Poll of the Day > Jurors can now consider STAND YOUR GROUND verdict for AMBER GUYGER!!!

Topic List	Page List: 1
Full Throttle 09/30/19 6:09:15 PM #1:	Would you still trust the justice system if this hag is let off? - Results (5 votes) Yes. It may not be perfect but i trust the overall justice system because most verdicts are correct 0% (0 votes) 0 F* No. This will prove that privilege and social status determines your fate in the court system 100% (5 votes) 5 Yes because this WOULD be the RIGHT verdict as her defense makes PERFECT sense and should be let off 0% (0 votes) 0 The Judge in Amber Guyger's murder trial has ruled that Jurors can now consider STAND YOUR GROUND law in their verdict after she mr magoo her way into the wrong apartment and shot dead the black tenant in there!! Jurors started deliberating Monday following a week of testimony where Guyger sobbed uncontrollably in Dallas, Texas She's on trial for shooting 26 y/o Botham Jean in his own apartment in September last year when she was off duty from a "long shift" and went into the wrong apartment Despite objections from the prosecutors, Judge Tammy Kemp ruled that jurors can consider "Castle Doctrine" otherwise known as stand your ground while considering their verdict where it allows a person to use deadly force in protecting a home if someone is trying to forcibly enter, ironic considering she was the intruder but made the case that Botham reacted VIOLENT with her and she used force while thinking she was being robbed Her lawyers argued that she allegedly believed she was in her own apartment at the time as the judge said the jurors could also consider murder and manslaughter during deliberations During closing arguments, prosecutors slammed her claims that she shot dead Jean because she thought he was an intruder and said it was "garbage" and "absurd" when SHE was the intruder despite noticing the obvious signs that it was not her apartment He picked up scrunched up copies of Amber's testimony which she tearfully stated and said she did not act reasonably that day Lee Meritt,a lawyer for the victim'sfamily said the jury is weighing in "the value of a black life" Guyger broke down on the stand and apologized for shooting dead her neighbor as Toby Shook said the shooting was a result of a series of horrible mistakes on BOTH sides and argued Jean acted unreasonably by attacking Guyger for a simple mistake and fired after making a split second decision. He also noted that many residents have went into the wrong apartment but did not have the problem of violence She was on the stand making a tearful plea stating she arrived at the wrong moment and immediately drawn her gun cause someone might have been in her apartment since it was open and she was "scared to death" after seeing a silhouette figure and telling him "let me see your hands" and said he came RUSHING at her at a fast paced walk yelling "hey hey hey" in an aggressive voice and thats' when she shot twice. Amber says she felt like a terrible person and a piece of crap and hates how she lives with this every single day of her life while texting and calling her police officer boyfriend while Jean bled on the ground. Amber also admits that she was SEXTING her bf just moments before shooting Jean and wrote to him "Wanna Touch" which she thinks contributed to the confusion Would you still trust the justice system if Amber Guyger is let off? Amber - Crocodile Tears Botham - Murdered Prosecutor showing red mat that was in front of Jean's apt - Judge - Amber's Defense - --- call me mrduckbear, sweater monkeys. A GFAQS User Steps On A Bug, I'll Stop Posting for 48 HOURS. THIS ACCOUNT ONLY!! I'm an Asian Liberal. RESIST The Alt-Right <cite>Full Throttle posted [p:928157604] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote> Would you still trust the justice system if this hag is let off? - Results (5 votes) Yes. It may not be perfect but i trust the overall justice system because most verdicts are correct 0% (0 votes) 0 F* No. This will prove that privilege and social status determines your fate in the court system 100% (5 votes) 5 Yes because this WOULD be the RIGHT verdict as her defense makes PERFECT sense and should be let off 0% (0 votes) 0 The Judge in Amber Guyger's murder trial has ruled that Jurors can now consider STAND YOUR GROUND law in their verdict after she mr magoo her way into the wrong apartment and shot dead the black tenant in there!! Jurors started deliberating Monday following a week of testimony where Guyger sobbed uncontrollably in Dallas, Texas She's on trial for shooting 26 y/o Botham Jean in his own apartment in September last year when she was off duty from a "long shift" and went into the wrong apartment Despite objections from the prosecutors, Judge Tammy Kemp ruled that jurors can consider "Castle Doctrine" otherwise known as stand your ground while considering their verdict where it allows a person to use deadly force in protecting a home if someone is trying to forcibly enter, ironic considering she was the intruder but made the case that Botham reacted VIOLENT with her and she used force while thinking she was being robbed Her lawyers argued that she allegedly believed she was in her own apartment at the time as the judge said the jurors could also consider murder and manslaughter during deliberations During closing arguments, prosecutors slammed her claims that she shot dead Jean because she thought he was an intruder and said it was "garbage" and "absurd" when SHE was the intruder despite noticing the obvious signs that it was not her apartment He picked up scrunched up copies of Amber's testimony which she tearfully stated and said she did not act reasonably that day Lee Meritt,a lawyer for the victim'sfamily said the jury is weighing in "the value of a black life" Guyger broke down on the stand and apologized for shooting dead her neighbor as Toby Shook said the shooting was a result of a series of horrible mistakes on BOTH sides and argued Jean acted unreasonably by attacking Guyger for a simple mistake and fired after making a split second decision. He also noted that many residents have went into the wrong apartment but did not have the problem of violence She was on the stand making a tearful plea stating she arrived at the wrong moment and immediately drawn her gun cause someone might have been in her apartment since it was open and she was "scared to death" after seeing a silhouette figure and telling him "let me see your hands" and said he came RUSHING at her at a fast paced walk yelling "hey hey hey" in an aggressive voice and thats' when she shot twice. Amber says she felt like a terrible person and a piece of crap and hates how she lives with this every single day of her life while texting and calling her police officer boyfriend while Jean bled on the ground. Amber also admits that she was SEXTING her bf just moments before shooting Jean and wrote to him "Wanna Touch" which she thinks contributed to the confusion Would you still trust the justice system if Amber Guyger is let off? Amber - Crocodile Tears Botham - Murdered Prosecutor showing red mat that was in front of Jean's apt - Judge - Amber's Defense - </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Muscles 09/30/19 6:28:56 PM #2:	How can you stand your ground when you were the one breaking and entering? --- Muscles Chicago Bears \| Chicago Blackhawks \| Chicago Bulls \| Chicago Cubs \| NIU Huskies <cite>Muscles posted [p:928158394] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>How can you stand your ground when you were the one breaking and entering?