Proof you need to watch what you say online

Status
Not open for further replies.
In this context, and in that jurisdiction, means that she purposely aimed the gun and fired it at the victim. The act became murder when he died.

There are defenses against the charge. The defendant tried to mount a defense, and she failed.

So... Not sure if you're aware, but apparently what actually sunk her was not that she pointed the gun at him, shot him, and as a result killed him.

What sunk her was that (from what I understand), in an interview with police, she essentially expressed her intent to kill him. Not that she had to do what she had to do, and maybe he dies as a byproduct. No, something about "I had to kill the intruder". So THAT'S where it went from self-defense to being convicted of murder, not any of the other legal jargon.

From what I understand anyway.
 
Guyger had admitted in court that she had intended to kill which is not cool in self-defense. You must intend to only stop the attack and there was no attack on the part of Botham Jean. Her flippant attitude via social media postings were used to unveil the true Amber Guyger and what she actually thought about minorities.

Yeah and that much I'm probably willing to admit. She wasn't just okay with him dying as a byproduct of defending herself. Expressing INTENT (there's that word "intent" again that I ranted on earlier) to kill, is what sunk her. But that's preaching to the choir. But even that is probably very different from "murder" in the colloquial sense, even if it is murder in a court of law. But I'll quit the rant.
 
I will go tell the jury they were wrong then.

To everyone else, please know that in the State of Texas, if you point a gun at someone else and pull the trigger and it results in that persons death, it's called Murder. It's only manslaughter if you weren't intentionally shooting at a person.. Don't take my word for it, or any other random internet legal eagle... I mean,. it's not like there's some good recent case law on the mater or anything...

As in, what you'd be charged with if you intentionally pointed a gun at someone with the purpose of killing them? Well yeah, of course, I don't disagree there.

But it sounded like you were implying that the very act of pointing a gun at someone, and them dying in that situation, would always be considered murder. And it sounds like Texas law is written that way from what you're saying, but that's still a bit of a weird way for them to have that on the books. Not that it matters, but if I had to rewrite it...

"When a violent attack intending to kill, ends the life of another person, the perpetrator shall be charged with Murder".

Something like that. In other words, the violent act itself is not what matters. The specific intent to kill using that violent act, is what's relevant.

Because if you were to take the latter of the law in the way Texas describes it (taking your word for it), there would basically be no such thing as self-defense / justifiable homicide.

And actually, even if we change the definition "in practice" to mine... That's how she got convicted anyway. She said she intended to kill the guy, not that she merely used deadly force and his death was a byproduct.

For example, in NY... "Intentionally caused the death of another person..." - And NOT merely that the action caused death, but that death was intended...
 
I will go tell the jury they were wrong then.

To everyone else, please know that in the State of Texas, if you point a gun at someone else and pull the trigger and it results in that persons death, it's called Murder. It's only manslaughter if you weren't intentionally shooting at a person.. Don't take my word for it, or any other random internet legal eagle... I mean,. it's not like there's some good recent case law on the mater or anything...

Dude... It says exactly what I'm saying it says and I didn't even have to read it... But I did because your description didn't sound right. And what a surprise, it wasn't.

https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-19-02.html
 
What sunk her was that (from what I understand), in an interview with police, she essentially expressed her intent to kill him. Not that she had to do what she had to do, and maybe he dies as a byproduct. No, something about "I had to kill the intruder". So THAT'S where it went from self-defense to being convicted of murder, not any of the other legal jargon.

From what I understand anyway.

Well, ... No. That's just garbage. If you are justified in using lethal force, you are justified in killing a person, even intentionally, as long as that death was encompassed in the justified use of force. Saying that you meant to kill a person when you are justified in using lethal force doesn't remove the justification. Conversely, saying that you just meant to wound them or stop the threat doesn't make your action more justified. Saying that you meant to kill them does however make your lawyers job a whole lot harder since it opens up questions regarding if you were actually justified or if you used force on a pretense to satisfy a previously decided upon action.

Saying that having intent to kill a person removes the self defense justification would open up a legal vortex of unprecedented proportions.

