911. But her actions after that, well and before too, show me something different. And I'm looking at malice as the basic definition of it being ill-will. But even then one of the legal definitions, from Merriam-Webster, is "wanton disregard for the rights of others or for the value of human life" which again....texting someone to alleviate your concerns over shooting an innocent person rather than helping that innocent person kinda falls under that umbrella. Hell implied malice is even more accurate: - malice inferred from the nature or consequences of a harmful act done without justification or excuse - malice inferred from subjective awareness of duty or of the likely results of one's act But again, I'm not saying this is what the prosecutor should do or anything like that. Just from what has been said in court and the definitions/my understanding of "malice" and "shock", I think she's guilty. --- PoW '09 Topic of the Year Co-Winners (Rada and Texy) FFD <cite>Kastrada posted [p:927950371] in Amber Guyg... [t:78035349]...</cite> <quote>brandunh11 posted... </cite> <quote>Calling 9-1-1 does not mean you're not in shock or flustered. People frantically call 9-1-1 all the time while still actively in a state of shock. Seriously, just go listen to some random 9-1-1 calls. You seem to think that people in shock follow a specific set of behaviors (such as not calling 9-1-1 and balling up in the fetal position) which is not the case at all. It's difficult to predict how any specific person would respond to such a stressful situation. She was definitely more worried about herself though which is selfish. Not immediately administering CPR was bad judgement on her behalf, but calling it malice pretty much implies that she wanted Botham to die though which you're gonna have a hard time proving to anyone following the facts of the case. I don't even think the prosecution is taking that angle.</quote> Again, I'm not taking this from the legal argument. I'm taking this from my perspective. I'm not saying the prosecutor should do this. A psychological shock is a mental and physical problem. I used fetal position as just an example. She would have something debilitate her from acting. But that's not the case. You take issue by saying she called 911 but that's not my point. My point is that she her calling 911 shows her understanding the severity of what had happened. The texting her partner does not show to me she was suffering from shock. Yes people in shock can call 911. But her actions after that, well and before too, show me something different. And I'm looking at malice as the basic definition of it being ill-will. But even then one of the legal definitions, from Merriam-Webster, is "wanton disregard for the rights of others or for the value of human life" which again....texting someone to alleviate your concerns over shooting an innocent person rather than helping that innocent person kinda falls under that umbrella. Hell implied malice is even more accurate: - malice inferred from the nature or consequences of a harmful act done without justification or excuse - malice inferred from subjective awareness of duty or of the likely results of one's act But again, I'm not saying this is what the prosecutor should do or anything like that. Just from what has been said in court and the definitions/my understanding of "malice" and "shock", I think she's guilty. --- PoW '09 Topic of the Year Co-Winners (Rada and Texy) FFD</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1