If the facts of the chase did not support the conviction, well, that is one reason that appeals courts exist. She should not have walked away free, regardless, in my opinion, so am not annoyed that she was convicted.
IANAL, but would have predicted Manslaughter, from a truly impartial, non-inflamed jury.
From a political viewpoint, yes, the community “needed” a conviction, for “healing/closure.” Sigh.
Last edited by Rex G; 10-01-2019 at 01:18 PM.
Retar’d LE. Kinesthetic dufus.
Don’t tread on volcanos!
Uh, that's not how legal intention works.Originally Posted by Zincwarrior
Deliberately breaking down his door and shooting him resulting in his death is murder. The deliberate part of that act is the intent. If it is was mistake, then there is no intent, thus at best it's manslaughter (reckless actions resulting in death) or criminal negligence (after shooting him, it could be argued she was negligent in her responsibility to provide first aid, resulting in his death).
Neither of those is murder.
This isn't murder. There should be motive to establish intent to make this murder. Did she wake up intending to kill someone that morning? Okay, murder. Was she fried after a too long shift and too many days in a row, fucked up, and shot a guy when she had a false impression of what was going on? Manslaughter.
Obviously, I didn't review all of the evidence in this case, but thus far, I haven't seen any compelling evidence that would suggest this case even met the definition of murder. Again, I doubt this particular verdict survives appeal. This appears to be entirely a show for optics.
Based on the facts as reported in the news, second degree murder sounds right. Usually no need to show premeditation. You just need the intent to kill at the moment it happens, which seems to be present here, at least by implication.
Yup.
It is new and I haven't used it, but I bought the Calslock gadget mentioned in this thread:
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....l=1#post929575
ETA: I was talking about the hotel room comments, not the verdict.
Last edited by mmc45414; 10-01-2019 at 01:37 PM.
Some of the testimony seemed to indicate the victim was seated or cowering when shot. Then Guyger took the stand and the prosecutor tore her up on cross such that it seemed like she'd decided to shoot whoever she found in "her" apartment ahead of time. I'm speculating but taken together that might have gotten them there.
I'm not sure how it works in Texas but she did directly admit she intended to kill him when she shot him. She did not do well testifying.
Last edited by TheRoland; 10-01-2019 at 01:25 PM.
They disagreed.
There is disagreement over whether the door was actually open or whether the victim opened it. Either way its bad.
Last edited by Zincwarrior; 10-01-2019 at 01:25 PM.
Only in news reports. I'm pretty sure everyone agreed in the trial that he was 10+ feet away from the door, seated (at least intially).
Thank you for the clarification.
I do the deadbolt, but not the chain/flip bar until I check the room for goblins.
If I need to get out, the deadbolt opens easily. The chain not so much.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
Reply With Quote