Because if you were to take the latter of the law in the way Texas describes it (taking your word for it), there would basically be no such thing as self-defense / justifiable homicide.

Except for the part of the Texas Penal Code that specifically codifies the Use of Force and Use of Lethal Force in the defense of a person, third persons and property.

For example, in NY...

*sigh*

Also, from the wording of your post, it's abundantly clear that you have never read a copy of the Texas Penal Code and don't have the faintest knowledge of how the law here works so, to quote myself from earlier:

If this trial has taught me anything, it's that a huge number of people think that every states legal system is run exactly like what ever procedural legal drama is most popular at the time.
 
Dude... It says exactly what I'm saying it says and I didn't even have to read it...

Well, since your first post calling me out here claimed that her crime aligned with manslaughter and not murder, I doubt the murder statue says what you thought it said.

But I did because your description didn't sound right. And what a surprise, it wasn't.

Okay then, what about my clearly and obviously abbreviated explanation of the Texas murder statue was wrong? I'll copy it again here for reference sake:

Murder: Homicide caused by an intentional act that is inherently dangerous to life.

And I'll remind you:
The Texas Penal Code said:
(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual; or

So, when she pointed a gun at the victim, did she 1) intend to cause serious bodily injury? 2) commit an act clearly dangerous to human life? 3) cause death?

Yes, Yes, Yes.

Does that in any way contradict or disagree with my summary? No. So no, your "When a violent attack intending to kill, ends the life of another person, the perpetrator shall be charged with Murder" doesn't fit because the Texas Penal Code gives Zero Fs if your intent was to kill. The law clearly states "Intends to cause serious bodily injury" Not, "intends to kill" If you point a gun at a person and pull the trigger, you are intending to cause serious bodily injury. I mean, it's possible that she could have tried to argue that she didn't know her gun was loaded, or that maybe she thought there were happy fun time giggle bullets in it, but we know that wouldn't have lasted a moment in court so we won't waste our time with that pedantry here.

I guess you could try to argue that I left out "intends to cause seriously bodily injury" but I thought reasonable people could assume that "intentional act that is inherently dangerous to life" meant that... well, you were intentional doing something inherently dangerous to life. Because, you know, when you shoot bullets at a person, you aren't trying to help improve their bedazzling.

So, let's get back to what you were really saying. What part of this is manslaughter under the Texas Penal Code? I'll help, here's Manslaughter:

Texas Penal Code said:
Sec. 19.04. MANSLAUGHTER. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.

Don't worry, I'll provide for you what Texas thinks Reckless is:
Texas Penal Code said:
(c) A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

So, since what you really said was that she should have been charged with Manslaughter, how do you suppose that when she pointed her gun at her victim and pulled the trigger, you think she was aware of the consequences of shooting her gun at another human being, but disregarded the natural consequences of her act. Show your work with evidence. Statements would be best. Was she heard to utter, "I didn't think my bullets would kill him"?

Or, did she fully knowingly and intentionally, point her gun at another person, and knowing the naturally lethal consequences of shooting other people, pull the trigger? Because that's murder, and that's what I said in my first post.
 
Except for the part of the Texas Penal Code that specifically codifies the Use of Force and Use of Lethal Force in the defense of a person, third persons and property.

On the other stuff, I honestly think we're both getting mixed up in two sides of a semantics situation.

On the above... Fair enough, I didn't get that far in and should have done my due diligence on that one.
 
Well, since your first post calling me out here claimed that her crime aligned with manslaughter and not murder, I doubt the murder statue says what you thought it said.

I was thinking more criminally negligent homicide. As in, "should have known better, but didn't". As opposed to recklessness' "Knew better but ignored the risk" more or less.


So, when she pointed a gun at the victim, did she 1) intend to cause serious bodily injury? 2) commit an act clearly dangerous to human life? 3) cause death?

Yes, Yes, Yes.

