Amber Guyger convicted

by Original Quill Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:05 pm

First topic message reminder :

Associated Press wrote:Jury convicts ex-police officer who fatally shot neighbor

JAKE BLEIBERG, Associated Press
October 1, 2019

DALLAS (AP) — A white former Dallas police officer who said she fatally shot her unarmed, black neighbor after mistaking his apartment for her own was found guilty of murder on Tuesday.

A jury reached the verdict in Amber Guyger's high-profile trial for the killing of Botham Jean after six days of witness testimony but just a handful of hours of deliberation.

Cheers erupted in the courthouse as the verdict was announced, and someone yelled "Thank you, Jesus!" In the hallway outside the courtroom where Guyger was tried, a crowd celebrated and said "black lives matter" in raised voices. When the prosecutors walked into the hall, they broke into cheers.

Guyger sat alone, weeping, at the defense table.

In Texas, the sentence for murder is from five to 99 years in prison. The jury is expected to return Tuesday afternoon to hear additional testimony before setting Guyger's punishment within that range.

Family members are expected to testify about how they were affected by Jean's killing, and Guyger's defense attorneys can argue that she deserves a light sentence because she acted out of sudden fear and confusion. The judge is expected to provide guidance on sentencing law. It is unclear how long the punishment phase of the trial will last.

The basic facts of the unusual shooting were not in dispute throughout the trial. In September 2018, Guyger walked up to Jean's apartment — which was on the fourth floor, directly above hers on the third — and found the door unlocked. She was off duty but still dressed in her police uniform after a long shift when she shot Jean with her service weapon. The 26-year-old accountant had been eating a bowl of ice cream before Guyger entered his home.

Jean, who grew up in the Caribbean island nation of St. Lucia, came to the U.S. for college before starting his career as an accountant. His shooting drew widespread attention because of the strange circumstances and because it was one in a string of shootings of unarmed black men by white police officers.

"A 26-year-old college-educated black man, certified public accountant, working for one of the big three accounting firms in the world ... it shouldn't take all of that for unarmed black and brown people in America to get justice," Benjamin Crump, one of the lawyer's for Jean's family, said at a news conference.

Crump said the verdict honors other people of color who were killed by police officers who were not convicted of a crime.

Attorney Lee Merritt, who also represents the family, underlined Crump's words.

"This is a huge victory, not only for the family of Botham Jean, but this is a victory for black people in America. It's a signal that the tide is going to change here. Police officers are going to be held accountable for their actions, and we believe that will begin to change policing culture around the world," Merritt said.

The jury that convicted Guyger was largely made up of women and people of color.

The verdict also diffused tensions that began simmering Monday when jurors were told they could consider whether Guyger had a right to use deadly force under a Texas law known as the castle doctrine — even though she wasn't in her own home.

The law is similar to "stand your ground" measures across the U.S. that states a person has no duty to retreat from an intruder. Prosecutor Jason Fine told jurors that while the law would have empowered Jean to shoot someone barging into his apartment, it doesn't apply "the other way around."

Guyger was arrested three days after the killing. She was later fired and charged with murder , but only spoke publicly about the shooting upon taking the witness stand last Friday. Tension has been high during the trial in Dallas, the same city where an attack three years ago killed five police officers.

The 31-year-old tearfully apologized for killing Jean and told the jurors she feared for her life upon finding the door to what she thought was her apartment unlocked. Guyger said that Jean came toward her at a fast walk when she entered with her gun out, but prosecutors have suggested he was just rising from a couch toward the back of the room when the officer shot him.

In a frantic 911 call played repeatedly during the trial, Guyger said "I thought it was my apartment" nearly 20 times. Her lawyers argued that the identical physical appearance of the apartment complex from floor to floor frequently led to tenants to the wrong apartments.

Prosecutors, however, questioned how Guyger could have missed numerous signs that she was in the wrong place, and suggested she was distracted by sexually explicit phone messages with her police partner.

They also asked why Guyger didn't radio in for help when she thought there was a break-in at her home. Guyger said that going through the doorway with her pistol drawn, "was the only option that went through my head."

___

Associated Press writer Jill Bleed in Little Rock, Arkansas, contributed this this report.

Ben, couldn't find the old thread on this murder. Either your search doesn't work or it has been removed. Anyway, if you can find it, feel free to join this thread with it.