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darcandkharg31 09/30/19 6:43:46 PM #3:	Full Throttle posted... Amber says she felt like a terrible person and a piece of crap and hates how she lives with this every single day of her life Good, hope she feels the same when she's in prison. --- This is my signature, there are many others like it, but this one is mine. If you take 110% of what I say seriously then you're gonna have a bad time. <cite>darcandkharg31 posted [p:928158953] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>Full Throttle posted...</cite> <quote>Amber says she felt like a terrible person and a piece of crap and hates how she lives with this every single day of her life</quote> Good, hope she feels the same when she's in prison.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
streamofthesky 09/30/19 6:54:47 PM #4:	Muscles posted... How can you stand your ground when you were the one breaking and entering? Because SYG laws = "murder all the witnesses" If no one else present to witness your shooting is left alive to testify, you get to define the narrative of what happened before the shooting! Yay! <cite>streamofthesky posted [p:928159385] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>Muscles posted...</cite> <quote>How can you stand your ground when you were the one breaking and entering?</quote> Because SYG laws = "murder all the witnesses" If no one else present to witness your shooting is left alive to testify, you get to define the narrative of what happened before the shooting! Yay!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 09/30/19 6:55:16 PM #5:	But is she hot? <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:928159407] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>But is she hot? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Blighboy 09/30/19 6:58:05 PM #6:	Boy I sure hope nobody accidentally walks into her apartment and shoots her dead after this :) --- https://imgtc.com/i/gl6tuJ6.png <cite>Blighboy posted [p:928159503] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>Boy I sure hope nobody accidentally walks into her apartment and shoots her dead after this :)</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darcandkharg31 09/30/19 7:13:51 PM #7:	OhhhJa posted... But is she hot? oh fuck no --- This is my signature, there are many others like it, but this one is mine. If you take 110% of what I say seriously then you're gonna have a bad time. <cite>darcandkharg31 posted [p:928160161] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>But is she hot? </quote> oh fuck no</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
EvilMegas 09/30/19 7:17:49 PM #8:	Ah yes, the scary black man spooked her. How dare he scare her by living? --- Official King of Black People https://imgur.com/Zk3VS3o http://imgur.com/a/UeQiE https://imgur.com/aSnCUuI <cite>EvilMegas posted [p:928160324] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>Ah yes, the scary black man spooked her. How dare he scare her by living?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SKARDAVNELNATE 09/30/19 7:22:07 PM #9:	My understanding is that lack of knowledge that your actions are illegal is not a defense. As such what she thought at the time is irrelevant. On the other hand, how someone felt toward the victim can be used to convict them of a crime in itself. So maybe what she thought at the time is relevant. --- No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD. Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB <cite>SKARDAVNELNATE posted [p:928160504] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>My understanding is that lack of knowledge that your actions are illegal is not a defense. As such what she thought at the time is irrelevant. On the other hand, how someone felt toward the victim can be used to convict them of a crime in itself. So maybe what she thought at the time is relevant.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ASlaveObeys 09/30/19 7:26:38 PM #10:	SKARDAVNELNATE posted... My understanding is that lack of knowledge that your actions are illegal is not a defense. As such what she thought at the time is irrelevant. On the other hand, how someone felt toward the victim can be used to convict them of a crime in itself. So maybe what she thought at the time is relevant. Stand your ground laws can literally be argued "if you felt threatened, even if you weren't actually threatened, you can defend yourself with lethal force" They really shouldn't exist for the most part. This basically gives her the defense that, yesshe was in the wrong apartment, but she was also within her rights to murder the tenant because she felt scared he existed. <cite>ASlaveObeys posted [p:928160719] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>SKARDAVNELNATE posted...</cite> <quote>My understanding is that lack of knowledge that your actions are illegal is not a defense. As such what she thought at the time is irrelevant. On the other hand, how someone felt toward the victim can be used to convict them of a crime in itself. So maybe what she thought at the time is relevant.</quote> Stand your ground laws can literally be argued "if you felt threatened, even if you weren't actually threatened, you can defend yourself with lethal force" They really shouldn't exist for the most part. This basically gives her the defense that, yesshe was in the wrong apartment, but she was also within her rights to murder the tenant because she felt scared he existed.