White police officer who killed innocent black man in his home

Status
Not open for further replies.
rgp said:
Sympathetic ? I merely questioned the charge. But as usual, you don't comment on what was said, you comment on your twisted interpretation of what was said.
Click to expand...

I can read you like a book Dude. And it's not a very good one.
 

Wow, lots of self-righteous and faultless people here! No one here was on the jury and heard all the testimony. They did get the usual media spin making it a race issue though. She f*****-up, period.
 
fuzzybuddy said:
I use a "B" because Black is the proper name of a race. I use "W" when using White also a proper name. And this case has relatively little to do with the Dallas PD. She shot him, solely for being in her "apartment". She walked into an apartment and hauled off and shot a guy , sitting and eating ice cream. Over and over she repeated in the 911 call, that she shot him because he was in her apartment. He was just there and she shot him. If she opened any other door in the complex and saw somebody, she would have shot them, because she mistakenly thought it was her apartment. She stated she opened the door and immediately shot him. She said nothing about the threatening Black man, who was attacking her with something in his hands, until after she talked to other police. And that's when she became "afraid".
As far as her being a cop, she was able to effectively perform her duties for the 14 previous hours as a decorated officer in an advanced unit. but then becomes bubble headed nitwit, who can't find her own apartment, and is afraid of the big Black man. One of these senarios is not true.
Click to expand...
She got 10 years and she will be out in five. Too bad for cop haters.
 
Keesha said:
And the fact that after she shot him , was more concerned about losing her job than saving the man’s life. He may have lived with some proper emergency medical care which she could have helped with but chose not to. He bled to death.
Click to expand...

After a Neighborhood Watch meeting many years ago, the police officer and my husband were chatting. The officer said that if you ever have to shoot someone in your house, make sure to shoot to kill. No witnesses equals only one side of the story gets told. Yours.

I cannot help but wonder if that philosophy motivated this woman as Guyger allowed Botham Jean bleed out before her very eyes.
 
I just heard a discussion about this case, on NPR. They mentioned that in some interpretations of that Castle Doctrine, the person doing the shooting does not necessarily have to be a resident of that home. All that is needed is their perception that they are in their own home; in other words, confusion can be a defense. (Her lawyer tried to get away with that argument, anyway.)

IMO, that is the dumbest idea that anyone ever came up with, probably more appropriate to a SNL routine. "Oops, I'm sorry, your honor, I got confused and for one unreal moment, I thought this bar was my home, as it looked similar."
 
It is my hope and prayer that she will carry the words spoken to her by the brother of the victim in her heart and will read the Bible the Court Judge gave her.

She may even become part of the prison ministry. The brother and the judge gave her the only things to change her life...forgiveness"if she is truly sorry" and God's Word.

I pray she fully embraces that Bible and becomes a highly productive citizen doing many good things. Maybe writing a book that changes lives. Many prisoners have done just that.
 
Last edited:
Sunny said:
Somebody brought up the "Castle Doctrine." It probably would have applied more if HE had shot HER!

But it got me wondering: If she opened a door (which presumably he had left unlocked) and just walked into his apartment, would he have been justified in shooting her?
Click to expand...

Well, he would have been more justified than she was in killing him, since he was in his own home and she would have entered without invitation. It all depends on how the Texas law reads.
 
Sunny said:
About your (very predictable) note #44, Lara, Jesus had nothing to do with it. Buddhism, as well as many other faiths besides Christianity, preaches forgiveness. And in how many Christian countries are wrongdoers officially forgiven?
Click to expand...

Sunny, I'm unapologetic for my "predictable" Christian views, as you say, but I am sorry they make you uncomfortable. Religious freedom is alive and well in this country and in this forum so feel free to post your Buddhist views, as you did in your post#60. I'm fully accepting of you posting your Buddhist view. I hope you can allow me the same freedom. Thank you.
 
johndoe said:
She was a rookie cop who made a terrible mistake. There was a similar story locally where a rookie cop shot and killed a drunk. Cops are human and can screw up like anyone else. The victim's brother hugged and forgave her.
Click to expand...

