Tdallas Police Officer Found Guilty Of Murder

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/am...xUh?li=BBnb7Kz

We all remember when this happened. Off duty Police Woman enters what she thought was her apartment, saw what she thought was an intruder, and shot him dead.

At the time, all sorts of theory's erupted. Did the man, who was black, defile her in some way? Was there something going on that would have caused her to have cause to shoot him.

In the end, as sworn testimony brought out, she simply was on the wrong floor, entered the wrong apartment, and shot dead a man she thought was an intruder.

How did someone this reckless ever get to be a police officer? It turns, out, she was preoccupied with her lover, another police officer who happens to be married. She had a lot on her mind, so much so that she got off on the wrong floor. She saw the door partially open, and apparently without thinking, went in and killed the man.

Sure, it's not really that simple. But that is the outcome.

Now comes the punishment. Was the case overcharged. I think not. She was a police officer. She has a responsibility to not act in such a reckless manner.

I predict 20 years to life.

it was reckless but not premeditated

justice is unequally applied at times mostly due to political considerations

30 Years...or being forced to attend 5 Trump rallies

30 Years...or being forced to attend 5 Trump rallies Originally Posted by matchingmole

Thank you for trivializing a very serious topic where an innocent Black Man lost his life.

I thought she was overcharged and that was due to political considerations regarding blacks.


should have been charged with involuntary manslaughter.


wouldn't surprise me if the defense appealed the decision.

Was the case overcharged. I think not. She was a police officer. She has a responsibility to not act in such a reckless manner.

I predict 20 years to life. Originally Posted by Jackie S

it was reckless but not premeditated
Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

it was not reckless, though.. negligent, yes, but not reckless. if she was reckless, it would be that she shot wildly, not knowing or caring if anyone was hit.. Amber knew AND intended to kill Botham Jean. no recklessness there.

should have been charged with involuntary manslaughter.

wouldn't surprise me if the defense appealed the decision. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

I would have given manslaughter over murder, but criminal negligence was the right sentence.. I don't know why the Judge didn't include that, but if I was a conspiracy theorist, I would say it wasn't, because Amber had a greater chance of acquittal with criminal negligence off the table. they will definitely appeal, and Amber has a strong case to win on appeal.. but even if she does, that is years away, she would have already served a proper sentence.. which by the way, given the murder rap, should be the minimum 5 years.. and I predict that is what she will get.

reckless -lack of care or caution

please!

negligent concerns duty mostly

as in a duty to do something but was negligent

usually I let something like this go by but it was too much given the perception I have of you

reckless -lack of care or caution

please!

negligent concerns duty mostly

as in a duty to do something but was negligent Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

I see you like to apply spin in law as you do politics.. try this PROPER definition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recklessness_(law)

here's your negligence from the link you provided

Carelessness (also known as negligence): failing to exercise due diligence to prevent the actus reus that caused the harm from occurring - rarely used in criminal law, often encountered in regulatory offenses (e.g. careless driving) or in the civil law tort of negligence - these are known as strict liability offenses.

relates to duty

did you even read the link?

here's your negligence from the link you provided

Carelessness (also known as negligence): failing to exercise due diligence to prevent the actus reus that caused the harm from occurring - rarely used in criminal law, often encountered in regulatory offenses (e.g. careless driving) or in the civil law tort of negligence - these are known as strict liability offenses.

relates to duty

did you even read the link? Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

yes, I read it.. confirms exactly my position. do you not have your MAGA thinking cap on this morning?

cant debate someone who exhibits lack of goodwill within the discussion

moving on

I think she was overcharged.


.

I think she was overcharged.


. Originally Posted by WTF

for once you are right

things become political and go off the rails

for once you are right
Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

If true, that would be once more than you!

stop with the gif's, or whatever they are, they are annoying

well maybe that's what you mean to be, annoying

I recall I used to call you Mister Mxyzptlk

still fits