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 Sun Oct 06, 2019 1:08 am

Victorismyhero wrote:HMMM....i wasn't referring to this thread specifically.....

and you shouldnt alter posts without claiming the alteration.....even for humor

I remember complaining about that when it happened to me, and I was led to believe that it was all right on this site.

by Original Quill Sun Oct 06, 2019 1:19 am

Victorismyhero wrote:AND...I actually agree with your stance on this case to some extent.....although I may approach it from a slightly different POV.

In my view it matters not whether it was deliberate "with malice aforethought" or merely negligent due to being tired confused whatever

negligence can NEVER be excused as a means of causing someones death, and in the case of officials with high authority and literally the power of life over death...they cannot and should not be allowed to "make mistakes" and if they do they should recieve the same penalty as a malicious killer.....

I agree with you, insofar as this was a professional police officer. Those people don't make mistakes; I know, I trained them at the University of Arizona Police Academy. They know exactly what they are doing, and what the justification is, when they pull the trigger.

That's one of the reasons why I challenge the notion that this was an accident. It was a hit, for which after release she will no doubt be rewarded with life's income.

by Victorismyhero Sun Oct 06, 2019 1:28 am

Original Quill wrote:
Victorismyhero wrote:HMMM....i wasn't referring to this thread specifically.....

and you shouldnt alter posts without claiming the alteration.....even for humor

I remember complaining about that when it happened to me, and I was led to believe that it was all right on this site.

dunno when that was, but I have remarked on this a number of times

IT IS ok to alter a post to either a) make a valid point (by juxtaposition as an example) or B) for reasonable humor...
IT is NOT OK however to do so without "claiming" the alteration and making sure the alteration is clearly designated as being by the one who alters it.

a bit like plagiarism..in reverse??.... its ok to coppy bits of others works...but you have to credit the author..well in this case the author has to accept and admit the credit (or otherwise) for his/her work What a Face

by Original Quill Sun Oct 06, 2019 4:36 am

Victorismyhero wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I remember complaining about that when it happened to me, and I was led to believe that it was all right on this site.

dunno when that was, but I have remarked on this a number of times

IT IS ok to alter a post to either a) make a valid point (by juxtaposition as an example) or B) for reasonable humor...
IT is NOT OK however to do so without "claiming" the alteration and making sure the alteration is clearly designated as being by the one who alters it.

a bit like plagiarism..in reverse??.... its ok to coppy bits of others works...but you have to credit the author..well in this case the author has to accept and admit the credit (or otherwise) for his/her work

I complained about the same thing quite specifically, and it was approved. Someone had altered my post to say just the opposite of what I intended. Let's not get into double standards for conservatives, here.

I told you guys, you should have an attorney so you don't get in these kinds of jams.

PS: The word came from a higher authority than you, so we don't know what is the law around here.

by Original Quill Sun Oct 06, 2019 5:32 pm

NEW DEVELOPMENT: A witness for the State, who testified against Amber Guyger, was found murdered:

CBS News wrote:
Witness who testified in Amber Guyger trial shot to death, Dallas DA says

BY CAROLINE LINTON

A prosecution witness in the trial of Amber Guyger was shot to death, the Dallas District Attorney's Office confirmed Saturday. Guyger is a former Dallas police officer who was found guilty earlier this week of murdering Botham Jean, her neighbor, in his home.

Joshua Brown, a neighbor of Guyger and Jean, was shot to death Friday night at his Dallas apartment complex. His identity was not immediately released, but was later confirmed by Dallas County District Attorney's Office, CBS Dallas-Fort Worth reports.

Dallas police said a man was shot to death around 10:40 p.m. Friday in an apartment complex near Dallas' Medical District. According to police, several witnesses heard several gunshots and observed a silver four-door sedan was seen speeding from the scene. The victim was found lying on the ground with multiple gunshot wounds, and was taken to a local hospital, where was pronounced dead.

They said the victim had no identification on him and they could not confirm his identity yet.

Attorney Lee Merritt, who represents the Jean family, tweeted that he had confirmed the death with Brown's mother.

Brown, a witness for the prosecution, testified on September 24 that he heard what sounded like two people "meeting by surprise" followed by two shots. He said he did not hear any police commands, such as "show me your hands." But under cross-examination, he said he couldn't make out what the two people were saying.

Guyger was found guilty of murder and sentenced to 10 years in prison. She insisted she shot and killed Jean in his own apartment because she believed she was in her own home and he was an intruder.

Brown had since moved from that apartment complex.

Dallas County prosecutor Jason Hermus, the lead prosecutor in the Guyger case, told the Dallas Morning News on Saturday that Brown stood up at a time when others wouldn't say what they knew.