I still believe this was a hit, and Amber Guyger was a hitman for, if not the mafia, some syndicate willing to engage in such things. No one forgets their way home. No one walks into another person's home and doesn't recognize that it isn't their own. The furniture, pictures, even the smell is different. Finally, no one shoots an unarmed person without provocation...lord knows, especially a police officer who has undergone extensive training.

She was either high on Meth, or it was capital murder.

She's lucky it is only manslaughter. She will be out in a year or two, if the judge doesn't grant her leniency as a police officer. But, trust me, it was a hit. The victim was a CPA, looking into various financial matters...always a risky matter. Could be that he stumbled onto something.

But because the victim was black, and Amber is white, and this is the south...well, you know the rest.

by Original Quill Fri Oct 11, 2019 12:29 am

phildidge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

To feel fear, is not to act on fear. That's precisely what is trained out of recruits. They are taught to substitute for fear, their training as to situations that arise.

Guyger was coached before taking the stand. Pay close attention to words. They are crucial, in a legal context.

You cannot train people to overcome fear in the heat of the moment
As nobody can predict how people will react when facing a fear or a perceived fear. That they believe could cost their lives
So you have not the first clue what you are talking about
When fear takes over and adrenaline kicks in. Its not something you can control. Its biological
Its flight or fight

That is stupid nonsense.

by Guest Fri Oct 11, 2019 12:32 am

Original Quill wrote:
phildidge wrote:

You cannot train people to overcome fear in the heat of the moment
As nobody can predict how people will react when facing a fear or a perceived fear. That they believe could cost their lives
So you have not the first clue what you are talking about
When fear takes over and adrenaline kicks in. Its not something you can control. Its biological
Its flight or fight

That is stupid nonsense.

Of course you would think that being as you are cluelsss on biology.

by Original Quill Fri Oct 11, 2019 12:39 am

Are you saying the parasympathetic nervous system blocks or overrides choice or learning? I told you it was stupid!

by Guest Fri Oct 11, 2019 12:45 am

Original Quill wrote:Are you saying the parasympathetic nervous system blocks or overrides choice or learning? I told you it was stupid!

Adrenaline triggers the body's fight-or-flight response. This reaction causes air passages to dilate to provide the muscles with the oxygen they need to either fight danger or flee. Adrenaline also triggers the blood vessels to contract to re-direct blood toward major muscle groups, including the heart and lungs. The body's ability to feel pain also decreases as a result of adrenaline, which is why you can continue running from or fighting danger even when injured. Adrenaline causes a noticeable increase in strength and performance, as well as heightened awareness, in stressful times. After the stress has subsided, adrenaline’s effect can last for up to an hour.

Hence why you can train soldiers for years and when facing combat some will fight and some will turn tail, as their adrenaline kicks in through fear

Again simple biology

Hence you can train people as best you can, but in reality what it falls down to is whether fear sets in or not through adrenaline

This is why you are an ignorant fuckwit

by gelico Fri Oct 11, 2019 3:04 am

Original Quill wrote:
gelico wrote:

what result if a black man walked into the home of a white woman, and shot her dead. Don't bother. We both know the answer.

Now, here is a city--need I mention, it is in the south?--where the city police, state police, and the prosecutor all buy the admitted murder's story. No questions asked? Again, what result if the murderer had been black, and the victim had been white?

Here, a much more serious issue, is living proof that black discrimination still exists.

Not about race, you say?

Yes. You need to understand about examples.

Oh, I understand examples, quill and i get why you used them.

personally, i happen to agree with you on your theory. i'm not saying you're definitely right but it's most certainly possible given the circumstances

at the very least it would make a great book

by Original Quill Fri Oct 11, 2019 3:33 am

gelico wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Yes. You need to understand about examples.

Oh, I understand examples, quill and i get why you used them.

personally, i happen to agree with you on your theory. i'm not saying you're definitely right but it's most certainly possible given the circumstances

at the very least it would make a great book

That's all I'm saying, gels. The theory of this case by the State of Texas stinks. Something more is afoot. It has to do with the weakness of Guyger's defense narrative. One doesn't forget what your own home looks like. Evil or Very Mad

by gelico Fri Oct 11, 2019 3:38 am

Original Quill wrote:
gelico wrote:

Oh, I understand examples, quill and i get why you used them.

personally, i happen to agree with you on your theory. i'm not saying you're definitely right but it's most certainly possible given the circumstances

at the very least it would make a great book

That's all I'm saying, gels. The theory of this case by the State of Texas stinks. Something more is afoot. It has to do with the weakness of Guyger's defense narrative. One doesn't forget what your own home looks like.

