Amber Guyger

[Pilgrim]

What Are you trying to say? I was shot at outside a strip club in 1985.

Luckily for me he missed(he was still dizzy from me bouncing his head off the cigarette machine on the way out the door). Ladies Galore at 2050 Cheshire Bridge Road in Atlanta. Good times.

He might be saying ballers got to ball.

[bobc]

What Are you trying to say? I was shot at outside a strip club in 1985.



Luckily for me he missed(he was still dizzy from me bouncing his head off the cigarette machine on the way out the door). Ladies Galore at 2050 Cheshire Bridge Road in Atlanta. Good times.

That’ll be a good one to tell the grandkids [emoji12]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Leverhunter]

I think when she was denied change of venue her fate was sealed. I don’t think there is any way the jury did not have prior knowledge and feelings about this case.

Absolutely true. No way should was going to be found not guilty.

[bullets13]

I am not making up the laws. You are the one copying and pasting from the internet without using any of the evidence in this trial. You are literally just throwing out your general opinion of how the law reads without using any real cases and outcomes. I'm not even sure you've read Amber Guygers testimony nor paid any real attention to what transpired other than you didn't like the verdict. I have no issue with that.

Whatever defense the Guyger team thought they had, in the eyes of her societal peers her actions/intents were criminal. She got 10 and will need to serve 5 before shes eligible for parole. She will be out in 8.

Good day and good luck this season, sir.

He copied and pasted the law, as it is on the books. He’s not throwing out opinions, the law reads in black and white. On top of that, he previously listed in this thread several cases where the law was applied as written and both citizens and LEOs were either no billed or found not guilty in circumstances where they shot innocent people. You’re intentionally (at least it appears) misinterpreting the law, as well as how intent applies to it, to suit your own opinions about this case.

[batmaninja]

This came from facebook. Dont know how accurate it is, but it sheds some light on a few things that didnt make sense to me.

There was an attempt on Brown’s life in November of 2018. He was shot in the foot. Another friend was killed. A man was arrested for the incident and another suspect remained at-large. Josh was concerned that these people still meant him harm so when he was subpoenaed to testify against Amber Guyger he was conflicted. He wanted to do the right thing. Prosecutors told him he had information they needed to ensure a conviction. He, in turn, told prosecutors and the Court about the danger he felt was associated with him testifying in a public trial. Ultimately he decided that it was just too dangerous. He left the state and was in California on the day the trial began. In fact the day he was called to testify he was still in California. Prosecutors hounded him, threatening to issue a warrant for his arrest if he didn’t appear in court on Day 2 of the trial. So he got on a plane and came straight from the airport to the courthouse. I believe he met with the judge in her chambers (on the record) and reiterated his concern about testifying. That is why during his first public appearance in the trial the judge affirmed “you have already been sworn and are still under oath.”

[LFD2037]

This came from facebook. Dont know how accurate it is, but it sheds some light on a few things that didnt make sense to me.

There was an attempt on Brown’s life in November of 2018. He was shot in the foot. Another friend was killed. A man was arrested for the incident and another suspect remained at-large. Josh was concerned that these people still meant him harm so when he was subpoenaed to testify against Amber Guyger he was conflicted. He wanted to do the right thing. Prosecutors told him he had information they needed to ensure a conviction. He, in turn, told prosecutors and the Court about the danger he felt was associated with him testifying in a public trial. Ultimately he decided that it was just too dangerous. He left the state and was in California on the day the trial began. In fact the day he was called to testify he was still in California. Prosecutors hounded him, threatening to issue a warrant for his arrest if he didn’t appear in court on Day 2 of the trial. So he got on a plane and came straight from the airport to the courthouse. I believe he met with the judge in her chambers (on the record) and reiterated his concern about testifying. That is why during his first public appearance in the trial the judge affirmed “you have already been sworn and are still under oath.”

And?