"He bravely came forward to testify when others wouldn't, " Hermus said. "If we had more people like him, we would have a better world."

Clearly, someone else besides Amber Guyger has an interest in this crime. Beginning to sound like this was a bit more organized than mere chance, eh? As in, 'organized crime'?

Even if you believe the outlandish bullshite that Amber Guyger put out about not knowing her own dwelling, her own floor, or her own doormat, what are the chances that a key prosecution witness would be terminated with extreme prejudice?

And who did kill Brown? Obviously, the hit on Jean was more complicated than a mere one-on-one. It was either the organized crime participants, or her friends on the Dallas Police Department.

There's a lot more back story to this murder than we are hearing out of the State. Something smells in Dallas.

by Original Quill Sun Oct 06, 2019 8:58 pm

by Original Quill Wed Oct 09, 2019 4:23 am

I guess my case is made. This was an organized crime hit. My case is made through attrition.

by Guest Wed Oct 09, 2019 4:27 am

The murder of a key witness in the Amber Guyger trial happened during a drug deal and was not linked to the case, Dallas police say

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1181771263846604800

Brown was murdered two days after Guyger was convicted of murder.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/joshua-brown-murder-arrest-made-death-witness-amber-guyger-trial-n1063836

Proving that Quill is a conspiracy loon, as this has nothing to do with the Amber case.
Even more so as Amber was convicted
People need to stop being so overly paranoid. Being as its their bias of the Police that is drviing this paranoia

by nicko Wed Oct 09, 2019 6:47 am

by Original Quill Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:06 pm

phildidge wrote:The murder of a key witness in the Amber Guyger trial happened during a drug deal and was not linked to the case, Dallas police say

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1181771263846604800

Brown was murdered two days after Guyger was convicted of murder.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/joshua-brown-murder-arrest-made-death-witness-amber-guyger-trial-n1063836

Proving that Quill is a conspiracy loon, as this has nothing to do with the Amber case.
Even more so as Amber was convicted
People need to stop being so overly paranoid. Being as its their bias of the Police that is drviing this paranoia

If you'll believe that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. If you were ever in criminal law, you would know the first principle: there is no such thing as coincidence. If the murder happens before the trial, it is to prevent the witness from testifying. If the murder happens after the trial, it is to cover up something the witness still knows.

Scenario: The original victim, a CPA, discovered something in financial records that implicated someone (high up) in criminal activity. What if victim no. 2, the neighbor/witness, lied about just meeting victim no. 1 only on that day (another coincidence...hmm). In fact the witness knew the CPA, who had told him about the criminal activity just previously.

The criminals find out about the witness, and try first to pay him off, as they have done with Guyger. But something worries the criminals. The way the witness testified--ducking his head into his arms, and parsing his words, it had deception all over it. He was a weak link.

Now the CPA is dead, but the nervous witness is still out there and constitutes a loose end. Kill him and pin it on a drug deal? What a perfect cover to hide the whole scheme: perhaps the most common, untraceable of occurrences, which drops the whole thing into the abyss of nothingness. Kill victim no. 2, blame it on drugs, and the whole thing thins out and goes away.

Didge, you'd probably better stay away from criminal justice as a career. You are the perfect stooge, like the minions out there who believe all the Tory/Republican lies. As soon as interest wanes, they bury the bodies...and you've probably forgotten all about it.

by nicko Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:49 pm

No such thing as coincidence ?

by Original Quill Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:29 pm

nicko wrote:No such thing as coincidence ?

It is rule #1 in criminal justice investigations. Criminal plans work in devious ways. Investigations are inevitably after-the-fact, so all that exists is the evidence trail.

Never assume that two pieces of evidence are not linked, just because you don't have the luxury of watching the crime unfold in real time. We have the murder of Botham Jean, and then we have the murder of a witness at the trial for the murder.

What are the common links? Well, both died of murder...that means there is a murderer in both cases. Are they in the same cause? What are the probabilities that two murders would occur in the same crime scenario? That's too rare. Right away, you know a conspiracy is afoot.

You try to work backwards. Guyger's story doesn't sound believable...who doesn't recognize their own home? So, take that off the table. The next glaring fact is that Botham Jean was a CPA. Crimes mostly involve money, and accountants are most often auditing (counting and attributing) money. So, look for shenanigans involving large amounts of money, somewhere in the facts.

This case is compounded by the fact that Guyger is a police officer, and the agencies may be trying to help her as a fellow officer. Or, maybe the conspiracy runs deeper into the police community, who knows, eh?

