Amber Guyger

[sectxag06]

So was it murder or not?

yes. it was murder. she was convicted.

[flywise]

The doors close automatically. The locks are electronic. Multiple neighbors heard banging on the door and her screaming to open the door.

Then gun shots.

She didn't render aid. She changed her story multiple times and got caught in flagrant lies...

She went up there in a fit of rage and killed him. How anyone can arrive at any other conclusion is bonkers to me.

There is no grey area here. Her story was bogus from the get go.

Every bit of this is pure BS.
The lead Texas Ranger investigator said himself that he did not think she committed a crime, said he actions were reasonable.....he is a black professional. Had any of the stupidity you just wrote happened he never would have said what he said

[COACH_EM_UP]

It's mentioned many times in many sources

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/special-reports/botham-jean/amber-guyger-murder-trial-daily-breakdown-livestream/287-7c0187eb-efc0-4170-a847-3d69aff27eb4

https://newsmaven.io/pinacnews/cops-in-cuffs/did-dallas-police-officer-amber-guyger-kill-botham-jean-over-a-noise-complaint-1LUQGrCTxUidaVogr4vgVg/

https://thegrio.com/2018/09/12/botham-shem-jean-amber-guyger-noise-complaint/

theres tons more

Please show me the "tons more". Right. Nothing is mentioned in the 1st "source". The 2nd and 3rd "source" mention a noise complaint. Nothing about having any other confrontations with the man.

You must have some sort of dog in this fight to be so adamant about your claims.

[jshouse]

I disagree. Making the mistake of wrong floor/incorrect car etc isn't what the issue is. Is it KILLING SOMEONE while incorrectly identifying your own home. I lived in apartments for 8 years. I never went to the wrong one. I can understand it though. This is much more about appropriate use of deadly force than it is expecting no one ever to get off at the wrong floor.

Agree, inappropriate use if deadly force is a great way to day she was reckless in her use of deadly force.

IMO the correct charge here would have been criminally negligent homicide, not murder. And yes, she deserves prison time.

[jwo]

If she did it eye for an eye prisons wouldn’t be over crowded

[Leverhunter]

A lot of the problem arising with the verdict, here, is really bad lawyering. The prosecution built a weird case on the idea that it's impossible that ending up in the guy's apartment was a mistake. That's an absolute absurdity. I have gotten off on wrong floors, approached incorrect cars while texting, and even approached the wrong person in the grocery store because I was half-paying attention.

The question of, 'is it reasonable that this person legitimately thought they were entering their own premises and thereby acted in accordance with what is lawful [under that assumption]?' If the answer to that question is yes, this wasn't murder. Should she get an 'off the hook?' Certainly not - this gentleman had his life taken. But, to armchair QB it and say, 'I would never make the mistake that lead me to this situation' requires a pretty impressive resume of never making this kind of mistake - not to mention self righteousness.

Good solid reasoning here.

[jer_james]

I don't mind the charge - She needed to pay for taking a Man's life.

She lives across the street from the Police Station. If I come home to a door open, and none of my Family inside, then I am not going in there guns blazing. Inappropriate use of deadly force or whatever you want to call it sounds like sugar coating what happened, but is once way to describe it.

She shot an innocent Man in his home.

[COACH_EM_UP]

Aside from the fact that you are wrong about the definition of murder.

This guy WAS/IS someones innocent son. His life was cut short by no fault other than not latching his door securely. His mom obviously loves him, he was well educated, had a good job and was a productive member of society.

And you are wrong about the definition of manslaughter, voluntary or involuntary and criminally negligent homicide.

So, again, if someone is breaking into a home and the homeowner shoots them with the intent to kill them with their firearm, is it murder. They intended to kill the person.

[DeadEyeB]

Please show me the "tons more". Right. Nothing is mentioned in the 1st "source". The 2nd and 3rd "source" mention a noise complaint. Nothing about having any other confrontations with the man.

You must have some sort of dog in this fight to be so adamant about your claims.

You are the one sticking up for a murderer lol. I'm telling you the facts of the case. You haven't paid attention at all. You're just blindly trying to stick up for a mad woman who killed a person in cold blood.

Sickening.

[BrianL]

(b) A person commits an offense if he:

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

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.19.htm

Look at you. You learn something everyday.

CHAPTER 19. CRIMINAL HOMICIDE



Sec. 19.01. TYPES OF CRIMINAL HOMICIDE. (a) A person commits criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence causes the death of an individual.

