Oh this is good. Dallas PD cop kills man

[F350-6]

......
Now, after she's had months to consider her actions and how they were perceived, after she's had time to go over her testimony with legal experts, it's utterly gobsmacking that she's still continuing to make mistakes!

Just how stupid is she?

I agree. But how many times can her lawyers make the same mistake? How many times has she sat down to talk over her testimony?

Her lawyers seem to be idiots for putting her on the stand without coaching her better. I wonder if these lawyers are provided by the police union, or if she hired them herself?

Two shots were fired, one of which missed.

If she really had been trying to "kill him," she would have emptied her magazine into him.

I wonder if her lawyers are smart enough to bring this up and say she misspoke because she was so emotional and crying and such.

I was thinking about this as I was casting bullets today. Perhaps she knew exactly what see was saying. It's possible she thinks she should be punished for what happened.

Wouldn't she have just plead guilty then? Why the trial?

I think she lied about CPR.

Or someone can explain to me how you can zero blood on your body, clothes, gear while performing chest compressions on guy whose bullet hole is right where your hands are.

If the victim was not bleeding from the entry wound, that could be an explanation. I have no idea if or how much the victim bled, but some entrance wounds are self sealing so to speak.

 

[El Spicoli]

Any updates from today? I was out and about today and didn't watch/hear the news.

 

[Renegade]

Only 007 has a license to KILL.

Actually, all '00' are licensed to kill. Not just 007.

 

[Renegade]

So, those 889 deaths are ok with you?
Do you think they or their families feel any better knowing they are such a small percentage?

Or just because the killer didn't use a knife or gun that it was ok?
What about the number of folks disfigured or crippled by beatings?
Are you ok with those too?
What about someone that breaks in and just wants to beat and/or rape someone and doesn't have a gun? Are you good with that to?

You seem to be.
You keep making excuses as to why a person should never use deadly force to defend against someone that doesn't have a gun.

Why dont you just shoot anyone who looks at you, just in case.

 

[Renegade]

Any updates from today? I was out and about today and didn't watch/hear the news.

Armstrong was back on stand, covering mindset. It was short day.

 

[JColumbus]

That's ONE way to make your mother rich. Poor guy had to lose his life, but momma's about to be paid, considering what we know right now.

 

[innominate]

Absolutely not. Good chance that was his personal stash. I was attempting to present "what she saw" in the worst possible light. Still, no way she chose to murder him and throw her life away.

That amount was personal use. Even if had his grinder and one hitter on the table she would not have noticed it if she was terrified for her life. Just my opinion

 

[Renegade]

If the victim was not bleeding from the entry wound, that could be an explanation. I have no idea if or how much the victim bled, but some entrance wounds are self sealing so to speak.

His shirt was soaked in blood and there was a pool of blood on the floor, according to testimony.

 

[Vaquero]

That's ONE way to make your mother rich off of tax money. Poor guy had to lose his life, but momma's about to be paid, considering what we know right now.

Fify.

 

[candcallen]

Why would his mama get paid because of the actions of an off duty police officer?







That's rhetorical by they way as they will probably settle just to avoid the circus that would come from fighting it. Still the city and taxpayers should have no liability due to the actions of an off duty police officer who wasnt even doing off duty overtime work or acting as a police officer in any way or whose actions rise to criminal negligence way outside the scope of policy procedures or training. Still I'm sure most on a jury would disagree as she was still in uniform. I also dont know the city's policy on such things, wearing uniforms off duty, but lockers and trunks are handy in such instances.

Side bar...
I never wore a uniform off duty and rarely on the way to work, only in a tac call out where getting there was an issue or going to a range with no changing facilities etc, and almost never after work. Nor did I have a visible badge showing on a belt neck or wallet type holder. Only used those for times when you were conducting official buisness without a uniform. No reason to advertise.

Also, wearing such stuff, it gives every person with a hard on because they felt you took their parking space or drove too fast or slow or looked at them in a manner they didnt like a place to go if they wanted to screw with you. I once had the land lady call because I was in uniform carrying a couple guns to the car on the way to the range and dared to stop at my mailbox on the way to the car.