Does that in any way contradict or disagree with my summary? No. So no, your "When a violent attack intending to kill, ends the life of another person, the perpetrator shall be charged with Murder" doesn't fit because the Texas Penal Code gives Zero Fs if your intent was to kill. The law clearly states "Intends to cause serious bodily injury" Not, "intends to kill" If you point a gun at a person and pull the trigger, you are intending to cause serious bodily injury. I mean, it's possible that she could have tried to argue that she didn't know her gun was loaded, or that maybe she thought there were happy fun time giggle bullets in it, but we know that wouldn't have lasted a moment in court so we won't waste our time with that pedantry here.


So... Are you actually familiar with the legal concepts of "actus reus" and "mens rea"?

Actus reus basically being the "guilty act", and Mens Rea basically being the "guilty mind" more or less. I forget their exact latin translations, but that should give the idea.

The possible "Mens Rea" are as we've talked about. Negligence, Recklessness, Knowing, and finally Intent/Purposefully.

When you see that language in the statute... I mean I guess 100 people in the legal field can go into a debate on this, but I think I didn't properly clarify, or maybe I did and should just rephrase..?


So... When you see:

(b) A person commits an offense if he:

(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;

(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual;  or...



When you see "intent" there, it's not really referring to the act of raising your gun and shooting, in and of itself. It's referring to your state of mind WHILE doing that.


Sec. 19.05. CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE. (a) A person commits an offense if he causes the death of an individual by criminal negligence.


"She should have known she was on the wrong floor and should have checked a door number before she entered the dwelling that wasn't hers, but she didn't, and therefore negligently caused the man's death."

But her saying afterwards, that she literally intended to kill him, changed the charge VERY quickly.

Now, I see what you're saying. "If the defense was justified, there's an exception under Texas law. If it wasn't, it'll be classified as murder."

No, not necessarily. The appropriate charges in that case, are not as black and white as either "justified" (no charge), or Murder in the First Degree. No, there's some in-between nuance. And even if those were the only two options under Texas law, we both know that the situation in question here meant she was not fully criminally responsible and sure as hell didn't meet the max sentence for First Degree Murder. And I think we saw that in her sentence..

Doesn't mean any of that in-between applies to Guyger. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. I'm just saying that it's not as simple, and (from my perspective), it would be useful to look more into Actus Reus and Mens Rea, and what those statutes are actually describing. In my opinion (and I could be totally wrong, I'll admit), I think you're getting those two wires crossed.

Sorry for the essay by the way ha.
 
Last edited:
When you say "Murder in the First Degree" and "First Degree Murder", what TX offense are you referring to and how is it defined?

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.19.htm
I was thinking more criminally negligent homicide.
Criminally negligent homicide is unintentionally causing a death by doing something that was not otherwise criminal but then being negligent about it. e.g. Digging a deep hole in a public walkway for maintenance purposes but then forgetting/neglecting to put a sign and barrier around it. No intent to injure or kill someone at all--just someone being negligent in their duties.

Manslaughter is similarly an offense where there is no intent to cause death. e.g. A person was driving recklessly, lost control and killed a pedestrian. They were intentionally doing something reckless, but there was no intent to kill someone.

Aiming a gun you know to be loaded at someone and intentionally pulling the trigger is an intentional act. If there were any doubt about it being intentional, that doubt would have to disappear once the defendant claimed self-defense, as self-defense is an intentional act. Therefore it isn't being criminally negligent nor is it committing manslaughter because both of those result in death only unintentionally.

If you claim self-defense and your claim is found to not be justified, you can't then claim it was an accident (i.e. criminal negligence or manslaughter). If you want to claim criminal negligence, you have to start out claiming that it was unintentional from the beginning. e.g. You didn't see the person in the dark but you had your gun out because you were alarmed by the door being opened when you thought you left it locked. When they made a noise you turned toward them, unintentionally aiming the gun at them because it was in your hand and it went off by mistake because you were startled.

Claiming self-defense eliminates the ability to claim manslaughter or criminal negligence under TX law--that leaves murder as the only remaining option if the claim of self-defense is not justified by the circumstances of the case.
 
Saying that you meant to kill a person when you are justified in using lethal force doesn't remove the justification.
What it does do is provide a stong indication that your act did not meet all of the required elements of lawful self defense.