i don't suppose you've got link to the court documents of this case? it would be really interesting to read specifically which questions were asked and the answers given. I know what the media says and all. The only thing we have from Brown was that he heard voices then two shots. he couldn't even here what was said

there is definitely something about this that just doesn't feel right

by Original Quill Fri Oct 11, 2019 3:55 am

gelico wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

That's all I'm saying, gels. The theory of this case by the State of Texas stinks. Something more is afoot. It has to do with the weakness of Guyger's defense narrative. One doesn't forget what your own home looks like.

i don't suppose you've got link to the court documents of this case? it would be really interesting to read specifically which questions were asked and the answers given. I know what the media says and all. The only thing we have from Brown was that he heard voices then two shots. he couldn't even here what was said

there is definitely something about this that just doesn't feel right

I've already posted Brown's testimony via You tube. He was squirrely, which makes me wonder. But the real clue is the total vacuousness of Guyger's testimony. This is the person, herself, describing events. Who doesn't remember her own home? Who shoots and kills another human being with that kind of brief confusion? Especially, a trained police officer.

I know, as a former prosecutor myself. Who acts like that? I was an Assistant Attorney General in Arizona, and I would have nailed her for intentional murder. Texas went easy on her, and that is why...???

by gelico Fri Oct 11, 2019 4:03 am

Original Quill wrote:
gelico wrote:

i don't suppose you've got link to the court documents of this case? it would be really interesting to read specifically which questions were asked and the answers given. I know what the media says and all. The only thing we have from Brown was that he heard voices then two shots. he couldn't even here what was said

there is definitely something about this that just doesn't feel right

I've already posted Brown's testimony via You tube. He was squirrely, which makes me wonder. But the real clue is the total vacuousness of Guyger's testimony. This is the person, herself, describing events. Who doesn't remember her own home? Who shoots and kills another human being with that kind of brief confusion? Especially, a trained police officer.

I know, as a former prosecutor myself. Who acts like that? I was an Assistant Attorney General in Arizona, and I would have nailed her for intentional murder. Texas went easy on her, and that is why...???

could you post a link here for me?.i had a look on youtube but all i could find was videos about his murder. i'd like to see it and also guygers as well.

by Original Quill Fri Oct 11, 2019 4:28 am

gelico wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I've already posted Brown's testimony via You tube. He was squirrely, which makes me wonder. But the real clue is the total vacuousness of Guyger's testimony. This is the person, herself, describing events. Who doesn't remember her own home? Who shoots and kills another human being with that kind of brief confusion? Especially, a trained police officer.

I know, as a former prosecutor myself. Who acts like that? I was an Assistant Attorney General in Arizona, and I would have nailed her for intentional murder. Texas went easy on her, and that is why...???

could you post a link here for me?.i had a look on youtube but all i could find was videos about his murder. i'd like to see it and also guygers as well.

You see, when it isn't a newsworthy fact, they don't publish it. These are my questions, and the evidence of a lack of answers.

Start with the fact that this woman killed a person. Now, ask why? She gives a weak, weak answer. The ball is in her court. She has no answer.

This leaves you free to speculate. She's a police officer, presumably well trained. So she kills a person. It's either legitimate or not. What?

The question settles on, why did she shoot an unarmed man in his own abode. Without an legitimate justification, she has no defense?

by Ben Reilly Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:21 pm

I'll be interested in following the trials of the men accused of killing Brown.

by Guest Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:26 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:I'll be interested in following the trials of the men accused of killing Brown.

Really?

And how often are you interested in the murder of someone in a drug related crime out of interest?

by Ben Reilly Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:29 pm

phildidge wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:I'll be interested in following the trials of the men accused of killing Brown.

Really?

And how often are you interested in the murder of someone in a drug related crime out of interest?

Whenever I think it might have something to do with a corrupt police department.

I know you think that police should have license to be corrupt and act outside the bounds of the law, but I, unlike you, believe in human rights. The only way to ensure that human rights of black people like Brown are protected is to stand up to people like you, who don't want to keep the police honest.

by Guest Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:36 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
phildidge wrote:

Really?

And how often are you interested in the murder of someone in a drug related crime out of interest?

Whenever I think it might have something to do with a corrupt police department.