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 09/30/19 7:28:38 PM #11:	ASlaveObeys posted... Stand your ground laws can literally be argued "if you felt threatened, even if you weren't actually threatened, you can defend yourself with lethal force" They really shouldn't exist for the most part. This basically gives her the defense that, yesshe was in the wrong apartment, but she was also within her rights to murder the tenant because she felt scared he existed. Doesnt there at least have to be some kind of threat of violence though? <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:928160806] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>ASlaveObeys posted... </cite> <quote>Stand your ground laws can literally be argued "if you felt threatened, even if you weren't actually threatened, you can defend yourself with lethal force" They really shouldn't exist for the most part. This basically gives her the defense that, yesshe was in the wrong apartment, but she was also within her rights to murder the tenant because she felt scared he existed.</quote>Doesnt there at least have to be some kind of threat of violence though? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Blighboy 09/30/19 7:29:47 PM #12:	OhhhJa posted... ASlaveObeys posted... Stand your ground laws can literally be argued "if you felt threatened, even if you weren't actually threatened, you can defend yourself with lethal force" They really shouldn't exist for the most part. This basically gives her the defense that, yesshe was in the wrong apartment, but she was also within her rights to murder the tenant because she felt scared he existed. Doesnt there at least have to be some kind of threat of violence though? A black man is a threat of violence. --- https://imgtc.com/i/gl6tuJ6.png <cite>Blighboy posted [p:928160846] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>ASlaveObeys posted... </cite> <quote>Stand your ground laws can literally be argued "if you felt threatened, even if you weren't actually threatened, you can defend yourself with lethal force" They really shouldn't exist for the most part. This basically gives her the defense that, yesshe was in the wrong apartment, but she was also within her rights to murder the tenant because she felt scared he existed.</quote>Doesnt there at least have to be some kind of threat of violence though? </quote> A black man is a threat of violence.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ASlaveObeys 09/30/19 7:31:04 PM #13:	OhhhJa posted... ASlaveObeys posted... Stand your ground laws can literally be argued "if you felt threatened, even if you weren't actually threatened, you can defend yourself with lethal force" They really shouldn't exist for the most part. This basically gives her the defense that, yesshe was in the wrong apartment, but she was also within her rights to murder the tenant because she felt scared he existed. Doesnt there at least have to be some kind of threat of violence though? No, the perceived threat is enough. You could argue me being 6'8" and her being a small woman is enough to perceive a threat of violence. That's why the law is so... dangerous. <cite>ASlaveObeys posted [p:928160893] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>ASlaveObeys posted... </cite> <quote>Stand your ground laws can literally be argued "if you felt threatened, even if you weren't actually threatened, you can defend yourself with lethal force" They really shouldn't exist for the most part. This basically gives her the defense that, yesshe was in the wrong apartment, but she was also within her rights to murder the tenant because she felt scared he existed.</quote>Doesnt there at least have to be some kind of threat of violence though? </quote> No, the perceived threat is enough. You could argue me being 6'8" and her being a small woman is enough to perceive a threat of violence. That's why the law is so... dangerous.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Nichtcrawler X 09/30/19 7:31:11 PM #14:	ASlaveObeys posted... Stand your ground laws can literally be argued "if you felt threatened, even if you weren't actually threatened, you can defend yourself with lethal force" Is it just me, or am I seeing a legal loophole for sanctioned hate-crime related killing there? --- Official Teetotaller of PotD Dovie'andi se tovya sagain! <cite>Nichtcrawler X posted [p:928160896] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>ASlaveObeys posted...</cite> <quote>Stand your ground laws can literally be argued "if you felt threatened, even if you weren't actually threatened, you can defend yourself with lethal force" </quote> Is it just me, or am I seeing a legal loophole for sanctioned hate-crime related killing there?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ASlaveObeys 09/30/19 7:33:42 PM #15:	Nichtcrawler X posted... ASlaveObeys posted... Stand your ground laws can literally be argued "if you felt threatened, even if you weren't actually threatened, you can defend yourself with lethal force" Is it just me, or am I seeing a legal loophole for sanctioned hate-crime related killing there? I mean in the same year and the same state Zimmerman killed that kid a black woman killed a man trying to rob her and argued stand your ground and was sentenced to 20+ years in prison. I don't know. It's very subjective and allows for a lot of biases and prejudice without repercussion. <cite>ASlaveObeys posted [p:928160982] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>Nichtcrawler X posted...</cite> <quote>ASlaveObeys posted...</cite> <quote>Stand your ground laws can literally be argued "if you felt threatened, even if you weren't actually threatened, you can defend yourself with lethal force" </quote> Is it just me, or am I seeing a legal loophole for sanctioned hate-crime related killing there?</quote> I mean in the same year and the same state Zimmerman killed that kid a black woman killed a man trying to rob her and argued stand your ground and was sentenced to 20+ years in prison. I don't know. It's very subjective and allows for a lot of biases and prejudice without repercussion.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
