Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Peeee-yewwww! There seems to be a lot of people here dead set on conflating the comments on this forum with what the jury believed or thought, odd. The difference between her and a civilian is paramount in this case. Everyone makes mistakes but she was literally trained to do the opposite of everything that she chose to do. One can argue that barging into an apartment is a heat of the moment decision. One cannot argue the decision to not administer constant CPR/first aid and the deletion of evidence from her cell phone is a heat of the moment decision. It's insane that people are even contorting themselves in an attempt to find a way that she wasn't *as* wrong as it seems. Because, that's what people are arguing...not that she wasn't wrong, just that she wasn't as wrong as everyone is making it seem
Like I thought, most of the comments I read on this story from readers were talking about her affair. That’s why she was found guilty. I don’t like a home wrecker anymore than a drug addict. But allowing the jury to hear that caused injustice in this case.
But the opinions here are irrelevant to the jurors' opinions. And it's jurors' opinions that interest me. You have no more idea than I do what the jurors found important.
Although I will say that it's my impression that most people these days don't think that a person having an affair is more apt to commit murder than a person not having an affair.
Well, color me genuinely surprised. Once the judge started instructing the jury that Castle Doctrine could apply even if you were in someone else's home, I thought she was going to walk. Good on the jury.
Well, color me genuinely surprised. Once the judge started instructing the jury that Castle Doctrine could apply even if you were in someone else's home, I thought she was going to walk. Good on the jury.
When the information was entered that she had been explicitly trained not to enter a building in such situations but to call for backup, I sensed the probability of conviction.
By Texas law, he had every right to shoot HER once she stepped in there if he was carrying. Also her being a cop, isn't the firsrt instinct to say "police, freeze!" when you have someone at gunpoint as oppose to just firing away?
Peeee-yewwww! There seems to be a lot of people here dead set on conflating the comments on this forum with what the jury believed or thought, odd. The difference between her and a civilian is paramount in this case. Everyone makes mistakes but she was literally trained to do the opposite of everything that she chose to do. One can argue that barging into an apartment is a heat of the moment decision. One cannot argue the decision to not administer constant CPR/first aid and the deletion of evidence from her cell phone is a heat of the moment decision. It's insane that people are even contorting themselves in an attempt to find a way that she wasn't *as* wrong as it seems. Because, that's what people are arguing...not that she wasn't wrong, just that she wasn't as wrong as everyone is making it seem
I disagree. Many people would not change there feelings even if she had started CPR the minute he went down. Many people wanted her guilty no matter what.
Let's say it was reversed & he came into her apartment by mistake because he mistook the wrong door and the door was also open. If she shot him without hesitation you'd have people saying she was still in the wrong because she opened fired immediately.
I disagree. Many people would not change there feelings even if she had started CPR the minute he went down. Many people wanted her guilty no matter what.
Let's say it was reversed & he came into her apartment by mistake because he mistook the wrong door and the door was also open. If she shot him without hesitation you'd have people saying she was still in the wrong because she opened fired immediately.
Maybe people here would be saying that. But Texas is a stand-your-ground state, and a Texas jury would not have convicted her of murder.
I disagree. Many people would not change there feelings even if she had started CPR the minute he went down. Many people wanted her guilty no matter what.
Let's say it was reversed & he came into her apartment by mistake because he mistook the wrong door and the door was also open. If she shot him without hesitation you'd have people saying she was still in the wrong because she opened fired immediately.
Everything you just said is an assumption. I, for one, have no concern for her race, gender, creed or anything else you can bring up. Wrong is wrong and she is without a doubt wrong.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