I know you think that police should have license to be corrupt and act outside the bounds of the law, but I, unlike you, believe in human rights. The only way to ensure that human rights of black people like Brown are protected is to stand up to people like you, who don't want to keep the police honest.

1) At what point did I ever offer a view that the Police should have a liense to be corrupt?

Lets start with this and show to me how in anyway I backed such a view?

If not eoither apologise or crawled back under the paranoid rock you crawled under from

2) I never discount anything but what i dispair is when people like yourself and quill form a view that is from a bias you hold of the Police. As there is no evidence here of any of your claims and yet you have both formed a paranoia. I am certainly open to the possibility of being wrong but your first claim is how bad? Peopkle like yourself have been indoctrinated to immediately presumme corruption of the Police

3) How bad is that when millions of officers daily put their lives on the lines and I have some half wit fuckit okey from texas be paranoid and does this based on no other evidence than some halfwit calfifornian also being paranoid?

by Ben Reilly Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:41 pm

phildidge wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:
phildidge wrote:

Really?

And how often are you interested in the murder of someone in a drug related crime out of interest?

Whenever I think it might have something to do with a corrupt police department.

I know you think that police should have license to be corrupt and act outside the bounds of the law, but I, unlike you, believe in human rights. The only way to ensure that human rights of black people like Brown are protected is to stand up to people like you, who don't want to keep the police honest.

1) At what point did I ever offer a view that the Police should have a liense to be corrupt?

Lets start with this and show to me how in anyway I backed such a view?

If not eoither apologise or crawled back under the paranoid rock you crawled under from

2) I never discount anything but what i dispair is when people like yourself and quill form a view that is from a bias you hold of the Police. As there is no evidence here of any of your claims and yet you have both formed a paranoia. I am certainly open to the possibility of being wrong but your first claim is how bad? Peopkle like yourself have been indoctrinated to immediately presumme corruption of the Police

3) How bad is that when millions of officers daily put their lives on the lines and I have some half wit fuckit okey from texas be paranoid and does this based on no other evidence than some halfwit calfifornian also being paranoid?

I see you're not smart enough to realize that millions of good police officers in no way cancel out the dozens (or more) of corrupt ones, or freedom-loving enough to realize that the only way to keep the people we pay to enforce the law from turning into the sort of jack-booted Nazis you masturbate over is to constantly be vigilant of their every action.

And you're incredibly naive to think that the sheer suspicious nature of this murder isn't cause enough to investigate any possible police involvement.

Also, what's a fuckit okey? You sound like you're pants-pissing drunk yet again.

by Guest Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:49 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
phildidge wrote:

1) At what point did I ever offer a view that the Police should have a liense to be corrupt?

Lets start with this and show to me how in anyway I backed such a view?

If not eoither apologise or crawled back under the paranoid rock you crawled under from

2) I never discount anything but what i dispair is when people like yourself and quill form a view that is from a bias you hold of the Police. As there is no evidence here of any of your claims and yet you have both formed a paranoia. I am certainly open to the possibility of being wrong but your first claim is how bad? Peopkle like yourself have been indoctrinated to immediately presumme corruption of the Police

3) How bad is that when millions of officers daily put their lives on the lines and I have some half wit fuckit okey from texas be paranoid and does this based on no other evidence than some halfwit calfifornian also being paranoid?

I see you're not smart enough to realize that millions of good police officers in no way cancel out the dozens (or more) of corrupt ones, or freedom-loving enough to realize that the only way to keep the people we pay to enforce the law from turning into the sort of jack-booted Nazis you masturbate over is to constantly be vigilant of their every action.

And you're incredibly naive to think that the sheer suspicious nature of this murder isn't cause enough to investigate any possible police involvement.

Also, what's a fuckit okey? You sound like you're pants-pissing drunk yet again.

I am going to change the above on your reasoning to apply to other people to show how wrong you are:

I see you're not smart enough to realize that millions of good black people in no way cancel out the dozens (or more) of corrupt ones

]I see you're not smart enough to realize that millions of good Muslim people in no way cancel out the dozens (or more) of corrupt ones

Ben just argued in favour of nazism, racism etc

by Ben Reilly Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:53 pm

So you don't think that there are good and bad people to be found in every group, Didge? That's interesting. Sounds to me like you're the racist Nazi, actually.

Just because there are some good cops doesn't mean we allow them to run roughshod over the freedoms you hate so much. They have a lot of power, after all.

I know you're used to the practically inconsequential police forces of the UK. You probably didn't know this, but in America, there are a lot more police officers, and they all carry guns. Some of them even have access to really powerful guns.

