carlson1 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 4:36 pm
The most power victim statement (Botham’s brother) I have heard and ended like nothing I have seen. I am old man, but I couldn't help it I cried.
Botham’s younger Brandt delivered a heart-felt victim impact statement, telling Guyger, “I forgive you. I know if you go to God and ask him, he will forgive you. I love you just like anyone else. I am not going to say I hope you die just like my brother did… I personally want the best for you. I don’t even want you to go to jail… because that’s exactly what Botham would want to. Again I love you, as a person.”
He then asked if it was OK for him to hug Guyger. So he did.
I've never seen or even heard of anything like this. This is Christian love on display.
carlson1 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 4:36 pm
The most power victim statement (Botham’s brother) I have heard and ended like nothing I have seen. I am old man, but I couldn't help it I cried.
WOW! What an incredible testimony.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
carlson1 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 4:36 pm
The most power victim statement (Botham’s brother) I have heard and ended like nothing I have seen. I am old man, but I couldn't help it I cried.
I watched Amber's testimony live. At one point she was asked if she intended to kill Botham Jean.
She replied "Yes" instead of saying she intended only to stop the threat as all officers are trained.
I turned to my wife and said, "She just convicted herself of murder."
Excaliber
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Jeff Cooper
I am not a lawyer. Nothing in any of my posts should be construed as legal or professional advice.
Excaliber wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 6:59 am
I watched Amber's testimony live. At one point she was asked if she intended to kill Botham Jean.
She replied "Yes" instead of saying she intended only to stop the threat as all officers are trained.
I turned to my wife and said, "She just convicted herself of murder."
I agree and I think she had no idea she had just done it either. I believe she answered honestly thinking it was alright if she did intend to kill him.
I just have a hard time with her not understanding she was on the wrong floor and wrong apartment.
Other aspects of the case notwithstanding, this is completely understandable. I've made this mistake myself in the past, in apartments and hotels where all the floors, hallways, doors, etc. are identical. After 5,000 times, walking to your door just becomes automatic, especially when you're exhausted from a 14 hour shift. The elevator door opens, you step out, turn left, walk to the third door and go in. You could do it blindfolded. If the elevator HAPPENS to open on the next floor, it's very easy to not notice.
As far as not looking sharp on the witness stand, I'm sure it's been awhile since she had a good night's sleep. Here is her during her cross:
She got 10 years, eligible for parole in 5.
I agree, the race-baiting is ridiculous, but not unexpected. As usual, of course, the media is feeding into it.
This incident provides an interesting view of the law and how it works. Technically, yes, she "murdered" him and is guilty. In reality, the charge isn't valid - it's a foregone conclusion that she didn't come home from work, then deliberately decided to detour into a stranger's home and slaughter him while he "sat on the sofa eating ice cream."
The conversation about this will probably go on for a while, while everybody sifts through all the "what about" questions. But it's done. Sad story, indeed.
I've seen a lot of comments today about a case in SA where a driver got 35 years for a traffic accident in which his passenger died. He had Meth and Coke in his system. They point out the driver was black and the ex cop was white. I understand the difference in making a mistake in walking into the wrong apartment and in choosing to operate a vehicle under the influence. But it's hard to rectify the disparity of sentencing in these two cases.
A lot of people justifying the 35 year sentence point out the driver had a history of other bad behavior. But it's still a little hard for me to wrap my head around the vast difference in sentencing.
clarionite wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 3:55 pm
I've seen a lot of comments today about a case in SA where a driver got 35 years for a traffic accident in which his passenger died. He had Meth and Coke in his system. They point out the driver was black and the ex cop was white. I understand the difference in making a mistake in walking into the wrong apartment and in choosing to operate a vehicle under the influence. But it's hard to rectify the disparity of sentencing in these two cases.
A lot of people justifying the 35 year sentence point out the driver had a history of other bad behavior. But it's still a little hard for me to wrap my head around the vast difference in sentencing.
Maybe criminal intent has something to do with it. I don't think one can compare meth and coke use to mistakenly thinking someone was burglarizing your apartment. Additionally, one never knows what a jury is going to do. Her police officer status may have also played a roll in a lighter sentence.
This is 30 minutes, but it's worth watching if you're interested. It shows the prosecution introducing the case to the jury. Pretty damning, before the trial even starts. One other thing useful about this video: if you ever end up in court for a self defense shooting, this gives you a taste of what you might be up against.
