Dallas Police Officer goes home to the wrong apartment, kills man inside !!

In the Trumpian world it’s so easy for a white to take a black life Originally Posted by redhot11

Except the fact that more of these incidents happened during Obama's presidency.

herp derp

No, you cannot shoot someone for mere trespassing. This is especially true outside your home. So if you kill the minivan lady, you’ll need to decide your prison menu and rates. Originally Posted by cjoll

for the record, I did not imply that.. I said given that someone was on my property uninvited and unwanted, it is POSSIBLE I could pick her off, legally.. there would need to be more, just like with Amber, a feeling my life was in jeopardy, and maybe a little reason to justify my feeling.

This judge is biased because the victim is black and she is black.


She is derailing the defense case and impeding Guyger's right to a fair trial.


Second time she blocked the jury from hearing testimony that can affect the jury's verdict.


https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/sp...7-3d69aff27eb4

Day 6 testimony:

The day in court started with a 705 hearing for Craig Miller, a retired chief deputy from the Dallas Police Department, and use of force expert who has testified in other cases.
Miller served with DPD for almost 30 years before taking the chief job for the DISD police department.
The defense asked for Miller's expertise on a number of topics in the hearing, but the judge ruled that he would only be able to speak on a narrow set of topics. Following the hearing, he was not called to the stand to testify in front of the jury Saturday.

The FIRST time the judge did that was here:


https://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=106...&postcount=400

This judge is biased because the victim is black and she is black.


She is derailing the defense case and impeding Guyger's right to a fair trial.


Second time she blocked the jury from hearing testimony that can affect the jury's verdict.


https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/sp...7-3d69aff27eb4





The FIRST time the judge did that was here:


https://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=106...&postcount=400 Originally Posted by CG2014

this isn't bias... this is normal. A judge, unless a hearing occurs before trial starts, will qualify a proposed "expert" before the jury is allowed to hear. This happens in all cases unless the opposing attorney is garbage and doesn't object to the testimony and just allows it in.

The only racism is you bro, yeah there's a lot of people demanding her head because she's white, but the judge isn't doing anything out of the norm. Just because someone is a cop doesn't mean they are a use of force expert. Usually to be an expert you must have experience in the area you intend to opine, here that would be specific use of force research, evaluations, certifications etc. It's similar to requiring an architect to opine on a design and not letting civil, mechanical, or structural engineers. They work in the same industry but cannot opine as to what each of the others do, should do, or what a reasonable similarly qualified professional would have done.

Most use of force experts are retired cops, but they will have gone beyond that and specialized themselves.

Look up Daubert and E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Inc. v. Robinson for qualifying an expert. Then Kumho Tire for qualifying non-scientific experts. Once you actually understand how the process works, revisit the current case and see if you are still of the opinion that "black lady is bad because black."

this isn't bias... this is normal. A judge, unless a hearing occurs before trial starts, will qualify a proposed "expert" before the jury is allowed to hear. This happens in all cases unless the opposing attorney is garbage and doesn't object to the testimony and just allows it in.

The only racism is you bro, yeah there's a lot of people demanding her head because she's white, but the judge isn't doing anything out of the norm. Just because someone is a cop doesn't mean they are a use of force expert. Usually to be an expert you must have experience in the area you intend to opine, here that would be specific use of force research, evaluations, certifications etc. It's similar to requiring an architect to opine on a design and not letting civil, mechanical, or structural engineers. They work in the same industry but cannot opine as to what each of the others do, should do, or what a reasonable similarly qualified professional would have done.

Most use of force experts are retired cops, but they will have gone beyond that and specialized themselves.

Look up Daubert and E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Inc. v. Robinson for qualifying an expert. Then Kumho Tire for qualifying non-scientific experts. Once you actually understand how the process works, revisit the current case and see if you are still of the opinion that "black lady is bad because black." Originally Posted by cjoll

Read Daubert, Khumho Tire, and Robinson? Don’t be ridiculous! He’s rather spout off ignorant opinions. The law can’t be nuanced and difficult to understand and apply to individual cases!! If it was, how could Joe Sixpack think he knew as much about the law as a seasoned trial lawyer? How boring would that be!!

AGAIN:


Convictions have been overturned on appeals years later because Judges and Prosecutors during the original trial withheld information from the jury


or did not allow the jury to hear testimony in exactly the same way this judge has already done twice.

She is out to convict Guyger with any means necessary because of political pressure and pressure from her own community.

Just stating the facts based on what is reported on the news.

AGAIN:


Convictions have been overturned on appeals years later because Judges and Prosecutors during the original trial withheld information from the jury


or did not allow the jury to hear testimony in exactly the same way this judge has already done twice.

She is out to convict Guyger with any means necessary because of political pressure and pressure from her own community.