Now that you know that, I'll give you a chance to correct yourself.

by Guest Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:01 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:So you don't think that there are good and bad people to be found in every group, Didge? That's interesting. Sounds to me like you're the racist Nazi, actually.

Just because there are some good cops doesn't mean we allow them to run roughshod over the freedoms you hate so much. They have a lot of power, after all.

I know you're used to the practically inconsequential police forces of the UK. You probably didn't know this, but in America, there are a lot more police officers, and they all carry guns. Some of them even have access to really powerful guns.

Now that you know that, I'll give you a chance to correct yourself.

1) Where did I claim that?

2) See your point is that because there is some bad cops makes you edge on the side to be biased against cops right?

3) I dont hold a biased on this and look at the facts and you are even trying to argue like a racist

I am going to use your post aagain and change this

Ben Reilly wrote:

Just because there are some good Blacks doesn't mean we allow them to run roughshod over the freedoms you hate so much. They have a lot of power, after all.
.

And again

Ben Reilly wrote:

Just because there are some good Muslims doesn't mean we allow them to run roughshod over the freedoms you hate so much. They have a lot of power, after all.
.

by Original Quill Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:47 pm

Ben, he's not worth it. First, most of his arguments are just personal bias from the 1950's, and he never substantiates anything. Second, he can't follow a line of thinking, argument, or analysis...anything that involves linear logic.

One of the interesting things you said was, you'd like to follow the trial of the killers of Joshua Brown. If the State of Texas or the City of Dallas is involved, they will never get to trial. Either he will get a sweetheart plea deal, or they will be bodied in prison.

The motherload would be to get a look into the files of Botham Jean. In other words, follow his footsteps. Make sure you've got a friend who carries looking behind you when you do.

by gelico Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:51 pm

Has Thaddeus Green been apprehended and arrested yet? or is he still 'at large'?

by Guest Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:52 pm

Original Quill wrote:Ben, he's not worth it. First, most of his arguments are just personal bias from the 1950's, and he never substantiates anything. Second, he can't follow a line of thinking, argument, or analysis...anything that involves linear logic.

One of the interesting things you said was, you'd like to follow the trial of the killers of Joshua Brown. If the State of Texas or the City of Dallas is involved, they will never get to trial. Either he will get a sweetheart plea deal, or it will be bodied in prison.

The motherload would be to get a look into the files of Botham Jean. In other words, follow his footsteps. Make sure you've got a friend who carries looking behind you when you do.

So after many posts and i ask for evidence for this warped conspiracy.

All I have is Ben claiming cops are corrupt, which he would never apply to any minority group
We have no evidence from Quill other than a paranoia on a drug related crime he would not give a rats arse about normally and only does because this was a witness to another crime. Even though this trial was concluded

So what evidence does anyone have here other than paranoia?
I am always open to ideas, but not even a single main media source is formulating such a notion.
Who would not be sacred to presentj a story of a conspiracy

I mean what is leading Ben and Quill to such conclusions. There is one single answer hewre, a dislike and hostility of cops
Its that simple

by Original Quill Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:22 pm

phil wrote:So after many posts and i ask for evidence for this warped conspiracy.

Well, go look for it, ffs. It's not a conspiracy, it's a hypothesis. When you suspect something, you map out your reasons and go looking for the evidence. Don't you know anything about investigation?

The lawyer presents the case to the jury after the evidence is gathered. We're not at that stage yet on this one. I would love to see a good investigative reporter get his or her teeth into this one. For sure, the existing civil police (Dallas PD and Texas Rangers) have already decided to go easy on Guyger.

I don't really care about her. But if my hunch is correct, they are letting some dangerous organized criminals get away while they are trying to protect her criminal ass.

by Guest Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:27 pm

Original Quill wrote:
phil wrote:So after many posts and i ask for evidence for this warped conspiracy.

Well, go look for it, ffs. It's not a conspiracy, it's a hypothesis.

So a hypothesis based on paranoia and a bias against the Police, without a shred of evidence.

Hence conspiracy theory

by Original Quill Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:40 pm

phildidge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Well, go look for it, ffs. It's not a conspiracy, it's a hypothesis.

So a hypothesis based on paranoia and a bias against the Police, without a shred of evidence.

