Reply With Quote
I haven't seen anyone suggest otherwise.
Yeah I would take DMC as somebody that's confused. Pretty common for him, tbh
I haven't seen anyone suggest otherwise.
Anyone who says it was reasonable for Guyger to shoot Botham Jean is suggesting otherwise.
That goes back to whether you accept her confusion about where she was, which is what this whole case is about.
No one thinks it's okay to intentionally walk into someone else's apartment and kill them out of supposed self-defense.
True, but zero accountability? Lets bring in the defense liarwyers:
Drive car wrong way and head on kill a family of 4. "Whoopsies, I thought I was going the right way. Not guilty."
Pharmacist gives your kid the wrong stuff and it kills him. "Whoopsies, I thought I was giving you an antibiotic. Not guilty."
Pavlov and Chunko have a dinner date at the local hospital cafeteria. They are served contaminated stuff from the lab and spend their last moments spooning while posting on ST. "Whoopsies, we mixed up the lab plates with the cooks area plates. Not guilty."
Flabbs still has fantasies about men here.
Anything that's not beyond a reasonable doubt means that benefit of doubt is granted.
So you're saying it was about intent.
Some crimes are strict liability, like traffic violations. Others require prosecutors to establish mens rea
Guilty of murder.
I'm not touching the Pavlov - Chunko case.
Wow, I obviously agree with verdict but shocked they came to conclusion relatively quickly.
Yesssssss!!!!
You're too busy touching yourself thinking about it.
Jury with a clue.
Hopefully Guyger can get some serious rehab if there is a sincere bone in her body.
True, especially after the judge told them BTW, here's a way you can have her skate completely. Just sayin'.
I've read a theory the judge included castle doctrine and manslaughter in order to lower the prospects of a retrial (i.e. appeal that options were not considered in the first trial.). Not sure if that was true but it did seem the jury knew how to apply the law and thought castle doctrine was absurd.
Amazing. Now the sentencing.
Can Botham Jean's family sue DPD? She was off duty, but in uniform, and acting as DPD cop does, escalating immediately to shoot to kill.
I'm not suggesting zero accountability either. At all. She should get prison time and probation. And pay a hefty civil penalty.
Right. Ultimately none of the excuses were reasonable. It just came down to the question Did you really have to shoot the guy?
I've read a theory the judge included castle doctrine and manslaughter in order to lower the prospects of a retrial (i.e. appeal that options were not considered in the first trial.). Not sure if that was true but it did seem the jury knew how to apply the law and thought castle doctrine was absurd.
Of course not.
Based on the publicly available facts, a murder conviction has been the only reasonable outcome for quite some time. That they were even asked to consider manslaughter is preposterous. Judge clearly wanted the jury to go another way, which sucks.
I dont think she deserves a very long sentence tbh
Should end any DPD liability right there.
Assuming they can show proper amount of hours trained to operate a gun etc.
Really? Why not?
I get that intent, legally speaking, is defined as the moment she pulled the trigger she intended to kill him. So by definition, murder makes sense. What I've been questioning in this thread is whether that definition is too rigid.
What if Botham Jean had been a scofflaw Freddy Gray type? or an ex-con? A different verdict?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