She was no rookie. She was an experienced police officer. IMHO trying to downplay this as a rookie screwup demeans the life of the person she killed. Her screwup was entering the wrong apartment.

Killing the lawful occupant of the apartment, who was just peacefully at home and who did not threaten her in any way, was no screwup -- it was murder, as the jury said it was.
 
Trade said:
Yeah that's really messed up. When I see something like that I thank God that I'm an Atheist.
Click to expand...
Wackos like him will seize every opportunity to push their religious agenda. Notice (during his little courtroom preach) he tells the murderer to "Give yourself to Christ." He wants to be seen as some kind of angelic hero who is so wonderful, he even forgives evil. He'd make a great Jimmy Swaggert.
 
johndoe said:
Wow, lots of self-righteous and faultless people here! No one here was on the jury and heard all the testimony. They did get the usual media spin making it a race issue though. She f*****-up, period.
Click to expand...

Well, I for one am not faultless and I've had my share of screwups -- a couple of them were fairly colossal; however, none of my said screwups cost anyone his life.

I feel that a person's duty of care and responsibility rises with the degree of harm his actions have the possibility of causing harm to others, i.e., backing into another car in a parking lot is not on the same plane as getting on a freeway going the wrong way and wiping out a busload of nuns.
 
Lara said:
It is my hope and prayer that she will carry the words spoken to her by the brother of the victim in her heart and will read the Bible the Court Judge gave her.

She may even become part of the prison ministry. The brother and the judge gave her the only things to change her life...forgiveness"if she is truly sorry" and God's Word.

I pray she fully embraces that Bible and becomes a highly productive citizen doing many good things. Maybe writing a book that changes lives. Many prisoners have done just that.
Click to expand...
I'm sure she will become part of the prison ministry. She knows it will get her an earlier release.
 
win231 said:
I've met the types like the victim's brother. They're usually religious wackos who think everyone deserves to be loved & forgiven. These types would even hug Hitler or Charles Manson.
Click to expand...
win231 said:
You couldn't have done so because you're normal. This guy is not.
And, honesty is usually unkind.
Click to expand...

It takes an exceptionally loving heart to forgive something so horrific. Most people who forgive aren’t doing it for the perpetrators sake but for the sake of their own emotional and mental well being.

When people carry around such angry hateful animosity it changes who ‘they’ are, not the person who did the actually sinful act. Why would anyone want someone else’s dark, angry acts of behaviour, taint their life and shadow over their potential joy and happiness? Any normal person would want to let that darkness go. There’s NOTHING WACKO about it.

Just because it’s not something you personally can or would do doesn’t make it a crazy distorted thing to do. Thank goodness we have plenty of amazing examples of forgiveness at its finest and I don’t think it’s something to criticize. Its an admirable thing to witness and acknowledge.
 
Sunny said:
Somebody brought up the "Castle Doctrine." It probably would have applied more if HE had shot HER!

But it got me wondering: If she opened a door (which presumably he had left unlocked) and just walked into his apartment, would he have been justified in shooting her?
Click to expand...
Reading your question "exactly" as you have written it, if this was in Pennsylvania, the Castle Doctrine applies, BUT, you better be damn sure that your life was in jeopardy and able to prove it. The best way to do this is to make sure that the intruder was carrying a deadly weapon. If I simply walk into your home uninvited, unarmed and showed no signs of threat to you, then you better not shoot me.

This is not to say that certain circumstances may change the outcome such as; if it is 2 in the morning and you "force" your way into my home, then you may be able to prove that you feared for your safety, which wouldn't be real hard to do in this case. There is a fine line between being justified and not. This is another reason why the D.A. makes the big bucks. It's his call whether to charge the shooter or call it "Justifiable."
 
win231 said:
I'm sure she will become part of the prison ministry. She knows it will get her an earlier release.
Click to expand...

Exactly. She'll "find Jesus" in time for her parole board hearing.

If I was on a parole board and some con tried to scam me with that crap I'd tack on an extra 10 years to their sentence just on general principles.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top