Hence conspiracy theory

Well, I guess all investigations are a conspiracy theory then. All police engage in investigating, so that means you have a bias against the police, too...and without a shred of evidence. Rolling Eyes

Hence a conspiracy idiot. Wink

by Guest Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:43 pm

Original Quill wrote:
phildidge wrote:

So a hypothesis based on paranoia and a bias against the Police, without a shred of evidence.

Hence conspiracy theory

Well, I guess all investigations are a conspiracy theory then. All police engage in investigating, so that means you have a bias against the police, too...and without a shred of evidence.

Hence a conspiracy idiot.

Oh dear i see Quill has gone into meltdown mode of stupidity
I am not against the Police investigating crimes
This crime has been investigated and will go to trial
There is no evidence or a link to the crime with Amber
So why would they open an investigation where there is no link?
You seem to want one based off again your paranoia
Again no main media sources is evening engaging in your lunacy here
Dont try and put false words into my mouth you lpathetic little wanker
Do so again and you are on ignore
You bore the fuck out of me with your antisemitism and extremism
So you want debate, stop being a twat

by eddie Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:50 pm

Original Quill wrote:
phildidge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Well, go look for it, ffs. It's not a conspiracy, it's a hypothesis.

So a hypothesis based on paranoia and a bias against the Police, without a shred of evidence.

Hence conspiracy theory

Well, I guess all investigations are a conspiracy theory then. All police engage in investigating, so that means you have a bias against the police, too...and without a shred of evidence.

Hence a conspiracy idiot.

Well, exactly.
I gave you a green for that.

by Guest Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:53 pm

eddie wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Well, I guess all investigations are a conspiracy theory then. All police engage in investigating, so that means you have a bias against the police, too...and without a shred of evidence.

Hence a conspiracy idiot.

Well, exactly.
I gave you a green for that.

You gave him a green for something I have never stated.
Wow and bravo
Police go of leads and evidence
There is no evidence or leads to the Amber case
The view here by Quill and your paranoid self is based on paranoia and clearly a bias against the police here
As where is there any evidence to link the crimes?
There is zero

by eddie Sat Oct 12, 2019 8:00 pm

You use words badly.

Paranoia?

paranoia
/ˌparəˈnɔɪə/
noun
a mental condition characterized by delusions of persecution, unwarranted jealousy, or exaggerated self-importance, typically worked into an organized system. It may be an aspect of chronic personality disorder, of drug abuse, or of a serious condition such as schizophrenia in which the person loses touch with reality.

by Original Quill Sat Oct 12, 2019 8:02 pm

phil wrote:Oh dear i see Quill has gone into meltdown mode of stupidity

Moi? Relax, I'm just pointing out your lack of reasoning. You just did exactly what you accused me of doing.

phil wrote:I am not against the Police investigating crimes
This crime has been investigated and will go to trial

Oh...I see. No one need have an independent opinion, because the authorities have already done the job.

"If I want your opinion, I'll give it to you! Laughing

phil wrote:There is no evidence or a link to the crime with Amber

Right! She was a poor, misguided murderer. She innocently pulled the trigger, and boy was everyone surprised.

phil wrote:So why would they open an investigation where there is no link?

I've just given you half-a-dozen anomalies to pursue. They are poignant, unanswered questions; they compellingly justify further investigation. You are such a slave to unoriginal thought! I s'pose that's why you only post c&p's--lord knows, you are too afraid to have an underived thought.

Rolling Eyes

by Guest Sat Oct 12, 2019 8:03 pm

eddie wrote:You use words badly.

Paranoia?

paranoia
/ˌparəˈnɔɪə/
noun
a mental condition characterized by delusions of persecution, unwarranted jealousy, or exaggerated self-importance, typically worked into an organized system. It may be an aspect of chronic personality disorder, of drug abuse, or of a serious condition such as schizophrenia in which the person loses touch with reality.

"Consistently, while belief in conspiracy theories is empirically related to feelings of paranoia (e.g., Darwin et al., 2011)"

Which sums you and Quill up perfectly here in your unbhinged views towards this case being linked

by Guest Sat Oct 12, 2019 8:05 pm

Original Quill wrote:

I've just given you half-a-dozen anomalies to pursue. They are poignant, unanswered questions; they compellingly justify further investigation. You are such a slave to unoriginal thought! I s'pose that's why you only post c&p's--lord knows, you are too afraid to have an original thought.