streamofthesky 09/30/19 7:34:17 PM #16:	Nichtcrawler X posted... ASlaveObeys posted... Stand your ground laws can literally be argued "if you felt threatened, even if you weren't actually threatened, you can defend yourself with lethal force" Is it just me, or am I seeing a legal loophole for sanctioned hate-crime related killing there? Oh, it's pretty blatant. The SYG laws are more likely in court to help a white person killing a black person than vice-versa. OhhhJa posted... ASlaveObeys posted... Stand your ground laws can literally be argued "if you felt threatened, even if you weren't actually threatened, you can defend yourself with lethal force" They really shouldn't exist for the most part. This basically gives her the defense that, yesshe was in the wrong apartment, but she was also within her rights to murder the tenant because she felt scared he existed. Doesnt there at least have to be some kind of threat of violence though? Well, the dude was sitting eating ice cream when she broke in, so he might've done something threatening, like begin to stand up. better open fire to be safe! <cite>streamofthesky posted [p:928161007] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>Nichtcrawler X posted...</cite> <quote>ASlaveObeys posted...</cite> <quote>Stand your ground laws can literally be argued "if you felt threatened, even if you weren't actually threatened, you can defend yourself with lethal force" </quote> Is it just me, or am I seeing a legal loophole for sanctioned hate-crime related killing there?</quote> Oh, it's pretty blatant. The SYG laws are more likely in court to help a white person killing a black person than vice-versa. OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>ASlaveObeys posted... </cite> <quote>Stand your ground laws can literally be argued "if you felt threatened, even if you weren't actually threatened, you can defend yourself with lethal force" They really shouldn't exist for the most part. This basically gives her the defense that, yesshe was in the wrong apartment, but she was also within her rights to murder the tenant because she felt scared he existed.</quote>Doesnt there at least have to be some kind of threat of violence though? </quote> Well, the dude was sitting eating ice cream when she broke in, so he might've done something threatening, like begin to stand up. better open fire to be safe!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ASlaveObeys 09/30/19 7:36:42 PM #17:	to be fair he did lean over in her direction before being shot. Either he was attempting a football tackle or she ordered him to his knees before opening up on him. <cite>ASlaveObeys posted [p:928161114] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>to be fair he did lean over in her direction before being shot. Either he was attempting a football tackle or she ordered him to his knees before opening up on him.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
InfestedAdam 09/30/19 7:39:56 PM #18:	I am no lawyer but regardless of how she felt at the time, she made a mistake. How is that not at least manslaughter? Could it be a potential slippery slope if the court start to accept certain excuses for accidental killings? --- "You must gather your party before venturing forth" "Go for the eyes Boo! Go for the eyes!" <cite>InfestedAdam posted [p:928161258] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>I am no lawyer but regardless of how she felt at the time, she made a mistake. How is that not at least manslaughter? Could it be a potential slippery slope if the court start to accept certain excuses for accidental killings?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ASlaveObeys 09/30/19 7:41:55 PM #19:	InfestedAdam posted... I am no lawyer but regardless of how she felt at the time, she made a mistake. How is that not at least manslaughter? Could it be a potential slippery slope if the court start to accept certain excuses for accidental killings? that's the issue with them allowing the SYG law. It's really hard to argue against it. Even in this case... where she broke into his apartment and killed him outright. All they have to argue is that she was scared and technically the defense has a case for SYG. <cite>ASlaveObeys posted [p:928161337] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>InfestedAdam posted...</cite> <quote>I am no lawyer but regardless of how she felt at the time, she made a mistake. How is that not at least manslaughter? Could it be a potential slippery slope if the court start to accept certain excuses for accidental killings?</quote> that's the issue with them allowing the SYG law. It's really hard to argue against it. Even in this case... where she broke into his apartment and killed him outright. All they have to argue is that she was scared and technically the defense has a case for SYG.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
InfestedAdam 09/30/19 8:05:17 PM #20:	On another note, is there anything in place to protect jurors from "peer pressure" when a verdict must be unanimous and the rest of the jurors just want to wrap up the trial and go home but that one juror simply do not agree with the rest of the jurors? --- "You must gather your party before venturing forth" "Go for the eyes Boo! Go for the eyes!" <cite>InfestedAdam posted [p:928162351] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>On another note, is there anything in place to protect jurors from "peer pressure" when a verdict must be unanimous and the rest of the jurors just want to wrap up the trial and go home but that one juror simply do not agree with the rest of the jurors?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/30/19 8:45:42 PM #21:	Full Throttle posted... Toby Shook said the shooting was a result of a series of horrible mistakes on BOTH sides What mistake did Jean make other than eating cereal in his own house? Full Throttle posted... Jean acted unreasonably by attacking Guyger for a simple mistake Weird that they say he acted unreasonable because he was possibly defending himself after someone else broke in. But she can use the SYG law to just killed him after breaking into his house. This all just seems really fucked up, tbh... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:928164382] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>Full Throttle posted...</cite> <quote>Toby Shook said the shooting was a result of a series of horrible mistakes on BOTH sides</quote> What mistake did Jean make other than eating cereal in his own house? Full Throttle posted...</cite> <quote>Jean acted unreasonably by attacking Guyger for a simple mistake</quote> Weird that they say he acted unreasonable because he was possibly defending himself after someone else broke in. But she can use the SYG law to just killed him after breaking into his house. This all just seems really fucked up, tbh...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