In any event, one glaring factor cannot be missed: the prosecutors, based solely on the defendant's word, chose to classify this homicide as an accident. FCS, if you are talking to a defendant, you assume they are going to lie...especially with as lame an excuse as, I didn't recognize the difference between his home, and my own home!?? That is as lame as putting on the victim’s shoes, and saying I didn’t recognize they weren’t my shoes. Rolling Eyes

Defendants lie...a rule perhaps more basic than the rule that there are no coincidences. So, what convinced the police to ignore a basic rule? Camaraderie toward a fellow police officer? Or, more probably, money? Does this conspiracy reach into the police community? Note that the Dallas police gave the case to the Texas Rangers, the State Police in Texas. Still, the Rangers went with the ridiculous assumption that the defendant was telling the truth. Why?

One thing is for certain, someone should be checking into Botham Jean’s recent accounting work.

by Guest Wed Oct 09, 2019 4:55 pm

What a load of paranoid claptrap By quill again

No media is going off some warped conspiracy, as there is none

Quill can continue to enjoy his delusions over this. I am showing he has not a shred of evidence. Only a paranoia against the Police, which is driving his delusion s here

by Original Quill Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:17 pm

phildidge wrote:What a load of paranoid claptrap By quill again

No media is going off some warped conspiracy, as there is none

Quill can continue to enjoy his delusions over this. I am showing he has not a shred of evidence. Only a paranoia against the Police, which is driving his delusion s here

Unfortunately, you have no instincts in criminal matters. Everyone knows you are a c&p type of poster, without processing abilities. Even if you recognize a theory, you can't sift through the various parts, and work the model to research the probabilities and conclusions.

You have classic followeritis syndrome. You go where you are told, and believe what you are told to believe. No intellectual curiosity of your own. Too bad. Amber Guyger convicted - Page 2 2190311264

Amber Guyger convicted - Page 2 2190311264

by Guest Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:25 pm

Original Quill wrote:
phildidge wrote:What a load of paranoid claptrap By quill again

No media is going off some warped conspiracy, as there is none

Quill can continue to enjoy his delusions over this. I am showing he has not a shred of evidence. Only a paranoia against the Police, which is driving his delusion s here

Unfortunately, you have no instincts in criminal matters. Everyone knows you are a c&p type of poster, without processing abilities. Even if you recognize a theory, you can't sift through the various parts, and work the model to research the probabilities and conclusions.

You have classic followeritis syndrome. You go where you are told, and believe what you are told to believe. No intellectual curiosity of your own. Too bad.

I have plenty of understanding

Your claims are simple made up inside your head

Where is the evidence for your warped claims?

by Original Quill Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:44 pm

I have given the evidence, plus the reasoning. Nothing more to be said. Sleep

by Guest Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:46 pm

Original Quill wrote:I have given the evidence, plus the reasoning. Nothing more to be said.

What evidence? You have given speculation and zero hard evidence

by nicko Wed Oct 09, 2019 6:10 pm

I must have missed that Quill, give it again for me please .

by Maddog Wed Oct 09, 2019 6:42 pm

A young, black male who had been previously shot, got killed in a shootout in Dallas.

Another young man is in the hospital with a gunshot wound.

It's sad, but completely unremarkable.

by Original Quill Wed Oct 09, 2019 8:04 pm

nicko wrote:I must have missed that Quill, give it again for me please .

Read the thread.

by Guest Wed Oct 09, 2019 8:21 pm

Original Quill wrote:
nicko wrote:I must have missed that Quill, give it again for me please .

Read the thread.

Does he need to?

What if the witness shot was white?

Would you have formed your outlandish speculations?

Yes or no?

by Original Quill Wed Oct 09, 2019 8:32 pm

phil wrote:What if the witness shot was white?

Same result. It's not an issue of race, but obstruction of justice/witness tampering...along with murder, which was the means.

by Guest Wed Oct 09, 2019 8:37 pm

Original Quill wrote:
phil wrote:What if the witness shot was white?

Same result. It's not an issue of race, but obstruction of justice/witness tampering...along with murder, which was the means.

How is it an obstruction of justice when the witmness gave testimony and died after the trial?

You simple spout horseshit quill

by eddie Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:19 pm

phildidge wrote:The murder of a key witness in the Amber Guyger trial happened during a drug deal and was not linked to the case, Dallas police say

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1181771263846604800

Brown was murdered two days after Guyger was convicted of murder.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/joshua-brown-murder-arrest-made-death-witness-amber-guyger-trial-n1063836

Proving that Quill is a conspiracy loon, as this has nothing to do with the Amber case.
Even more so as Amber was convicted
People need to stop being so overly paranoid. Being as its their bias of the Police that is drviing this paranoia

Bit of a coincidence, non?

by Original Quill Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:20 pm

phildidge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Same result. It's not an issue of race, but obstruction of justice/witness tampering...along with murder, which was the means.

