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.
Yes, but the fourth floor of the garage where Guyger backed in is open air. You can see outside. The third floor is closed in. How did she miss that?
Interesting, didn't know about this one.
My comments earlier were since you have an assigned space wouldn't someone realize the cars next to you were different, now to find out the 4th floor was open air.
This is supposed to be a "police officer" who should be more aware of their surroundings?
It came out early on she was out drinking, than that changed.
All the "mistakes" she made, have to wonder if she wasn't under the influence of something.
{shrug} not sure why y'all want to continue to beat a dead horse. Sometimes the jury gets it wrong (OJ, this case) and most times the jury gets it right (Zimmerman, for example).
My comments earlier were since you have an assigned space wouldn't someone realize the cars next to you were different, now to find out the 4th floor was open air.
This is supposed to be a "police officer" who should be more aware of their surroundings?
It came out early on she was out drinking, than that changed.
All the "mistakes" she made, have to wonder if she wasn't under the influence of something.
Wasn't she "sexting," with her cop boyfriend? All the way from her work place to the apartment door. Tired as hell, after putting in a long day, and going on with him. Either, Amber or her boyfriend, should have stopped the darn call.
Bad choices. I don't think she should have been a cop, in the first place. After her Mom's testimony, about Amber being molested as a very young girl, by her Mom's boyfriend. This may have caused Amber, to be doubly afraid. JMO
Somehow I suspect that as a liberal, while you have all these unfounded fears of local police, you totally believe the government and media's version of what happened with the Las Vegas shooting and with the Waco massacre and the Oregon standoff.
You call me a liberal....I don't. The only position I have taken is in regards to black people.....which you interpret as being a liberal, while in fact I do not support many liberal positions, while supporting others. The same is true for conservatism....somethings I agree with and some I don't. I tend to mostly not vote as opposed to voting 3 rd party....which is like a no vote.
No....I don't tend to not put much faith in anything coming from the government in regards to things that I cannot bear witness to. I do not fear the local police. I fear elements of the local police and the correct word would not be fear, but rather, distrust.
Finally, I fully accept and recognize that I might be wrong about this. I looked at that young man in court and I do not believe he is who they say he is or that he was killed for the circumstance describe by the police. I truly do not believe that. I believe that, hypothetically, if his killing was linked to the police, directly or indirectly, and such was found out, that the reverberations upon law enforcement throughout the country would be tremendous. It could create open season upon law enforcement officers, which nobody should want just because of a few bad apples. There is NO WAY if such was actually the case, that the truth could be released to the public. No way. The truth would do more harm than good. Therefore, I fully expected that the police would find something to blame the killing on other than a link to the trial. Let me also say, its not just the police but those individuals who have a hard time adjusting to "black justice" against whites.
You call me a liberal....I don't. The only position I have taken is in regards to black people.....which you interpret as being a liberal, while in fact I do not support many liberal positions, while supporting others. The same is true for conservatism....somethings I agree with and some I don't. I tend to mostly not vote as opposed to voting 3 rd party....which is like a no vote.
No....I don't tend to not put much faith in anything coming from the government in regards to things that I cannot bear witness to. I do not fear the local police. I fear elements of the local police and the correct word would not be fear, but rather, distrust.
Finally, I fully accept and recognize that I might be wrong about this. I looked at that young man in court and I do not believe he is who they say he is or that he was killed for the circumstance describe by the police. I truly do not believe that. I believe that, hypothetically, if his killing was linked to the police, directly or indirectly, and such was found out, that the reverberations upon law enforcement throughout the country would be tremendous. It could create open season upon law enforcement officers, which nobody should want just because of a few bad apples. There is NO WAY if such was actually the case, that the truth could be released to the public. No way. The truth would do more harm than good. Therefore, I fully expected that the police would find something to blame the killing on other than a link to the trial. Let me also say, its not just the police but those individuals who have a hard time adjusting to "black justice" against whites.
I think it is a total cover up, by the Dallas police. Witnesses say they heard shots and a 4 door silver sedan speeding away.
Tragic, that the young man had to die to protect the blue line. JMO
Why wasn't he in witness protection? Maybe, he trusted the police; like lots of us try to do. Most police are honest; but those that aren't, are the worst of the worst. Police are still pulling stunts, even with cameras all over the place. Makes me wonder, what did they do before cameras???
He was a drug dealer yet the prosecution didn't mention this as a way to discredit him?
Exactly! The "he was shot in a drug deal gone bad" is a load of horse manure. If he had ties to drugs, the defense would have jumped on that.
Yet - they remained silent.
Not buying that it was a drug deal gone bad. I am not part of the conspiracy theory circle who thinks the Dallas PD offed him, but I'm also not buying the bs drug story, either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch
Note how the activity on this thread is dropping off. The defenders of idiocy are hauling a$$ elsewhere.