streamofthesky 09/30/19 8:56:11 PM #22:	LinkPizza posted... Full Throttle posted... Toby Shook said the shooting was a result of a series of horrible mistakes on BOTH sides What mistake did Jean make other than eating cereal in his own house? Full Throttle posted... Jean acted unreasonably by attacking Guyger for a simple mistake Weird that they say he acted unreasonable because he was possibly defending himself after someone else broke in. But she can use the SYG law to just killed him after breaking into his house. This all just seems really fucked up, tbh... Yeah, fuck that ass hole for even implying Jean did something wrong. And why are people just taking her word for it that he was going to attack her (would've been ACTUAL self defense if he did, but ignoring that for a moment...)? Oh right....b/c she says so, and the only other witness is dead and can't refute her claim. Yay! Stand Your Ground laws! <cite>streamofthesky posted [p:928164856] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Full Throttle posted...</cite> <quote>Toby Shook said the shooting was a result of a series of horrible mistakes on BOTH sides</quote> What mistake did Jean make other than eating cereal in his own house? Full Throttle posted...</cite> <quote>Jean acted unreasonably by attacking Guyger for a simple mistake</quote> Weird that they say he acted unreasonable because he was possibly defending himself after someone else broke in. But she can use the SYG law to just killed him after breaking into his house. This all just seems really fucked up, tbh...</quote> Yeah, fuck that ass hole for even implying Jean did something wrong. And why are people just taking her word for it that he was going to attack her (would've been ACTUAL self defense if he did, but ignoring that for a moment...)? Oh right....b/c she says so, and the only other witness is dead and can't refute her claim. Yay! Stand Your Ground laws!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
EvilMegas 09/30/19 8:57:00 PM #23:	So the defense is saying she walked in his house and he jumped up and rushed this woman immediately and by the power of magic she was able to react and shoot him before he got near her? --- Official King of Black People https://imgur.com/Zk3VS3o http://imgur.com/a/UeQiE https://imgur.com/aSnCUuI <cite>EvilMegas posted [p:928164885] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>So the defense is saying she walked in his house and he jumped up and rushed this woman immediately and by the power of magic she was able to react and shoot him before he got near her?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
streamofthesky 09/30/19 9:01:03 PM #24:	EvilMegas posted... So the defense is saying she walked in his house and he jumped up and rushed this woman immediately and by the power of magic she was able to react and shoot him before he got near her? Nah, they're not dumb enough to even claim that much, since forensics has the path of the bullet traveling in a downward trajectory. So either he was still seated (or JUST GETTING UP from it) or even worse...was on his knees pleading for his life or such. She doesn't need to claim he actually lunged at her through the magic of SYG laws. Just that it looked like he was about to. <cite>streamofthesky posted [p:928165065] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>EvilMegas posted...</cite> <quote>So the defense is saying she walked in his house and he jumped up and rushed this woman immediately and by the power of magic she was able to react and shoot him before he got near her?</quote> Nah, they're not dumb enough to even claim that much, since forensics has the path of the bullet traveling in a downward trajectory. So either he was still seated (or JUST GETTING UP from it) or even worse...was on his knees pleading for his life or such. She doesn't need to claim he actually lunged at her through the magic of SYG laws. Just that it looked like he was about to.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Molitheus 09/30/19 10:30:35 PM #25:	OhhhJa posted... But is she hot? Hell yes, she's hot! --- There will be death Harv-5 You wouldnt wanna eat me anyways, you'd only get the runs. Got it Fools? <cite>Molitheus posted [p:928168917] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>But is she hot? </quote> Hell yes, she's hot!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
sodium-chloride 09/30/19 10:42:57 PM #26:	why doesn't the stand your ground rule apply to Jean? He's the one who should be benefiting from it because it actually applies to him. this whole case is fucking dumb and anyone who thinks this lady should get anything less than manslaughter is insane <cite>sodium-chloride posted [p:928169390] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>why doesn't the stand your ground rule apply to Jean? He's the one who should be benefiting from it because it actually applies to him. this whole case is fucking dumb and anyone who thinks this lady should get anything less than manslaughter is insane</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
streamofthesky 09/30/19 10:49:53 PM #27:	sodium-chloride posted... why doesn't the stand your ground rule apply to Jean? He's the one who should be benefiting from it because it actually applies to him. this whole case is fucking dumb and anyone who thinks this lady should get anything less than manslaughter is insane Same reason it didn't apply to Trayvon Martin when he was the unarmed teen being stalked by the creepy armed dude and tried to "stand his ground" --> Whoever has the gun / shoots the other person first is automatically morally in the right and only s/he gets to drape himself/herself in the aegis of SYG. Also, being black means you're less likely to be seen as standing your ground as opposed to "the scary thing for others to stand their ground against." But yeah, in a sane world, it would be Jean who was justifiably defending himself and his home, and Amber shot the dude who she had provoked/attacked first, and no self defense would apply to her. <cite>streamofthesky posted [p:928169674] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>sodium-chloride posted...</cite> <quote>why doesn't the stand your ground rule apply to Jean? He's the one who should be benefiting from it because it actually applies to him. this whole case is fucking dumb and anyone who thinks this lady should get anything less than manslaughter is insane</quote> Same reason it didn't apply to Trayvon Martin when he was the unarmed teen being stalked by the creepy armed dude and tried to "stand his ground" --> Whoever has the gun / shoots the other person first is automatically morally in the right and only s/he gets to drape himself/herself in the aegis of SYG. Also, being black means you're less likely to be seen as standing your ground as opposed to "the scary thing for others to stand their ground against." But yeah, in a sane world, it would be Jean who was justifiably defending himself and his home, and Amber shot the dude who she had provoked/attacked first, and no self defense would apply to her.