How is it an obstruction of justice when the witmness gave testimony and died after the trial?

You simple spout horseshit quill

Spoken like a true novice. The issue in obstruction of justice is the tampering, not whether is is prospective or retrospective. It might be crimes intended to aid/prevent (prospective), or crimes intended as retribution/cover up (post-factum). 18 USC 1503, 1512 (crimes that involve acts that interfere with proper operation of the law). It's still fookin' around with evidence, and that's against the law in every jurisdiction.

Before? After? You raise the silliest, most irrelevant distinctions. Rolling Eyes

by Guest Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:23 pm

Original Quill wrote:
phildidge wrote:

How is it an obstruction of justice when the witmness gave testimony and died after the trial?

You simple spout horseshit quill

Spoken like a true novice. The issue in obstruction of justice is the tampering, not whether is is prospective or retrospective. It might be crimes intended to aid/prevent (prospective), or crimes intended as retribution/cover up (post-factum). 18 USC 1503, 1512 (crimes that involve acts that interfere with proper operation of the law). It's still fookin' around with evidence, and that's against the law in every jurisdiction.

Before? After? You raise the silliest, most irrelevant distinctions.

Spoken like someone seriously unhinged

No evidence of obstruction of justice

Again where is your evidence for your warped and unhinged claims?

last ti,me asking as you bore the fuck out of me with your bullshit

Night

by Original Quill Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:38 pm

phildidge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Spoken like a true novice. The issue in obstruction of justice is the tampering, not whether is is prospective or retrospective. It might be crimes intended to aid/prevent (prospective), or crimes intended as retribution/cover up (post-factum). 18 USC 1503, 1512 (crimes that involve acts that interfere with proper operation of the law). It's still fookin' around with evidence, and that's against the law in every jurisdiction.

Before? After? You raise the silliest, most irrelevant distinctions.

Spoken like someone seriously unhinged

No evidence of obstruction of justice

Again where is your evidence for your warped and unhinged claims?

last ti,me asking as you bore the fuck out of me with your bullshit

Night

Didge, you're wrong at every turn. You're freelancing, trying one rabbit hole after another. Wouldn't it be simpler to look things up? Instead of wasting time your way, why don't you just learn. A good scholar is always willing to learn:

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

by eddie Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:40 pm

phildidge wrote:The murder of a key witness in the Amber Guyger trial happened during a drug deal and was not linked to the case, Dallas police say

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1181771263846604800

Brown was murdered two days after Guyger was convicted of murder.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/joshua-brown-murder-arrest-made-death-witness-amber-guyger-trial-n1063836

Proving that Quill is a conspiracy loon, as this has nothing to do with the Amber case.
Even more so as Amber was convicted
People need to stop being so overly paranoid. Being as its their bias of the Police that is drviing this paranoia

Bit of a coincidence, non?

by Original Quill Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:54 pm

eddie wrote:
phildidge wrote:The murder of a key witness in the Amber Guyger trial happened during a drug deal and was not linked to the case, Dallas police say

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1181771263846604800

Brown was murdered two days after Guyger was convicted of murder.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/joshua-brown-murder-arrest-made-death-witness-amber-guyger-trial-n1063836

Proving that Quill is a conspiracy loon, as this has nothing to do with the Amber case.
Even more so as Amber was convicted
People need to stop being so overly paranoid. Being as its their bias of the Police that is drviing this paranoia

Bit of a coincidence, non?

I assume you are being facetious, no? I agree. In a conspiracy to break the law there is never any coincidence. You turn over every stone. You are an advocate of many conspiracies, eds, so I trust you understand.

Didge is hung up on accessory-before-the-fact, and accessory-after-the-fact. He thinks that obstruction can only happen prospectively. It doesn't matter. Obstruction is obstruction, before/after, up/down, left/right and forward/backward. It's doing something contrary to the investigation of law, particularly if questions still linger.

by eddie Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:04 pm

Original Quill wrote:
eddie wrote:
phildidge wrote:The murder of a key witness in the Amber Guyger trial happened during a drug deal and was not linked to the case, Dallas police say

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1181771263846604800

Brown was murdered two days after Guyger was convicted of murder.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/joshua-brown-murder-arrest-made-death-witness-amber-guyger-trial-n1063836

Proving that Quill is a conspiracy loon, as this has nothing to do with the Amber case.
Even more so as Amber was convicted
People need to stop being so overly paranoid. Being as its their bias of the Police that is drviing this paranoia

Bit of a coincidence, non?