Just stating the facts based on what is reported on the news. Originally Posted by CG2014

You're wrong. An appellate court must find the exclusion was an abuse if discretion; an arbitrary or unreasonable decision. Just because a jury didn't hear something doesn't mean the case is in jeopardy. Again, experts are excluded all the time, yet convictions are not overturned all the time. You'd think those lawyers would know how to handle this better than you. Of course I could be wrong, after all you are able to read the judge's mind to know she's a turrible turrible biased black lady despite any evidence of such.

anyone want to weight in on this? I heard from an experienced Trial Attorney that the Prosecution erred big time, getting Amber to say straight up that she intended to kill Botham Jean. by her doing that, he said, that nullifies any chance of finding her guilty of less than murder, IF the Jury follows legal instructions properly.

I'm thinking the defense understood this point, because Amber was emphatic saying she intended to kill. they surely want a murder-or-nothing judgement.

^^^ I've heard about that too!

The prosecutor badgered her on the witness stand until she broke down


and she said things that they wanted her to say and not the facts of what truly happened.

Cops do that too in interrogation and have been known to get confessions out of innocent folks.


Confessions that have resulted in Murder conviction which resulted in life in prison and even death row.

Remember the Central Park Five?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Park_jogger_case

All fake confession made by the 5 innocent kids and obtained by the Police under constant badgering and coercion and threat by the Police


while depriving them of sleep, food, water, and even restroom breaks.

ah yes, the Central Park 5..

the Fellows Trump insisted were guilty, long after evidence absolved them of the charges!

Yes our beloved President of the USA...

https://www.newsweek.com/when-they-s...p-said-1437534

I know someone ( not a cop) who lived in a walk up apartment
in Santa Monica, Ca.

He came home from working a long shift to find his front door
ajar. He immediately left the area, in case someone was still there. He waited a while where he could see his door. He cautiously decided to go back when it seemed quiet.

It turned out that the cops had come in and completely upended the place, looking for his room mate. Mattresses thrown around, clothes flung out of the closet, he just assumed it was a break in until he noticed a detectives business card. He called, and was told that the detective was gone for the weekend and would get back to him later.

First of all, Amber Guyger should have retreated and called for backup. Being that it is a hole in the wall apartment in tight quarters, anyone with half a brain would know shooting a potential suspect could easily end up sending a bullet thru a wall into another apartment. Second of all, her apartment was not the lap of luxury. I doubt she had anything so precious in that apartment that it was worth killing someone over. The "Flats" are similar to a dormitory. Not an appropriate place to start shooting away at anyone.

I think the judge is awesome. I think she is extremely diligent and professional regarding both sides. She is not allowing the evidence that Guyger was sexting her partner two days AFTERWARD and that Guyger went on a cruise AFTERWARD. If I were on the jury, I would want to know that. They will not. That is a fair and impartial judge for sure. The D.A. is a piece of crap who needs to go. The Dallas P.D. tried everything imaginable to stop this case from going to trial. Dallas P.D. has had morale problems for years. It is not exactly a secret. They do not have the budget of better funded departments to recruit and pay officers.

Even thought this is a police officer case, I see it as similar to a
parent or family member accidentally shooting another family member in the house due to a bad surprise. I read in the news once that a parent shot their grown kid who had jumped out in front as a joke.
parent is packing
in the house and pulls the trigger to find out too late. Some people have inappropriate reactions while armed. That is why we have such an alarming amount of accidental unintentional homicides in our country. Also why so many people here get shot by strangers for no good. Guns are lethal, and people make mistakes and/or split second decisions using them sometimes.

The most dangerous calls police answer are domestic violence households.
This very common scenario makes it suck majorly to be a police officer.
Maybe it is time to seriously convict and jail people who threaten the
lives of others with guns and violence instead of locking people up
for stupid non violent stuff. I do not blame the police one bit
for being on edge answering calls. Too many damn lethal guns in
the wrong damn hands, thanks to the NRA of the past 25 years
insisting that cops be outgunned and out fire powered by criminals.

I only feel sorry for Amber because the prosecutor pinned murder on her when it’s obvious that’s not the case. Then the prosecutor talked to the media when instructed not to. This cheap shot should be used for a monster. Not a dim wit. And if she is sentenced I wonder how many additional years she will get just to appease the masses to minimize rioting. Originally Posted by FunMonday

Who cares about rioting? Lock that bitch up and throw away the key.

Too many buckra ofays on this site. On some stormfront shit. Dumb bitch was too focused on married dick and completely ignored all her training just to shoot someone. Didn't even try to render aid.

anyone want to weight in on this? I heard from an experienced Trial Attorney that the Prosecution erred big time, getting Amber to say straight up that she intended to kill Botham Jean. by her doing that, he said, that nullifies any chance of finding her guilty of less than murder, IF the Jury follows legal instructions properly.

I'm thinking the defense understood this point, because Amber was emphatic saying she intended to kill. they surely want a murder-or-nothing judgement. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Maybe, but it also helps get a conviction for murder if you think that’s what the DA really wants. I’m not sure that’s true, but it’s at least the stated aim of the State. I’m not sure they didn’t deliberately overcharge her hyoping she’d be acquitted.

I cannot believe that she did not have any drugs or alcohol in her system. I still say she had to be impaired to go to the wrong apartment, with a red mat out front.