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Nade Duck 09/30/19 10:51:53 PM #28:	this is absolutely fucking sad. --- https://imgur.com/ElACjJD "Most of the time, I have a whole lot more sperm inside me than most women do." - adjl <cite>Nade Duck posted [p:928169745] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>this is absolutely fucking sad.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 09/30/19 10:57:33 PM #29:	streamofthesky posted... Same reason it didn't apply to Trayvon Martin when he was the unarmed teen being stalked by the creepy armed dude and tried to "stand his ground" --> Whoever has the gun / shoots the other person first is automatically morally in the right and only s/he gets to drape himself/herself in the aegis of SYG. Also, being black means you're less likely to be seen as standing your ground as opposed to "the scary thing for others to stand their ground against." But yeah, in a sane world, it would be Jean who was justifiably defending himself and his home, and Amber shot the dude who she had provoked/attacked first, and no self defense would apply to her. Not saying George Zimmerman isnt a stupid piece of shit that should've gotten prison time but that case was quite a bit different from this one considering he did in fact have wounds to his face from being beaten and, if I recall correctly, it ended being found by a jury to be self defense and not SYG in the end. I could be remembering wrong though <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:928169992] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>streamofthesky posted... </cite> <quote>Same reason it didn't apply to Trayvon Martin when he was the unarmed teen being stalked by the creepy armed dude and tried to "stand his ground" --> Whoever has the gun / shoots the other person first is automatically morally in the right and only s/he gets to drape himself/herself in the aegis of SYG. Also, being black means you're less likely to be seen as standing your ground as opposed to "the scary thing for others to stand their ground against." But yeah, in a sane world, it would be Jean who was justifiably defending himself and his home, and Amber shot the dude who she had provoked/attacked first, and no self defense would apply to her.</quote>Not saying George Zimmerman isnt a stupid piece of shit that should've gotten prison time but that case was quite a bit different from this one considering he did in fact have wounds to his face from being beaten and, if I recall correctly, it ended being found by a jury to be self defense and not SYG in the end. I could be remembering wrong though </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
streamofthesky 09/30/19 11:04:49 PM #30:	OhhhJa posted... streamofthesky posted... Same reason it didn't apply to Trayvon Martin when he was the unarmed teen being stalked by the creepy armed dude and tried to "stand his ground" --> Whoever has the gun / shoots the other person first is automatically morally in the right and only s/he gets to drape himself/herself in the aegis of SYG. Also, being black means you're less likely to be seen as standing your ground as opposed to "the scary thing for others to stand their ground against." But yeah, in a sane world, it would be Jean who was justifiably defending himself and his home, and Amber shot the dude who she had provoked/attacked first, and no self defense would apply to her. Not saying George Zimmerman isnt a stupid piece of shit that should've gotten prison time but that case was quite a bit different from this one considering he did in fact have wounds to his face from being beaten and, if I recall correctly, it ended being found by a jury to be self defense and not SYG in the end. I could be remembering wrong though He got into a fight before shooting Trayvon, sure. How it reached that point no one knows. He claims Trayvon confronted him (which....would still legit be standing his ground considering George was armed and stalking him), and...he killed the only other person who was there that could dispute his claim. Just cause he was losing the fist fight doesn't mean he didn't start it. <cite>streamofthesky posted [p:928170342] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>streamofthesky posted... </cite> <quote>Same reason it didn't apply to Trayvon Martin when he was the unarmed teen being stalked by the creepy armed dude and tried to "stand his ground" --> Whoever has the gun / shoots the other person first is automatically morally in the right and only s/he gets to drape himself/herself in the aegis of SYG. Also, being black means you're less likely to be seen as standing your ground as opposed to "the scary thing for others to stand their ground against." But yeah, in a sane world, it would be Jean who was justifiably defending himself and his home, and Amber shot the dude who she had provoked/attacked first, and no self defense would apply to her.</quote>Not saying George Zimmerman isnt a stupid piece of shit that should've gotten prison time but that case was quite a bit different from this one considering he did in fact have wounds to his face from being beaten and, if I recall correctly, it ended being found by a jury to be self defense and not SYG in the end. I could be remembering wrong though </quote> He got into a fight before shooting Trayvon, sure. How it reached that point no one knows. He claims Trayvon confronted him (which....would still legit be standing his ground considering George was armed and stalking him), and...he killed the only other person who was there that could dispute his claim. Just cause he was losing the fist fight doesn't mean he didn't start it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 09/30/19 11:07:58 PM #31:	streamofthesky posted... He got into a fight before shooting Trayvon, sure. How it reached that point no one knows. He claims Trayvon confronted him (which....would still legit be standing his ground considering George was armed and stalking him), and...he killed the only other person who was there that could dispute his claim. Just cause he was losing the fist fight doesn't mean he didn't start it. I agree but that's one of the shitty aspects of the one other guy that saw how it started being dead <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:928170462] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>streamofthesky posted... </cite> <quote>He got into a fight before shooting Trayvon, sure. How it reached that point no one knows. He claims Trayvon confronted him (which....would still legit be standing his ground considering George was armed and stalking him), and...he killed the only other person who was there that could dispute his claim. Just cause he was losing the fist fight doesn't mean he didn't start it.</quote>I agree but that's one of the shitty aspects of the one other guy that saw how it started being dead </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