I assume you are being facetious, no? I agree. In a conspiracy to break the law there is never any coincidence. You turn over every stone. You are an advocate of many conspiracies, eds, so I trust you understand.

Didge is hung up on accessory-before-the-fact, and accessory-after-the-fact. He thinks that obstruction can only happen prospectively. It doesn't matter. Obstruction is obstruction, before/after, up/down, left/right and forward/backward. It's doing something contrary to the investigation of law, particularly if questions still linger.

Oh, I do understand. And I agree with your post.
And I think it should be thoroughly investigated.

by Maddog Thu Oct 10, 2019 12:09 am

eddie wrote:
phildidge wrote:The murder of a key witness in the Amber Guyger trial happened during a drug deal and was not linked to the case, Dallas police say

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1181771263846604800

Brown was murdered two days after Guyger was convicted of murder.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/joshua-brown-murder-arrest-made-death-witness-amber-guyger-trial-n1063836

Proving that Quill is a conspiracy loon, as this has nothing to do with the Amber case.
Even more so as Amber was convicted
People need to stop being so overly paranoid. Being as its their bias of the Police that is drviing this paranoia

Bit of a coincidence, non?

"Jacquerious Mitchell told police that Brown shot him in the chest after Green and Brown got into an altercation during the drug deal, and that Green then shot Brown twice, Moore said."

Do you think Jacquerious shot himself in the chest, or that he is being paid by the cops to make all of this up?

by Guest Thu Oct 10, 2019 12:19 am

eddie wrote:
phildidge wrote:The murder of a key witness in the Amber Guyger trial happened during a drug deal and was not linked to the case, Dallas police say

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1181771263846604800

Brown was murdered two days after Guyger was convicted of murder.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/joshua-brown-murder-arrest-made-death-witness-amber-guyger-trial-n1063836

Proving that Quill is a conspiracy loon, as this has nothing to do with the Amber case.
Even more so as Amber was convicted
People need to stop being so overly paranoid. Being as its their bias of the Police that is drviing this paranoia

Bit of a coincidence, non?

What coincidence?

I do not see any and maybe you can explain what you see?

by Guest Thu Oct 10, 2019 12:19 am

Maddog wrote:
eddie wrote:

Bit of a coincidence, non?

"Jacquerious Mitchell told police that Brown shot him in the chest after Green and Brown got into an altercation during the drug deal, and that Green then shot Brown twice, Moore said."

Do you think Jacquerious shot himself in the chest, or that he is being paid by the cops to make all of this up?

by Guest Thu Oct 10, 2019 12:21 am

eddie wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I assume you are being facetious, no? I agree. In a conspiracy to break the law there is never any coincidence. You turn over every stone. You are an advocate of many conspiracies, eds, so I trust you understand.

Didge is hung up on accessory-before-the-fact, and accessory-after-the-fact. He thinks that obstruction can only happen prospectively. It doesn't matter. Obstruction is obstruction, before/after, up/down, left/right and forward/backward. It's doing something contrary to the investigation of law, particularly if questions still linger.

Oh, I do understand. And I agree with your post.
And I think it should be thoroughly investigated.

Based on Quill's paranoia and imaginary evidence?
What do you suggest the Police go on hear in an investigation where they have people that have owned up to gunning down someone else?

by Original Quill Thu Oct 10, 2019 3:57 am

phil wrote:Based on Quill's paranoia and imaginary evidence?

First, adjectives are not evidence.

phil wrote:What do you suggest the Police go on hear in an investigation where they have people that have owned up to gunning down someone else?

I don't trust the police. Why did they gratuitously decide to limit the scope of the investigation to negligent homicide? Whoever is behind this has plenty of money to buy off witnesses, if not murders.

This is Texas, after all. Land of citizens of limited intelligence.

by Guest Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:44 am

Original Quill wrote:
phil wrote:Based on Quill's paranoia and imaginary evidence?

First, adjectives are not evidence.

phil wrote:What do you suggest the Police go on hear in an investigation where they have people that have owned up to gunning down someone else?

I don't trust the police. Why did they gratuitously decide to limit the scope of the investigation to negligent homicide? Whoever is behind this has plenty of money to buy off witnesses, if not murders.

This is Texas, after all. Land of citizens of limited intelligence.