We have had a real issue as to whether the DA used a major witness who they knew or should have known was a drug dealer. I don't know that being a drug dealer would impact his testimony. But I would think it was required to be disclosed if it was known or should have been known.
Interesting. All the loud mouth ones have shut up...
That's rich, considering how many things you got wrong all along the way, no matter how many times it was pointed out to you that it was wrong - including video and links.
Exhibit A:
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch
Did She ever say that? I do not think so. She said when she fired she intended to kill. But the jury apparently heard something else. She did not say she intended to kill before entering as far as I can find.
Anyone have something different.
I gave you the link to her testimony. You apparently did not watch it. She said that took her service weapon out of the holster BEFORE she opened the door, because she "wanted to find that threat". Intent. Right there. She then used her left arm to open the door - the left hand that had all of her gear in it, because, as she said, she was trained to keep her right hand empty in case she ever needed to grab her weapon. Watch the fricken links I've provided to you. I don't know how much easier I can make it for you. I can't watch it for you - you actually have to watch.
Last edited by Three Wolves In Snow; 10-11-2019 at 08:35 AM..
Exactly! The "he was shot in a drug deal gone bad" is a load of horse manure. If he had ties to drugs, the defense would have jumped on that.
Yet - they remained silent.
Not buying that it was a drug deal gone bad. I am not part of the conspiracy theory circle who thinks the Dallas PD offed him, but I'm also not buying the bs drug story, either.
That's rich, considering how many things you got wrong all along the way, no matter how many times it was pointed out to you that it was wrong - including video and links.
Exhibit A:
I gave you the link to her testimony. You apparently did not watch it. She said that took her service weapon out of the holster BEFORE she opened the door, because she "wanted to find that threat". Intent. Right there. She then used her left arm to open the door - the left hand that had all of her gear in it, because, as she said, she was trained to keep her right hand empty in case she ever needed to grab her weapon. Watch the fricken links I've provided to you. I don't know how much easier I can make it for you. I can't watch it for you - you actually have to watch.
Now he'll ask you to provide the source - the video with the exact time she stated this.
You don't sense there's something more than a little *off*??? Normal people don't keep asking to be spoon fed over and over and over again as though they're five years old.
Exactly! The "he was shot in a drug deal gone bad" is a load of horse manure. If he had ties to drugs, the defense would have jumped on that.
Yet - they remained silent.
Not buying that it was a drug deal gone bad. I am not part of the conspiracy theory circle who thinks the Dallas PD offed him, but I'm also not buying the bs drug story, either.
That's rich, considering how many things you got wrong all along the way, no matter how many times it was pointed out to you that it was wrong - including video and links.
Exhibit A:
I gave you the link to her testimony. You apparently did not watch it. She said that took her service weapon out of the holster BEFORE she opened the door, because she "wanted to find that threat". Intent. Right there. She then used her left arm to open the door - the left hand that had all of her gear in it, because, as she said, she was trained to keep her right hand empty in case she ever needed to grab her weapon. Watch the fricken links I've provided to you. I don't know how much easier I can make it for you. I can't watch it for you - you actually have to watch.
I have watched her testimony twice. She did not say she intended to kill the supposed invader before she opened the door. She did draw as one would have expected before she entered. She was clearly prepared to defend herself which would appear situation-ally appropriate. Why not stop the prevarications?
And it is nice to see you still see the local pot dealer as a fine young Black entrepreneur. Consistent with your other views.
I have watched her testimony twice. She did not say she intended to kill the supposed invader before she opened the door. She did draw as one would have expected before she entered. She was clearly prepared to defend herself which would appear situation-ally appropriate. Why not stop the prevarications?
And it is nice to see you still see the local pot dealer as a fine young Black entrepreneur. Consistent with your other views.
It does not really matter whether she openly stated that or not. I know the Detroit police say that they only "shoot to kill". They are trained to shoot to kill. She does not have to make that admission. That was her training.
You could have a wooden spoon in your hand while approaching the police aggressively. They are not going to try to shoot you in the leg or arm or foot. They are going to aim center mass and attempt to kill you.
It does not really matter whether she openly stated that or not. I know the Detroit police say that they only "shoot to kill". They are trained to shoot to kill. She does not have to make that admission. That was her training.
You could have a wooden spoon in your hand while approaching the police aggressively. They are not going to try to shoot you in the leg or arm or foot. They are going to aim center mass and attempt to kill you.
The issue is not what actually happened. She clearly shot to kill. The issue is that a juror said one of the major factors in their deliberations was that she stated she intended to kill him before she entered the unit. I don't think that is true. So was the jury verdict based on an untrue view of her testimony?
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.