streamofthesky 09/30/19 11:11:00 PM #32:	OhhhJa posted... streamofthesky posted... He got into a fight before shooting Trayvon, sure. How it reached that point no one knows. He claims Trayvon confronted him (which....would still legit be standing his ground considering George was armed and stalking him), and...he killed the only other person who was there that could dispute his claim. Just cause he was losing the fist fight doesn't mean he didn't start it. I agree but that's one of the shitty aspects of the one other guy that saw how it started being dead Yeah...its almost as if....laws that don't mandate someone retreat if they are able to, aside from defending their homes/property, and allow them to just open fire if they feel threatened at all...are bad. shocked Pikachu face <cite>streamofthesky posted [p:928170593] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>streamofthesky posted... </cite> <quote>He got into a fight before shooting Trayvon, sure. How it reached that point no one knows. He claims Trayvon confronted him (which....would still legit be standing his ground considering George was armed and stalking him), and...he killed the only other person who was there that could dispute his claim. Just cause he was losing the fist fight doesn't mean he didn't start it.</quote>I agree but that's one of the shitty aspects of the one other guy that saw how it started being dead </quote> Yeah...its almost as if....laws that don't mandate someone retreat if they are able to, aside from defending their homes/property, and allow them to just open fire if they feel threatened at all...are bad. shocked Pikachu face</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 09/30/19 11:47:47 PM #33:	streamofthesky posted... OhhhJa posted... streamofthesky posted... He got into a fight before shooting Trayvon, sure. How it reached that point no one knows. He claims Trayvon confronted him (which....would still legit be standing his ground considering George was armed and stalking him), and...he killed the only other person who was there that could dispute his claim. Just cause he was losing the fist fight doesn't mean he didn't start it. I agree but that's one of the shitty aspects of the one other guy that saw how it started being dead Yeah...its almost as if....laws that don't mandate someone retreat if they are able to, aside from defending their homes/property, and allow them to just open fire if they feel threatened at all...are bad. shocked Pikachu face True but still, in the case of GZ and TM, SYG wasnt used as defense <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:928171816] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>streamofthesky posted... </cite> <quote>He got into a fight before shooting Trayvon, sure. How it reached that point no one knows. He claims Trayvon confronted him (which....would still legit be standing his ground considering George was armed and stalking him), and...he killed the only other person who was there that could dispute his claim. Just cause he was losing the fist fight doesn't mean he didn't start it.</quote>I agree but that's one of the shitty aspects of the one other guy that saw how it started being dead </quote> Yeah...its almost as if....laws that don't mandate someone retreat if they are able to, aside from defending their homes/property, and allow them to just open fire if they feel threatened at all...are bad. shocked Pikachu face</quote> True but still, in the case of GZ and TM, SYG wasnt used as defense</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
argonautweakend 10/01/19 11:55:14 AM #34:	Guilty of murder. <cite>argonautweakend posted [p:928187554] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>Guilty of murder. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
EvilMegas 10/01/19 12:07:58 PM #35:	Holy shit I never in a million years expected this. --- Official King of Black People https://imgur.com/Zk3VS3o http://imgur.com/a/UeQiE https://imgur.com/aSnCUuI <cite>EvilMegas posted [p:928188110] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>Holy shit I never in a million years expected this.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Keebs05 10/01/19 12:10:41 PM #36:	Wow. A cop is actually being held responsible for their actions. Impressive. --- "Old soldiers never die, they just fade away" R.I.P PFC Dusty Seidel <cite>Keebs05 posted [p:928188223] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>Wow. A cop is actually being held responsible for their actions. Impressive.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Blighboy 10/01/19 12:11:47 PM #37:	We finally found the fucking line --- https://imgtc.com/i/gl6tuJ6.png <cite>Blighboy posted [p:928188272] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>We finally found the fucking line</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 10/01/19 12:12:58 PM #38:	As I said in another topic, all the outrage would probably be for nothing and she would probably get convicted. Also, I suspect they discovered there was more to this story as it sounded super fishy. They had to be fucking or something <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:928188319] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>As I said in another topic, all the outrage would probably be for nothing and she would probably get convicted. Also, I suspect they discovered there was more to this story as it sounded super fishy. They had to be fucking or something</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jen0125 10/01/19 12:40:45 PM #39:	Let's see what her sentence is. --- https://imgur.com/4ihiyS2 "I am not gay! Can't you get that through your head? I am very much aroused at the site of a naked woman!" - Dan0429 <cite>Jen0125 posted [p:928189521] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>Let's see what her sentence is.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
InfestedAdam 10/01/19 1:38:54 PM #40:	Wowza. Guilty of murder and not manslaughter. Now I am curious as to what lead to the escalated charge. --- "You must gather your party before venturing forth" "Go for the eyes Boo! Go for the eyes!" <cite>InfestedAdam posted [p:928191870] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>Wowza. Guilty of murder and not manslaughter. Now I am curious as to what lead to the escalated charge.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Blighboy 10/01/19 1:46:02 PM #41:	InfestedAdam posted... Wowza. Guilty of murder and not manslaughter. Now I am curious as to what lead to the escalated charge. She stated she intended to kill him when she shot him which means it's murder. --- https://imgtc.com/i/gl6tuJ6.png <cite>Blighboy posted [p:928192181] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>InfestedAdam posted...</cite> <quote>Wowza. Guilty of murder and not manslaughter. Now I am curious as to what lead to the escalated charge.</quote> She stated she intended to kill him when she shot him which means it's murder.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