And there you have it. What I have stated from the start that is the driving factor here for this paranoia.
Your bias and distrust of the Police
There is nothing you have presented that would even hint at a conspiracy here. You simple created one out of your dislike of the Police.
Hence it was your bias driving this and nothing else.

by gelico Thu Oct 10, 2019 2:55 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Victor wrote:Just because you are a L/W poster does not give you the right, whether you are in a minority or not, to be so damn ignorant...even you Quill rant like an uneducated fish wife at times (but do have the virtue of being amusing at times)

So you say, vic.

Now, let's take a look at the facts. Here's a woman who walked into the home of another human being and shot the homeowner dead. This happened in Texas; 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.

The facts of this case are so outlandish that I simply cannot believe the 'mistake' theory. If you buy that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'll sell you.

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?

Then there is the issue of the penalty. Even the racist state had a touch of conscience...it asked for 28-years. But no...the southerners on the jury gave the murderer only 10-years, which means she'll be out in 5-years for good behavior. No doubt she will be placed in a country club, on the premise that she is a former cop.

In the University of Edinburgh thread, white people are trying to sell me on the claim that whites are the victims of discrimination. Here, a much more serious issue, is living proof that black discrimination still exists. We're not talking about some effete, delicate issue of who gets to speak first. We're talking about murder. Yet the same voices--honestly, with a straight face--are telling me that this isn't discrimination.

A cop, without justification, murders a totally unarmed victim in his own home, shot the victim in cold blood, and somehow that is less discriminatory than asking whites to speak second at a conference? Surely, you see why I don't want to be associated with the disgusting south.

oh, so now it's all about race? what happened to the mafia theory?

FFS! quill, you don't half chat some shite

by Maddog Thu Oct 10, 2019 2:59 pm

gelico wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

So you say, vic.

Now, let's take a look at the facts. Here's a woman who walked into the home of another human being and shot the homeowner dead. This happened in Texas; 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.

The facts of this case are so outlandish that I simply cannot believe the 'mistake' theory. If you buy that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'll sell you.

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?

Then there is the issue of the penalty. Even the racist state had a touch of conscience...it asked for 28-years. But no...the southerners on the jury gave the murderer only 10-years, which means she'll be out in 5-years for good behavior. No doubt she will be placed in a country club, on the premise that she is a former cop.

In the University of Edinburgh thread, white people are trying to sell me on the claim that whites are the victims of discrimination. Here, a much more serious issue, is living proof that black discrimination still exists. We're not talking about some effete, delicate issue of who gets to speak first. We're talking about murder. Yet the same voices--honestly, with a straight face--are telling me that this isn't discrimination.

A cop, without justification, murders a totally unarmed victim in his own home, shot the victim in cold blood, and somehow that is less discriminatory than asking whites to speak second at a conference? Surely, you see why I don't want to be associated with the disgusting south.

oh, so now it's all about race? what happened to the mafia theory?

FFS! quill, you don't half chat some shite

He has ruined this forum.

It's become a place for him to express delusional theories and all of his biases. An escape from reality for him.

by gelico Thu Oct 10, 2019 3:06 pm

Maddog wrote:
gelico wrote:

oh, so now it's all about race? what happened to the mafia theory?

FFS! quill, you don't half chat some shite

He has ruined this forum.

It's become a place for him to express delusional theories and all of his biases. An escape from reality for him.

oh, I don't agree that he has ruined this forum at all

He is a racist bigot, no doubt about that but I actually sometimes quite enjoy watching him express delusional theories and all of his biases.

If he needs an escape from reality then who are we to spoil things for him

don't be mean. have a bit more compassion

Cool

by Maddog Thu Oct 10, 2019 3:13 pm

gelico wrote:
Maddog wrote:

He has ruined this forum.

It's become a place for him to express delusional theories and all of his biases. An escape from reality for him.

oh, I don't agree that he has ruined this forum at all

He is a racist bigot, no doubt about that but I actually sometimes quite enjoy watching him express delusional theories and all of his biases.

If he needs an escape from reality then who are we to spoil things for him

don't be mean. have a bit more compassion

At some point, it gets old arguing about whether 2 and 2 is 4 or 5.

I should show more compassion I guess. I'll work on it. Wink

by nicko Thu Oct 10, 2019 3:27 pm

Together with Wolfie ,Maddog is correct !

by Original Quill Thu Oct 10, 2019 4:18 pm

gelico wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

So you say, vic.

Now, let's take a look at the facts. Here's a woman who walked into the home of another human being and shot the homeowner dead. This happened in Texas; 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.

The facts of this case are so outlandish that I simply cannot believe the 'mistake' theory. If you buy that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'll sell you.

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?

Then there is the issue of the penalty. Even the racist state had a touch of conscience...it asked for 28-years. But no...the southerners on the jury gave the murderer only 10-years, which means she'll be out in 5-years for good behavior. No doubt she will be placed in a country club, on the premise that she is a former cop.