I heard one of the morning radio shows that there is a merging of two laws that could exonerate AG. Mistake of Fact, and the Castle Doctrine. Her case doesn't fit into any mold according to our laws. All things being equal, without emotion clouding logic, a jury could find her not guilty because; she went to the wrong apartment on accident (MOF), and she felt threatened by Jean, believing it was her apartment, she acted appropriately to defend herself (CD).
I don't think her lawyers did her too many favors.
I think her murder conviction was way too much. She and her attorneys believed there was no recklessness on her part, according on her testimony so manslaughter doesn't fit (she thought it was her apartment). I heard 25% of those interviewed went to he wrong floor/door at some point.
Granted, it's been many, many moons since I lived in an apartment or a dormitory in a metropolitan area, and I've never been a female police officer; however, somethin' just ain't right about this whole shooting situation?
Yes, the forgiveness hugs were moving. I've never thought of forgiving the woman driver who killed, on his way home from school, my 12-year-old son in 1981. I've never given her any thought, one way or another.
Ruark wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 8:38 pm
This is 30 minutes, but it's worth watching if you're interested. It shows the prosecution introducing the case to the jury. Pretty damning, before the trial even starts. One other thing useful about this video: if you ever end up in court for a self defense shooting, this gives you a taste of what you might be up against.
He was persuasive.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
I've read the entries on this topic in the Forum, watched some of the testimony on video and did a little research on my own regarding manslaughter and murder as understood in the State of Texas.
From one law firm's website:
"In order to be charged with murder, the defendant must have knowingly and willingly caused the death of another person. The biggest distinguishing factor between murder and manslaughter involves the intent of the perpetrator. If the defendant intended to cause serious bodily harm or death, or intended to commit a felony other than manslaughter that resulted in death, he or she can be charged with murder." I don't know it this information is correct or not. These guys are lawyers, but they're not my lawyer.
While she may have believed she was in her apartment, she wasn't and it was due to a tragic mistake on her part. But is was her mistake, not Jean's, so I don't think she's entitled to claim a Castle Doctrine defense. If it's not your Castle; it's not your defense doctrine.
What got me was she had other options than pulling her service weapon and shooting. I know, hindsight always seems to be 20/20.
I think the proper procedure for police is to call for back up, secure the area as much as possible and wait for additional help to arrive. Clearing a house or engaging a suspect solo is only done when there is no other option or course of action available.
But Guyger had options.
He was not advancing on her as she claimed and that can be proved by the physical evidence. I don't remember hearing or reading if she saw (or thought she saw) a weapon. So she seemed not to be in immediate danger given the distance they were apart and there was an open door just behind her after entering the apartment. There seemed was plenty of light with the TV and computer screens illuminated, so it should have been possible to see the room. Apparently there was enough light to facilitate her shot so close to center mass.
If Jean was not advancing on her and she could or should have retreated to safety, per to her police training, I believe that she intended to do him harm, caused his death and was charged with murder. The additional issues of her texting her married boyfriend, failure to render aid when she knew she should have and the issue with her being removed from the squad car inappropriately all contributed to an appearance of an ill-timed cover-up attempt. A guilty party trying to minimize the damage?
I think she was properly charged, tried and sentenced. I support law enforcement (those folks have a job that would be the stuff of nightmares), but I also want them held to at least the same standard as we common folk. There are some events when an officer should get the benefit of the doubt, however, each event should be judged on it's own circumstances and, if necessary, the officer should be charged, tried and judged accordingly.
There are no winners in this case; only losers. Two lives gone; Jean to death and Guyger to something that may actually be worse than death.
Her mind will torture her for the rest of her life and that may be more painful than prison in the long run.
This is obviously my opinion and worth way less than what you paid; which was nothing.
This is not legal advice.
People should be able to perform many functions; for others and for themselves. Specialization is for insects. — Robert Heinlein (Severe paraphrase)
LaBRat he is not on duty. She is at her home (she thinks) and there is NO duty to retreat in Texas. She didn’t have to back out to cover and wait. If she had really been in her own house does anyone really think she should use a less lethal weapon first?
If you are in your own home, someone is inside, they startle you, and you have already opened the door are you going to pull your knife first, back out, or draw your firearm?
The problem is we all have different answers. Some will go to the fight and some are going for the run, hide, fight scenario. Nothing wrong with either way. It is also easy after we have studied this for a while we all have an opinion now. She had to make her decision in milk-seconds, as most of us would if faced with this situation.
I personally think that we need to make the decision now. Ask ourselves what will I do? If we are someone who just couldn’t live with the fact that you had to take a life so you or your loved one could live then there is no reason for you to be carrying a deadly weapon. I say again I see NOTHING wrong if that is the way you are. Just make sure you know what you will do if...