Also, this opinion below has nothing to do with this situation, employers have way too much latitude to discipline and fire people for off duty actions and speech if they are in no way acting as a rep of the company, i.e. not wearing uniforms or driving a company vehicle with the name on it etc. Obviously there are exceptions to this, but allowing the outrage addicts to conduct scorched earth campaigns based on disagreements over constitutionally protected rights needs to stop.
Side bar done, back to the regularly listed topic.

 

[jrbfishn]

Why dont you just shoot anyone who looks at you, just in case.

That is about what I expected from you.

Nothing relevant.

Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[TheDan]

...just concentrate on the literal meanings of the words being thrown at me and answer the questions with the truth.
...
What kind of stupid, weak-willed person can't manage that? Well, Amber couldn't and I don't understand why.

I am being sincere when I ask everyone here - If you can explain it to me, I'd love to understand.

Severe lack of situational awareness. Possibly even a disconnect from reality.

 

[ed308]

Of course, maybe the lawyers did everything right and she just screwed up on the stand. That's entirely possible. She's certainly proven that she's stupid enough.

I'm assuming you given a deposition in the past? And likely testified at trial? I think you probably have. Doesn't matter how prepared or smart you are. Against a skilled litigator, you're at a distinct disadvantage unless you've done it hundreds on times and are also skilled. Add to the fact of what happen, she was skillfully trapped and said some things she probably shouldn't have said when she testified. Additionally, who wouldn't be emotional in her position? Very few. She pulled the trigger that killed an innocent person. You better be on your toes in a depo or trial, since other side is going to try and make you out to be the worst person to walk on this planet. I'm sure the Defense team expected it would happen and will clean it up at some point. I'm sure they'll also hammer it home to the jury during their Closing.

 

[benenglish]

I'm assuming you given a deposition in the past? And likely testified at trial? I think you probably have.

Yes and yes, many times.

who wouldn't be emotional in her position?

This is the key thing. I've commented repeatedly on the failure of her team to prep her. Part of that prep is going over testimony enough times and harshly enough so that most (not all; she needs to seem human) of the emotion gets exorcised from her testimony. She should have been prepped well enough to be visibly emotional without saying something stupid.

The more I ruminate on this state of affairs, the less I blame her and the more I blame her lawyers for not sufficiently preparing her.

 

[Dad_Roman]

.....aaaand the defense rests.


Sent from out at da Prison using Tapatalk

 

[BillFairbanks]

Yes and yes, many times.

This is the key thing. I've commented repeatedly on the failure of her team to prep her. Part of that prep is going over testimony enough times and harshly enough so that most (not all; she needs to seem human) of the emotion gets exorcised from her testimony. She should have been prepped well enough to be visibly emotional without saying something stupid.

The more I ruminate on this state of affairs, the less I blame her and the more I blame her lawyers for not sufficiently preparing her.

By admitting she meant to kill him, I’d think it would take the possibility of lesser charges off the table.

IMO, it should be murder or not guilty. The jury may have been more willing to consider a lesser charge.

I hope I’m not in Dallas if a not guilty verdict is read.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kar98]

By admitting she meant to kill him, I’d think it would take the possibility of lesser charges off the table.

IMO, it should be murder or not guilty. The jury may have been more willing to consider a lesser charge.

I hope I’m not in Dallas if a not guilty verdict is read.

Eh. There's gonna be riots either way.

 

[kbaxter60]

....aaaand the defense rests.

What? No poll to ask how long they will deliberate?

 

[benenglish]

By admitting she meant to kill him, I’d think it would take the possibility of lesser charges off the table.

Are you implying that her testimony was a deliberate gamble? If so, that would be a strategy to make Machiavelli proud.

 

[TheDan]

Are you implying that her testimony was a deliberate gamble? If so, that would be a strategy to make Machiavelli proud.

Maybe her lawyers are "good" after all...