In the University of Edinburgh thread, white people are trying to sell me on the claim that whites are the victims of discrimination. Here, a much more serious issue, is living proof that black discrimination still exists. We're not talking about some effete, delicate issue of who gets to speak first. We're talking about murder. Yet the same voices--honestly, with a straight face--are telling me that this isn't discrimination.

A cop, without justification, murders a totally unarmed victim in his own home, shot the victim in cold blood, and somehow that is less discriminatory than asking whites to speak second at a conference? Surely, you see why I don't want to be associated with the disgusting south.

oh, so now it's all about race? what happened to the mafia theory?

FFS! quill, you don't half chat some shite

No, it's not about race. It's about organized crime, and a hit on people with threatening knowledge.

The weak minds will accept the weak accounts, but this time 2 + 2 = the deeper account.

by Original Quill Thu Oct 10, 2019 4:23 pm

Maddog wrote:
gelico wrote:

oh, so now it's all about race? what happened to the mafia theory?

FFS! quill, you don't half chat some shite

He has ruined this forum.

It's become a place for him to express delusional theories and all of his biases. An escape from reality for him.

Whaaah... Is it too shocking What a Face

or just too complicated? scratch

Freedom of speech exists on the theory that the more ideas that get expressed, the better off we are to meet contingencies when they arise. Yet, you complain because thinking about them gives you a headache. See a doctor. Take some aspirin. But please don't ask us to stoop to your sub-par level, or forego our responsibility to come up with new ideas.

I'm appalled that you even express that thought: the idea that thinking too much ruins a forum, when the only resource we have are our thoughts. This is a discussion forum; what should we do? Reprint Little Golden Books to each other? Rolling Eyes

Admit it…you just don’t like the ideas. You are fabricating a thin veil of misery, or discomfort, so as to build an argument to censor the ideas. Shame.

by gelico Thu Oct 10, 2019 4:44 pm

Original Quill wrote:
gelico wrote:

oh, so now it's all about race? what happened to the mafia theory?

FFS! quill, you don't half chat some shite

No, it's not about race. It's about organized crime, and a hit on people with threatening knowledge.

The weak minds will accept the weak accounts, but this time 2 + 2 = the deeper account.

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?

Shocked

by Original Quill Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:45 pm

gelico wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

No, it's not about race. It's about organized crime, and a hit on people with threatening knowledge.

The weak minds will accept the weak accounts, but this time 2 + 2 = the deeper account.

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. An example is: "a thing characteristic of its kind or illustrating a general rule". It is a literary device that does not alter the subject, but merely characterizes it, or serves as a model. Thus, to switch races in this case, is to show, or exemplify how the story told by Amber Guyger is illogical. If it were logical, it would work both ways.

The real thesis of this story is organized crime, and how it has penetrated a modern police agency. Amber Guyger is a hitman, and this was a hit. She was also police, most likely recruited for precisely that reason. It made a weak cover story more acceptable--who questions a police officer?

The police have to arrest, and the State has to indict and prosecute. But it dulls their edges somewhat to have police v. police. And lo, that is precisely what we have here: the State accepted Guyger's story that it was an accident, and thus narrowed the scope of the inquiry. No one looked for further malevolence, and the organized criminals slipped out the back door.

Of course, there was this one witness, Joshua Brown, constituting a loose end that needed to be tied off. So, there was a second killing, staged to look like a drug deal gone bad. Then there was nothing. Whoever orchestrated this crime was pretty clever, choosing a police officer to pull off the hit. That covered a lot of holes.

by Guest Thu Oct 10, 2019 6:23 pm

gelico wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

No, it's not about race. It's about organized crime, and a hit on people with threatening knowledge.

The weak minds will accept the weak accounts, but this time 2 + 2 = the deeper account.

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?

Quill is sadly a hypocrite

He holds poor sterotype views of white southerners and the Police. Which would never apply to high levels of black criminaility.
Now I do not think blacks are highly likely to commit crime, due to high levels. I understand the causes like relative poverty
It shows Quill never applies a universal concept on his thinking
His thinking is as biased and hateful as white supremacists are towards black people

I mean look at the Australian woman shot by an asian policeman. Did you see Quill offer up any views on organised crime here?
Of course not as the victim was white
To me the cop was incompetant. With also the fact of the high levels of crime and a gun society. Is always going to make some cops be overcome with fear and make stupid mistakes. As they will be overcome with fear. This is what the US Gun ho society has created in the US.

