Amber Guyger

[Smart]

You have lurked since August

He misspelled "I was banned and came back under a different screen name.."

[Dale Moser]

I think this is exactly what is in the jurors head right now & reckon the prosecutor hit on this exclusively in the closing...sentencing from the jury in about 30-45mins I heard.



Does anybody know if the judge can alter the punishment suggested by the jury?? Say they give her 99, can the judge hand down a lesser??

Doesn’t matter, she’s done. I doubt she makes it through appeals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Leverhunter]

Yeah! People that think there should be consequences for murdering someone in there own home are real haters!

I never said there shouldn't be consequences and I don't think anyone else on here did either. What I am saying is a lot of people are treating this like she planned this out and intentionally went to his apartment with the intent of killing him. I don't believe that was the case. She never denied killing him and it does sound accidental. For those comments about not immediately rendering aid, that may be true but doesn't change the fact that it was an accident. If you are ever faced with anything like that I hope you don't panic like she may have.

[flywise]

He misspelled "I was banned and came back under a different screen name.."

[BrianL]

A pure accident is one thing, not rendering aid and such leads me to believe that even if it was an accident, there was consideration of covering it up. As far as intent in general, is the end result is the same, the punishment should probably be the same. Like I stated in my 75 in a 55, if I'm speeding I get the same ticket whether I had intended to or not. Also if I kill somebody because I don't like them, because they were sitting on their couch eating ice cream, because they're black, because they're Mexican, or just because I want to to, then the punishment should be the same. Worrying about intent when a crime has been committed, is what gives his stupid laws like hate crimes.

I get that she probably did not originally want to kill that guy, but when she realizes what she did, and then doesn't immediately call 911 and render Aid, You could argue that that is when the murder happened and the shooting was accidental. If I went into the wrong apartment, and then made the mistake of shooting somebody, I would immediately be calling 911 and trying to help all I could. It doesn't appear that's what happened here. If she had immediately rendered aid, my opinion would probably be different.

But base off what you just said, it doesn't matter if she would have attempted CPR or not, she still shot the guy.

[BuckSmasher]

I never said there shouldn't be consequences and I don't think anyone else on here did either. What I am saying is a lot of people are treating this like she planned this out and intentionally went to his apartment with the intent of killing him. I don't believe that was the case. She never denied killing him and it does sound accidental. For those comments about not immediately rendering aid, that may be true but doesn't change the fact that it was an accident. If you are ever faced with anything like that I hope you don't panic like she may have.

One of the first things I learned about guns were how dangerous they can be if used improperly. They can be literal lifesavers but at all times to be careful in their use, used improperly you can face the consequences for the rest of your life. "Bullets are like words, they cannot be called back".

I agree with those that think she shouldn't get life in prison. She murdered a guy but it should be taken into account her intent during sentencing.

I don't blindly love or 'hate' cops. They are people, good ones, bad ones, stupid ones, brilliant ones.

[crc]

She was a cop that murdered that man in his own home.

[RJH1]

But base off what you just said, it doesn't matter if she would have attempted CPR or not, she still shot the guy.

Kinda, internet and such haha. What I was trying to get at is many times intent is disregarded as in speeding, or wholly regarded as in hate crimes. With variable degrees of intent, it would seem that end result is what should matter. That said, I do believe you have to take intent into consideration and when she didn't immediately render Aid and call 911, or radio for help if she still had her police radio, that shows intent. I guess the problem I have with intent is how much it varies from one crime to the next. Hopefully that makes a little more sense and is a little more clear, clairity on the internet it's not always my strong suit :-)

[Dakota7493]

Sure seems like the correct verdict to me. Now to see how the judge sentences her.

I think the jury decides the sentence actually? Could be wrong but I think that is correct.

[Artos]

Doesn’t matter, she’s done. I doubt she makes it through appeals.

I don't doubt her fate is ugly, just curious if the judge can alter the jury's verdict or punishment...again, wish I had caught it all but I thought it was being suggested by napolitano the murder could be reduced & didn't think he was talking about her appeal. He had a problem with the murder conviction with the missing intent / motive that's been kicked around & almost made it sound like the judge could alter (fix) today's verdict by the jury??

Sorry if I'm going down a bad trail & mistook anything.

[Artos]

I think the jury decides the sentence actually? Could be wrong but I think that is correct.

Jury to deliver sentencing soon (within the hour) if what was just reported is accurate...

[BuckSmasher]

I don't doubt her fate is ugly, just curious if the judge can alter the jury's verdict or punishment...again, wish I had caught it all but I thought it was being suggested by napolitano the murder could be reduced & didn't think he was talking about her appeal. He had a problem with the murder conviction with the missing intent / motive that's been kicked around & almost made it sound like the judge could alter (fix) today's verdict by the jury??

Sorry if I'm going down a bad trail & mistook anything.

I think only a verdict has been rendered. I read she could get from 5-99 years in prison. I imagine she gets a lot closer to 5 than 99, because it was intentional.

[jshouse]

No kidding. If you dont think breaking into someone's house and killing them is murder geez...

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Ok

[jshouse]

I think only a verdict has been rendered. I read she could get from 5-99 years in prison. I imagine she gets a lot closer to 5 than 99, because it was intentional.

That doesn't make sense.

[TejasNW]

...just curious if the judge can alter the jury's verdict or punishment...

If I remember correctly, a judge always has the right to toss a verdict or reduce sentencing. Tossing a verdict is rare, but it is a fail safe to prevent miscarriages of justice. It would certainly give rise to an appeal and review of the case by a higher court.

I stand corrected. Texas does not allow a judgement not withstanding verdict in criminal cases.

https://law.justia.com/cases/texas/court-of-criminal-appeals/1996/866-95-4.html

Rule 301 of the Texas Code of Civil Procedure does allow trial courts to "render judgment non obstante veredicto if a directed verdict would have been proper." TEX.R. CIV. P. 301. The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, however, supplies trial judges with no such general power of abrogation in criminal cases. Article 42 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in fact, dictates that the judgment of the court must reflect either "the verdict or verdicts of the jury" in a jury trial or the "finding or findings of the court" in a bench trial. TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.01, § 1(7) (Vernon 1995). Therefore, the trial court does not have the authority to grant a different judgmenta judgment non obstante veredictothan that rendered by the jury.