When you see "intent" there, it's not really referring to the act of raising your gun and shooting, in and of itself. It's referring to your state of mind WHILE doing that.
When you see "intent" here, it refers to whether the actor purposely aimed at an individual and purposrly fired the gum.
 
When you see "intent" there, it's not really referring to the act of raising your gun and shooting, in and of itself. It's referring to your state of mind WHILE doing that.

Of course it's referring to the state of mind and the act. She intentionally pointed the gun at another person and pulled the trigger. She didn't recklessly point the gun at another person and pull the trigger. She didn't negligently point the gun at another person and pull the trigger.

"She should have known she was on the wrong floor and should have checked a door number before she entered the dwelling that wasn't hers, but she didn't, and therefore negligently caused the man's death."

Wrong act there. You are contending that she recklessly burgled the victims apartment. Since her entering the apartment didn't directly cause his death, her mental state in committing the burglary is irrelevant to the murder charge.

. The appropriate charges in that case, are not as black and white as either "justified" (no charge), or Murder in the First Degree. No, there's some in-between nuance. And even if those were the only two options under Texas law, we both know that the situation in question here meant she was not fully criminally responsible and sure as hell didn't meet the max sentence for First Degree Murder.

That's probably because First Degree Murder isn't a crime in the Texas Penal Code.

So please, pretty please... It's obvious that you don't know what you are talking about. Learn the Texas law or stop. Several people besides me have weighed in with the actual Texas law and how it's adjudicated. Stop using knowledge of how the law works in other states.


What it does do is provide a stong indication that your act did not meet all of the required elements of lawful self defense.

Oh, I'm not saying it's a bright idea to run around saying you intentionally killed a person. I'm just saying that it doesn't automatically negate a claim of self defense. As I said, in the very least, it is going to make the life of your attorney a lot more exciting. It will also cause the prosecution and jury to look a lot more closely at facts that may have been viewed in a lesser light. Such as, did he really need to fire that second shot or was that second shot unnecessary and thus moved from self defense to murder? In the end, the totality of circumstances still determines if a shooting was justified, not a possibly throw away comment uttered in a stressful situation. But that comment is of course not free from consequences.
 
Every state has disorderly conduct laws which courts have not overturned facially (as a statute) because Chaplinsky is still good law. Chaplinsky was narrowed in the Brandenburg decision by SCOTUS by narrowing the definition of what can be considered an "immediate" threat to public disorder or violence. Just recently, the court ducked a chance to define what was a "true threat" that was not protected by the 1st Amendment versus speech that is protected.

This is interesting case law, and I appreciate you taking the time to go into it and let me learn something. Thanks!
 
Freedom of speech =! freedom of consequences for one’s speech. I don’t know where you live so the laws may be different than the US, but can you give one example of what you’re talking about, where the government fined or jailed a person solely for an opinion they held?

Jailed directly is unlikely but in trouble legally indirectly is common and has erroded the freedom of speech. If for example you state views or opinions that show dislike or bias against any of growing protected classes on your own personal time outside of employment but you are a supervisor, or a business owner, or otherwise hold authority over others in the workplace and then are accused later of violating their rights it may be used against you or bias an investigator or court against you.
Off the top of my head protected includes race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender, and continues to expand in scope.
Accusations of mistreatment from a disgruntled employee who is fired for example are quite common, but often will go nowhere. However if your statements show bias perhaps those same accusations cost you a lot of money or even result in findings of violations of the law, even if those views didn't change conduct in the workplace those invloved in the process thinking they did will have different findings as a result.
So no you don't really have the freedom of speech anymore.
What is a disability, does it grow to include many mental disabilities, what if those drastically shape the person? Religion is organized morality more often than not, and directly shapes the values and morals espoused or held. So what is protected, only big religions? Who decides if its a cult? What if you take part in sacred orgies and sacrifices is that protected still? At what point is having an opinion about my cult violating my rights under a protected class?
What if I say we have too many Mexicans from not securing the border but then as a business owner get accused of unfairly treating a Mexican employee does it have more merit and see me in trouble for what would have otherwise gone nowhere?
You see you do not really have the freedom of speech, and those that claim to be the most sensitive and tolerant are actually those that pressure the government to punish you most severely for saying anything they do not agree with or that does not go with their vision of how society should become.

