Your Verdict on Guyger
- Thread starter Dad_Roman
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Heheh....sorry, left work, hadda drive home.
I would say just vote whatcha think.
If I was on the jury, I already dont think its murder, thats a not guilty, and it would piss me off that the state didnt charge her correctly so that a FO and die.
Its a disasterous mess that really has never been seen before. I think the ranger said it, criminally negligent homicide, I can see that.
.
I would say just vote whatcha think.
If I was on the jury, I already dont think its murder, thats a not guilty, and it would piss me off that the state didnt charge her correctly so that a FO and die.
Its a disasterous mess that really has never been seen before. I think the ranger said it, criminally negligent homicide, I can see that.
.
It was the correct charge. She admitted on the stand she intended to kill him.
Texas does not have a charge for mistake shootings. Mistake shootings fall under Mistake of Fact as TXI has explained.
The judge should give written instructions to the jury on this.
How about keeping all the trial s&*^ in one place.
Man, are you ever right about that. That Prosecutor got her rattled and started throwing "Jean" into everything and she messed up BIG time with yes answers.
He asked "so you intended to kill Jean?" and she said "yes". That was INCORRECT. She didnt even know Jean, how could she intend to kill him? The answer was "no"
She did that several times on questions that involved Jean's name.
Bad move.
.
Got two questions before I vote. Is the jury allowed to convict her of a lesser charge? I've been to jury duty several times but never been selected.
Second, what exactly was she charged with? I've got a basic idea, but haven't seen the actual charge.
And the questions are kind of sad since it sounds like I'm looking at technicalities. The bottom line is, she entered into an individual's apartment and killed him when he shouldn't have been killed.
But the case doesn't seem to be about that. It seems to be about if extenuating circumstances or technicalities should be considered instead.
Second, what exactly was she charged with? I've got a basic idea, but haven't seen the actual charge.
And the questions are kind of sad since it sounds like I'm looking at technicalities. The bottom line is, she entered into an individual's apartment and killed him when he shouldn't have been killed.
But the case doesn't seem to be about that. It seems to be about if extenuating circumstances or technicalities should be considered instead.
I vote guilty.
If other circumstances are involved then give minimum jail time, maybe a light “you’re not evil, just a complete moron” sentence. But she walked in to someone’s apartment and murdered a man in his own home. Stupid hurts. Just ask her victim.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If other circumstances are involved then give minimum jail time, maybe a light “you’re not evil, just a complete moron” sentence. But she walked in to someone’s apartment and murdered a man in his own home. Stupid hurts. Just ask her victim.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If the Prosecution charges with the top count and all lesser-included offenses, and they survive a Motion for Directed Verdict(s), and the Judge charges the Jury as such, then the Jury is able to convict or acquit on the top charge, and convict on any of the possibly several other lesser charges, or fail to convict on any of them.
That would be nice. This is just a poll thread and, as such, it stands alone. However, it would be nice if discussion of the minutiae stayed in the other thread.
I find it interesting that the judge has been so interested in her texts (and the deleted ones) that they are allowed into testimony. She was off duty, her mental state is allowed to be where ever she wants it! Or are we supposed to not allow 'sluts' in the DPD? Definitely trying to kick a downed dog. That is the real problem with the case. No change of venue, no delay allowed, selecting evidence to be shown to the jury. The LE that shot the car lot guy (when he began his attack) was fired IIRC for not following policy of waiting for backup - but his partner was on the scene. So just wait for swat to come and have a gun battle in an apartment? Too many possible scenarios to afternoon quarterback! Which is what the prosecutor is doing. We want the Fl boss to never get another LE job as his training program caused kids to be killed, yet the same training and rules apply here? Oh, double tap is standard practice.