HornedLion 10/01/19 2:03:47 PM #42:	Jen0125 posted... Let's see what her sentence is. This. According to the almighty google, a first degree murder conviction in the state of Texas is punishable by 5-99 years. If she gets the 5 it will be a slap in the face to the family. That judge aint playing, though. --- :) <cite>HornedLion posted [p:928192932] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>Jen0125 posted...</cite> <quote>Let's see what her sentence is.</quote> This. According to the almighty google, a first degree murder conviction in the state of Texas is punishable by 5-99 years. If she gets the 5 it will be a slap in the face to the family. That judge aint playing, though.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Nichtcrawler X 10/01/19 2:17:36 PM #43:	Blighboy posted... InfestedAdam posted... Wowza. Guilty of murder and not manslaughter. Now I am curious as to what lead to the escalated charge. She stated she intended to kill him when she shot him which means it's murder. I thought the defining factor was premediation? As in, an intention to kill/harm before the act was performed. --- Official Teetotaller of PotD Dovie'andi se tovya sagain! <cite>Nichtcrawler X posted [p:928193483] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>Blighboy posted...</cite> <quote>InfestedAdam posted...</cite> <quote>Wowza. Guilty of murder and not manslaughter. Now I am curious as to what lead to the escalated charge.</quote> She stated she intended to kill him when she shot him which means it's murder.</quote> I thought the defining factor was premediation? As in, an intention to kill/harm before the act was performed.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BlackScythe0 10/01/19 2:40:56 PM #44:	HornedLion posted... Jen0125 posted... Let's see what her sentence is. This. According to the almighty google, a first degree murder conviction in the state of Texas is punishable by 5-99 years. If she gets the 5 it will be a slap in the face to the family. That judge aint playing, though. Texas law is a bit different. They just have capital murder which requires premeditation and murder which requires intent. When she chose to testify and specified she intended to shoot and it wasn't an accident she left the only options as murder or self defense. Her story didn't make sense so she got murder. I'm still surprised she didn't get off with some stand your ground bull shit. Good on that jury. <cite>BlackScythe0 posted [p:928194466] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>HornedLion posted...</cite> <quote>Jen0125 posted...</cite> <quote>Let's see what her sentence is.</quote> This. According to the almighty google, a first degree murder conviction in the state of Texas is punishable by 5-99 years. If she gets the 5 it will be a slap in the face to the family. That judge aint playing, though.</quote> Texas law is a bit different. They just have capital murder which requires premeditation and murder which requires intent. When she chose to testify and specified she intended to shoot and it wasn't an accident she left the only options as murder or self defense. Her story didn't make sense so she got murder. I'm still surprised she didn't get off with some stand your ground bull shit. Good on that jury.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Blighboy 10/01/19 2:47:48 PM #45:	Nichtcrawler X posted... Blighboy posted... InfestedAdam posted... Wowza. Guilty of murder and not manslaughter. Now I am curious as to what lead to the escalated charge. She stated she intended to kill him when she shot him which means it's murder. I thought the defining factor was premediation? As in, an intention to kill/harm before the act was performed. That's only for first degree murder. --- https://imgtc.com/i/gl6tuJ6.png <cite>Blighboy posted [p:928194760] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>Nichtcrawler X posted...</cite> <quote>Blighboy posted...</cite> <quote>InfestedAdam posted...</cite> <quote>Wowza. Guilty of murder and not manslaughter. Now I am curious as to what lead to the escalated charge.</quote> She stated she intended to kill him when she shot him which means it's murder.</quote> I thought the defining factor was premediation? As in, an intention to kill/harm before the act was performed.</quote> That's only for first degree murder.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
streamofthesky 10/01/19 5:17:03 PM #46:	HornedLion posted... Jen0125 posted... Let's see what her sentence is. This. According to the almighty google, a first degree murder conviction in the state of Texas is punishable by 5-99 years. If she gets the 5 it will be a slap in the face to the family. That judge aint playing, though. More like the jury! So proud of that jury! Took less than a day to deliberate on it, asked exactly what the difference was between murder and manslaughter, and were like, "that bitch is a murderer" :) I do expect she'll get a lenient sentence though, she is a white female cop.... Who decides, judge or jury? If judge, I'm guessing 5-15 years. If the jury, 10-30 years. <cite>streamofthesky posted [p:928201193] in Jurors can... [t:78053528]...</cite> <quote>HornedLion posted...</cite> <quote>Jen0125 posted...</cite> <quote>Let's see what her sentence is.</quote> This. According to the almighty google, a first degree murder conviction in the state of Texas is punishable by 5-99 years. If she gets the 5 it will be a slap in the face to the family. That judge aint playing, though.</quote> More like the jury! So proud of that jury! Took less than a day to deliberate on it, asked exactly what the difference was between murder and manslaughter, and were like, "that bitch is a murderer" :) I do expect she'll get a lenient sentence though, she is a white female cop.... Who decides, judge or jury? If judge, I'm guessing 5-15 years. If the jury, 10-30 years.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1

Poll of the Day > Jurors can now consider STAND YOUR GROUND verdict for AMBER GUYGER!!! (+) Yeah! (+)

Poll of the Day > Jurors can now consider STAND YOUR GROUND verdict for AMBER GUYGER!!!