Politics is people fighting for power to normalize or legitimize different views or morals and outlaw others, and trickles down into the law. For example being gay was considered a mental disorder just a few decades ago, being sexually attracted to that which you cannot procreate with considered abnormal. Now it is not, politically adjusted even the DSM governing pschology, the law, and it is now illegal to even mention such a thing in the workforce as it is a protected class. I recall California passed a proposition that was the protection of marriage act to limit marriage to between a man and a woman and the Supreme Court threw it out. Now I actually think gay marriage is a good thing as high promiscuitiy and several fold the STD rate including HIV of the normal population a huge threat to themselves and breeding ground for diseases that pass to the mainstream population, and if they want to be with one partner that is a huge plus. But my point is the Courts and society in a short time went from considering it a mental disorder to normalizing and then protecting it as a class, whom even speaking against can make one subject to crimal penalties. Now even pursuing that I might want to have breasts or be half man half woman supported by a lot of hormones is a protected class you cannot speak against. Steroids to be a buff muscle head or unnatural athlete with associated mood swings and health problems was outlawed for straight people, but normalized if you are 'trans'.
The Federal Courts have actually made California what the rest of the nation associates California with and which only San Francisco and Hollywood used to be. It is coming for the rest of the nation now.
When what you say interferes with it that will not be protected speech.
So indirectly through protecting classes which cannot be discriminated against in the workforce what you can legally get away with saying in your free time has changed because it will become evidence used to find you in violation of things in the workforce whether it is true or not and subject you to legal costs and rammifications. So is that free speech?

Freedom of speech would be being held accountable through boycotts or in trouble for being unprofessional. Or being a social pariah as a result. Not held accountable by an employer afraid of legal action, or held accountable by the courts or subject to increased investigations or biased investigators or lawsuits which is exactly what happens. So the government and courts do in fact punish you for what you say on your free time, just indirectly. If you have no authority in society you can spout more stuff that perhaps offends some, but once you are a supervisor, business owner, or otherwise have authority over others the law suddenly can be used discretionarily to punish you over what you say, even on your own personal time.
So no you do not have the freedom of speech to talk about things unless you are a nobody. The scope of the things you will be unable to talk about will continue to grow.
If people all become politically correct robots about topics and subjects not even incorporated into those which you cannot talk about yet, then the speed at which it happens will be significantly increased.
 
Last edited:
Jailed directly is unlikely but in trouble legally indirectly is common and has erroded the freedom of speech. If for example you state views or opinions that show dislike or bias against any of growing protected classes on your own personal time outside of employment but you are a supervisor, or a business owner, or otherwise hold authority over others in the workplace and then are accused later of violating their rights it may be used against you or bias an investigator or court against you.
Off the top of my head protected includes race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender, and continues to expand in scope.
Accusations of mistreatment from a disgruntled employee who is fired for example are quite common, but often will go nowhere. However if your statements show bias perhaps those same accusations cost you a lot of money or even result in findings of violations of the law, even if those views didn't change conduct in the workplace those invloved in the process thinking they did will have different findings as a result.
So no you don't really have the freedom of speech anymore.
What is a disability, does it grow to include many mental disabilities, what if those drastically shape the person? Religion is organized morality more often than not, and directly shapes the values and morals espoused or held. So what is protected, only big religions? Who decides if its a cult? What if you take part in sacred orgies and sacrifices is that protected still? At what point is having an opinion about my cult violating my rights under a protected class?
What if I say we have too many Mexicans from not securing the border but then as a business owner get accused of unfairly treating a Mexican employee does it have more merit and see me in trouble for what would have otherwise gone nowhere?
You see you do not really have the freedom of speech, and those that claim to be the most sensitive and tolerant are actually those that pressure the government to punish you most severely for saying anything they do not agree with or that does not go with their vision of how society should become.