There is zero anomalies other than the ones you created with your paranoia
Again its your paranoia driving you to believe the cases are linked
If he had been killed a year later in this same dispute, would you be making said claims?
Of course not. Hence the only factor here is the timing that drives your paranoia to this case

by Guest Sat Oct 12, 2019 8:10 pm

Original Quill wrote:
phil wrote:l"]There is no evidence or a link to the crime with Amber

Right! She was a poor, misguided murderer. She innocently pulled the trigger, and boy was everyone surprised.

And this is why you are going back on ignore. Its clear I am saying there is no link between the two crimes and again you invoke something I have not said

Enjoy Coventry

by Original Quill Sat Oct 12, 2019 8:19 pm

phildidge wrote:
eddie wrote:You use words badly.

Paranoia?

paranoia
/ˌparəˈnɔɪə/
noun
a mental condition characterized by delusions of persecution, unwarranted jealousy, or exaggerated self-importance, typically worked into an organized system. It may be an aspect of chronic personality disorder, of drug abuse, or of a serious condition such as schizophrenia in which the person loses touch with reality.

"Consistently, while belief in conspiracy theories is empirically related to feelings of paranoia (e.g., Darwin et al., 2011)"

Which sums you and Quill up perfectly here in your unbhinged views towards this case being linked

You don't even know the etymology of the word conspiracy, do you?

Origin & Meaning wrote:conspiracy (n.)
mid-14c., "a plotting of evil, unlawful design; a combination of persons for an evil purpose," from Anglo-French conspiracie, Old French conspiracie "conspiracy, plot," from Latin conspirationem (nominative conspiratio) "agreement, union, unanimity," noun of action from past-participle stem of conspirare "to agree, unite, plot," literally "to breathe together" (see conspire).

Earlier in same sense was conspiration (early 14c.), from French conspiration (13c.), from Latin conspirationem. An Old English word for it was facengecwis.

It's elementary that a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons for some nefarious purpose. If I'm involved in a conspiracy, who is the other person or people?

You only have the misguided interpretation of the term. For you: conspiracy = wicked thoughts. Or, in other words, its another adjective, which you are fond of tossing around. Adjectives are not arguments, or do I need to remind you every time?

by Guest Sat Oct 12, 2019 8:26 pm

conspiracy theory
noun
a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event.

Oh dear again Quill fails to see here his conspiracy is around the Police themselves oin his view they are covering up something
Which fits neatly into his paranoia
Now you ar eback on ignore you twat

by Original Quill Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:42 pm

You answered a challenge I didn't make, and didn't answer a challenge I did make. The issue is conspiracy, not the corroded term conspiracy theory. You stated, and I quote:

phil wrote:Who would not be sacred to presentj a story of a conspiracy

Nevertheless, even the corroded term conspiracy theory still implies two or more persons. Here is the full source of your definition:

Lexico Dictionary wrote:Definition of conspiracy theory in English:

conspiracy theory
NOUN
A belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event.

‘they sought to account for the attacks in terms of a conspiracy theory’

"Organization" means two or more persons. A conspiracy is the act of combining for some unlawful or untoward purpose. You say I am conspiring with someone, but you cannot articulate who. You are spinning your wheels, I’m afraid.

by Sponsored content

Amber Guyger convicted

Amber Guyger convicted

Re: Amber Guyger convicted

Re: Amber Guyger convicted

Re: Amber Guyger convicted

Re: Amber Guyger convicted

Re: Amber Guyger convicted

Re: Amber Guyger convicted

Re: Amber Guyger convicted

Re: Amber Guyger convicted

Re: Amber Guyger convicted

Re: Amber Guyger convicted

Re: Amber Guyger convicted

Re: Amber Guyger convicted

Re: Amber Guyger convicted

Re: Amber Guyger convicted

Re: Amber Guyger convicted

Re: Amber Guyger convicted

Re: Amber Guyger convicted

Re: Amber Guyger convicted

Re: Amber Guyger convicted

Re: Amber Guyger convicted

Re: Amber Guyger convicted

Re: Amber Guyger convicted

Re: Amber Guyger convicted

Re: Amber Guyger convicted

Re: Amber Guyger convicted

Re: Amber Guyger convicted

Re: Amber Guyger convicted

Re: Amber Guyger convicted

Re: Amber Guyger convicted

Re: Amber Guyger convicted

Re: Amber Guyger convicted

Re: Amber Guyger convicted

Re: Amber Guyger convicted

Re: Amber Guyger convicted

Re: Amber Guyger convicted

Re: Amber Guyger convicted