(b) Criminal homicide is murder, capital murder, manslaughter, or criminally negligent homicide.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 1123, ch. 426, art. 2, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.




Sec. 19.02. MURDER. (a) In this section:

(1) "Adequate cause" means cause that would commonly produce a degree of anger, rage, resentment, or terror in a person of ordinary temper, sufficient to render the mind incapable of cool reflection.

(2) "Sudden passion" means passion directly caused by and arising out of provocation by the individual killed or another acting with the person killed which passion arises at the time of the offense and is not solely the result of former provocation.

(b) A person commits an offense if he:

(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.

(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.

(d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he caused the death under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 1123, ch. 426, art. 2, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.




Sec. 19.03. CAPITAL MURDER. (a) A person commits an offense if the person commits murder as defined under Section 19.02(b)(1) and:

(1) the person murders a peace officer or fireman who is acting in the lawful discharge of an official duty and who the person knows is a peace officer or fireman;

(2) the person intentionally commits the murder in the course of committing or attempting to commit kidnapping, burglary, robbery, aggravated sexual assault, arson, obstruction or retaliation, or terroristic threat under Section 22.07(a)(1), (3), (4), (5), or (6);

(3) the person commits the murder for remuneration or the promise of remuneration or employs another to commit the murder for remuneration or the promise of remuneration;

(4) the person commits the murder while escaping or attempting to escape from a penal institution;

(5) the person, while incarcerated in a penal institution, murders another:

(A) who is employed in the operation of the penal institution; or

(B) with the intent to establish, maintain, or participate in a combination or in the profits of a combination;

(6) the person:

(A) while incarcerated for an offense under this section or Section 19.02, murders another; or

(B) while serving a sentence of life imprisonment or a term of 99 years for an offense under Section 20.04, 22.021, or 29.03, murders another;

(7) the person murders more than one person:

(A) during the same criminal transaction; or

(B) during different criminal transactions but the murders are committed pursuant to the same scheme or course of conduct;

(8) the person murders an individual under 10 years of age;

(9) the person murders an individual 10 years of age or older but younger than 15 years of age; or

(10) the person murders another person in retaliation for or on account of the service or status of the other person as a judge or justice of the supreme court, the court of criminal appeals, a court of appeals, a district court, a criminal district court, a constitutional county court, a statutory county court, a justice court, or a municipal court.

(b) An offense under this section is a capital felony.

(c) If the jury or, when authorized by law, the judge does not find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of an offense under this section, he may be convicted of murder or of any other lesser included offense.


After reading this more thoroughly, murder may have been the right charge. My Law and Order law degree had me thinking differently about the terminology, and intent.

[COACH_EM_UP]

The doors close automatically. The locks are electronic. Multiple neighbors heard banging on the door and her screaming to open the door.

Then gun shots.

She didn't render aid. She changed her story multiple times and got caught in flagrant lies...

She went up there in a fit of rage and killed him. How anyone can arrive at any other conclusion is bonkers to me.

There is no grey area here. Her story was bogus from the get go.

Again, please quote your sources. Just as much as you believe that the doors were locked and there was banging on the doors, others have also said the door was open and unlocked. Others have said the only screaming they heard was after the shots were fired. If you dont believe me, go back and read the articles that you provided where you show that she had multiple confrontations with this man.

I am not going to change your mind and you are not going to change mine. You think it was murder and I dont think it was pre-meditated, cold blooded murder. It is ok to disagree. You have a good day sir.

[ca1219]

You are the one sticking up for a murderer lol. I'm telling you the facts of the case. You haven't paid attention at all. You're just blindly trying to stick up for a mad woman who killed a person in cold blood.

Sickening.

You sir, deserve a trophy.

[DWC]

read one

scroll up i posted 3 links..

I did NOT read all 3 but the 1 I did read did NOT mention having prior issues nor did it mention banging on the door and screaming ... but maybe I missed it ... I will read the other 2 ... if I find it I will say so

[35remington]

Doesn't murder require intent?

apparently not

Her own testimony is that she INTENDED to kill him.

[67olds442]

I don't mind the charge - She needed to pay for taking a Man's life.

She lives across the street from the Police Station. If I come home to a door open, and none of my Family inside, then I am not going in there guns blazing. Inappropriate use of deadly force or whatever you want to call it sounds like sugar coating what happened, but is once way to describe it.

She shot an innocent Man in his home.

I feel exactly the same