Politics is people fighting for power to normalize or legitimize different views or morals and outlaw others, and trickles down into the law. For example being gay was considered a mental disorder just a few decades ago, being sexually attracted to that which you cannot procreate with considered abnormal. Now it is not, politically adjusted even the DSM governing pschology, the law, and it is now illegal to even mention such a thing in the workforce as it is a protected class. I recall California passed a proposition that was the protection of marriage act to limit marriage to between a man and a woman and the Supreme Court threw it out. Now I actually think gay marriage is a good thing as high promiscuitiy and several fold the STD rate including HIV of the normal population a huge threat to themselves and breeding ground for diseases that pass to the mainstream population, and if they want to be with one partner that is a huge plus. But my point is the Courts and society in a short time went from considering it a mental disorder to normalizing and then protecting it as a class, whom even speaking against can make one subject to crimal penalties. Now even pursuing that I might want to have breasts or be half man half woman supported by a lot of hormones is a protected class you cannot speak against. Steroids to be a buff muscle head or unnatural athlete with associated mood swings and health problems was outlawed for straight people, but normalized if you are 'trans'.
The Federal Courts have actually made California what the rest of the nation associates California with and which only San Francisco and Hollywood used to be. It is coming for the rest of the nation now.
When what you say interferes with it that will not be protected speech.
So indirectly through protecting classes which cannot be discriminated against in the workforce what you can legally get away with saying in your free time has changed because it will become evidence used to find you in violation of things in the workforce whether it is true or not and subject you to legal costs and rammifications. So is that free speech?

Freedom of speech would be being held accountable through boycotts or in trouble for being unprofessional. Or being a social pariah as a result. Not held accountable by an employer afraid of legal action, or held accountable by the courts or subject to increased investigations or biased investigators or lawsuits which is exactly what happens. So the government and courts do in fact punish you for what you say on your free time, just indirectly. If you have no authority in society you can spout more stuff that perhaps offends some, but once you are a supervisor, business owner, or otherwise have authority over others the law suddenly can be used discretionarily to punish you over what you say, even on your own personal time.
So no you do not have the freedom of speech to talk about things unless you are a nobody. The scope of the things you will be unable to talk about will continue to grow.
If people all become politically correct robots about topics and subjects not even incorporated into those which you cannot talk about yet, then the speed at which it happens will be significantly increased.

I see what you're saying, although speech has had consequences for about as long as we've been a country. One has had to mind what they say, when and how, and to whom, since the time of our founding. That's a good thing too, considering Thomas Jefferson himself gave a paid slanderer a state department salary to attack his political enemies -- not something I think most of us would want our public dollars going toward.

I agree with a lot of what you've written in principle, but I also can't help but noticed you didn't include any recent examples of free speech violations in practice as it relates to 1A (between the people and the government, not between us and our employers, or each other).
 
So what is she actually going to do with a 10 year sentence in Texas? I know some states have minimum amounts of the sentence for certain violent crimes, but that generally about half of a sentence with good time is done with parole cutting what portion of it is done behind bars down even further.
So I am thinking she is really going to do like 3-5 years for busting into an innocent man's home and shooting him dead while he ate a bowl of ice cream because she thought it was her place?
And that is if we believe her motivations and it was not actually some ongoing dispute where the guy playing loud music or banging on her ceiling finaly was just too much for her and she got home after a long day and decided to do something about it.
And that is already giving her a lot of credit because when I heard she went to use the key and it fell open I immediately thought coached attorney or experienced law enforcement statement. This is because at least where I live having to open a door or window versus it already being open is breaking and entering versus not breaking and entering and would have an impact on the subsequent severity of the actions committed and impact the sentencing. So the statement made it not only unlocked but already open so she didn't even break that law? Yeah sure. I might believe it was just unlocked, but where I am from that wouldn't make it not breaking and entering. How convenient she broke into someone's home without breaking into someone's home under the law? It sounds like a coached statement intentionally designed to minimize and reduce the potential consequences as much as possible.


Being a cop she will also likely be kept out of the general population and only housed with the most well behaved inmates or other former law enforcement too right? So it will probably be a much easier experience than for most people, and female prison is already much easier and safer.
So 3-5 years of hanging out with trustees and watching TV?
No I think she got about as little as she could without somehow making it his fault he was shot.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top