What he ignores is the millions of cops that everyday save countless lives. Stop people without a shot fired in anger and goes off the really minor few inicidents and only if the victim is black. Many whites have been shot by the Police in fact far more than Blacks. Yet have you ever seen him question any such shootings? Its also not partly his fault as the media hardly ever presents the many times this also actually happens

Quill is by product of how a media is able to easily manipulate a small minded individual. Quill has no interest in solving racial issues but creating many more. There is no doubt that some shootings on the very small etreme end of cop shootings could have racial intent. But quill sees any black victim that is shot with a racial intent. Hence his immediate bias relegates his reasoning from the start to paranoia and prejudice that he holds. Which again is no different to those prejudice towards black people

I saw on twitter today a question on whether gay heart surgeons should be able to refuse providing life changing surgery. Towards Christian bakers who refused to make a gay wedding cake. I was appalled. That people would lead to such extreme thinking. Even worse failing to see this would actually open the door and allow for then prejudice and discrimination to apply to refusing to save any person that the surgeon does not like. It shows people are losing all sense of reasoning and by their views would end up hurting even further more so minority groups. With such a poor line of reasoning. You do not combat bigotry wirth even more bigotry. As then everyone suffers.

by Original Quill Thu Oct 10, 2019 6:43 pm

phil wrote:With also the fact of the high levels of crime and a gun society. Is always going to make some cops be overcome with fear and make stupid mistakes. As they will be overcome with fear.

See? Good for you...you too are thinking further than the story the cops give out. Your answers are speculation, sure. But at least it's thinking.

As to your speculation, Amber Guyger said she did not act on fear. Indeed, cops are trained not to react on fear. The whole idea of a police academy is to purge their fears, and substitute in some rational solutions for difficult situations.

Are you saying that Amber Guyger was a bad police officer, or just that the Dallas Police Department doesn't adequately train their cops?

I think Guyger was well trained. She just went over to the dark side, that's all. It happens.

by Guest Thu Oct 10, 2019 6:52 pm

Original Quill wrote:
phil wrote:With also the fact of the high levels of crime and a gun society. Is always going to make some cops be overcome with fear and make stupid mistakes. As they will be overcome with fear.

See? Good for you...you too are thinking further than the story the cops give out. Your answers are speculation, sure. But at least it's thinking.

As to your speculation, Amber Guyger said she did not act on fear. Indeed, cops are trained not to react on fear. The whole idea of a police academy is to purge their fears, and substitute in some rational solutions for difficult situations.

Are you saying that Amber Guyger was a bad police officer, or just that the Dallas Police Department doesn't adequately train their cops?

I think Guyger was well trained. She just went over to the dark side, that's all. It happens.

Where did she claim she never acted on fear?
Now you are making up bullshit as per usual
She thought an intruder ewas in her flat and fired her gun into what she thought was an intrduder
That is being led by fear in her actions

Now I will prove you are lying out of your arse.

CBS newsl wrote:
Guyger testified Friday that she felt "pure fear" when she arrived at what she thought was her apartment, found the door ajar and heard "shuffling" inside, thinking someone had broken in. She said she opened the door, saw a silhouette coming toward her and yelled "show me your hands" twice before opening fire.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amber-guyger-verdict-guilty-verdict-delivered-in-ex-dallas-police-officer-trial-today-live-updates-2019-10-01/

As to whether she is a bad Police officer?
What is her record like in the force?
Never made any view of training
I just do not think you can train officers for when fear take a hold of people
Its the same as training soldiers for combat. You never know how people will react.
Fear can take control of even trained soldiers. Where it can also lead to accidental deaths
If you have read counts of comat there is many examples of this with soldiers being killed through friendly fire
Hence why a gun culture is to me creating many accidental shootings in the US through fear
The reality is the vast majority of Police officers in the Us do not react through fear.
If they did, the number of shottings would be in the millions
Its not even in the tens of thousands
The police stop and arrest millions each year

by Original Quill Thu Oct 10, 2019 6:57 pm

CBS News wrote:Guyger testified Friday that she felt "pure fear" when she arrived at what she thought was her apartment, found the door ajar and heard "shuffling" inside, thinking someone had broken in. She said she opened the door, saw a silhouette coming toward her and yelled "show me your hands" twice before opening fire.

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.

by Guest Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:05 pm

Original Quill wrote:
CBS News wrote:Guyger testified Friday that she felt "pure fear" when she arrived at what she thought was her apartment, found the door ajar and heard "shuffling" inside, thinking someone had broken in. She said she opened the door, saw a silhouette coming toward her and yelled "show me your hands" twice before opening fire.

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

by Sponsored content