I think the appeal will depend on the sentence. It's certainly going to be longer than the sentence given a Dallas police officer after the murder of Santos Rodriguez. Officer Cain, who shot the handcuffed teenager at point blank range trying to frighten a burglary confession from him, testified he thought the pistol, confiscated with 5 rounds in it, had no bullets as he feigned Russian roulette. Cain was sentenced to 5 years in prison, but with good behavior served only 2 1/2. That murder happened in 1973. I was about the same age as the victim.
Agree. This idea that cops should always be believed or get benefits of the doubt that we wouldn't give to an ordinary citizen is absurd and was always absurd. Cops deal with dangerous situations (which is often cited as the excuse), but they are trained to do so (unlike ordinary citizens). Furthermore, they are the lethal weapons of the state and have the ability to put someone to death without due process. They should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one. And most of the time, I am pro-cop. I take their side 90 percent of the time, because the evidence supports that. However, when they are clearly out of line, they need to face justice line anyone else. It's not the verdict I would have handed down. However, it was more than a SJW screecher. Murder means to intentionally or knowingly cause the death of a person. Well, she shot him on purpose, so she murdered him. Her way out is to argue self-defense. The problem is that the self-defense laws require a "reasonable belief" of that she was in imminent danger. Well, she wasn't very reasonable. She ignored all kinds of cues that should have tipped her off that she was in the wrong place. She basically claimed, "I was too tired and horny to know what I was doing." Well to most people, that's not a reasonable excuse, and how can it be? Suppose you work as a bouncer at a strip club. You're on your feet until 2:00 a.m., and you're surrounded by slutty naked chicks. If anybody has a right to tired and horny, it's you. Does that mean you get to go shoot people? I don't think it should. Again, I wouldn't have gone with that verdict, but it's not crazy.
Fox4 DFW reported last night guyger testified she said 3x she meant to kill him. now what I didn’t receive was whether that statement was addressing her condition before she went to open the door ... before she deemed him a threat to her ... or after. premeditated ... or after the recognition and (miss) perception of his being a threat. If the latter .. that’s not murder either. If the former ... well ... yeah but then the rest of that testimony about being tired, disregarding the foot mat ... etc ... is hogwash. (Legal term there Deez! LOL)
You don't need premeditation to convict someone of murder. What she'll try to do is argue during the punishment phase that she acted out of "sudden passion." If the jury buys that (which is possible, though not a slam dunk), she could bump it down to a second degree felony rather than a first degree felony. That would reduce her punishment
I thought that was the very difference between murder and manslaughter? Malice. Acting in self-defense to stop the threat ... YEAH ... did what you intended to do whether that was firearm, baseball bat, SUV, or Bic pen. Doesn't make you a "murderer" The guy who shot the DPD cops from the parking garage ... HE was a murderer. Charles Whitman ... he was a murderer. The dozens of daily uses of a firearm to stop a threat which result in the killing of the attacker ... NOT murderers. Clearly this person was in error in her perception of a threat ... but that was her mindset, or so that's what I understood until last night's TV broadcast. Anyhow ... I don't swim in this case. I don't have to do so. But I do appreciate the part of self-defense and how that was discerned or not.
The difference is in your mental state. Generally, if you meant to kill, you're a murderer. If you didn't but did something reckless that killed someone anyway, you're a "manslaughterer." Big difference. Guyger didn't have an attacker. She had a dude chilling on his couch eating ice cream like any one of us could have been. But the jury didn't buy that she was reasonably in that mindset. Again, "I'm tired and horny" isn't enough reason to not be held responsible for shooting somebody.
She will have the right of appeal. However, anything over ten years goes to a custodial status. It used to be 15 years and a day for the threshold between bond and custody but that changed a decade or so back (maybe even longer). In my best Rainey Street alley voices..."yup...mmmhmmm....yep..." and whatever the hell Boomhauer is saying LOL!
Sentencing and release practices were VERY different back then in Texas. Back then, you had parole and short-way discharge. ANY numeric sentence had a date where the good time and flat time (and occasionally blood time credits) would equal the sentence of record and, if you were still in TDC custody, you were simply done with the sentence. No supervision post-release. This is why we got mandatory supervision laws in 1977...with the list of eligible offenses being whittled across the next several Sessions until we now have (since 1996) Discretionary Mandatory Supervision where ALL releases prior to actual discharge of a sentence are subject to Board vote. However, not all offenses are eligible for mandatory supervision, although we have some still in custody that are serving sentences that ARE eligible simply because of the statute in effect when the conduct occurred. This is also why some death row overturns are immediately released after they get resentenced and why some of those plea agreements in the overturns are including language that requires a forfeiture of certain time credits that would otherwise have accrued...
It’s worth mentioning Santos was never a teenager. He was twelve when he and his brother were pulled from their beds at 2 am, cuffed and stuffed into a police car accused of stealing $8 in quarters from a gas station outdoor soda machine. Santos bled out in front of his brother. They were innocent, but this is how cops get people to confess. Even children.
I think I'm about to dip a bowl right now. Perhaps I should get strapped, just in case someone accidentally gets by the layers of barriers (those work, ya know?) to my Fortress Of Solitude. did you see the moment in the courtroom where the victim's brother sought/gave her a hug and some words just for her? How powerful was THAT? That man knows Jesus Christ, doesn't just know about Him. Praise God for that!
he has the peace which surpasses understanding. I've never been tested like this guy, but I've known peace when I should have been selfishly angry at the world ... and God. Only One Way to get that.
It wasn't just the brother, though his example was amazing. It was also Judge Kemp. We need more judges like her.
Some people are really pissed that this story of justice and retribution is turning into a story about Grace and Jesus. God Bless 'em.
I'm all for justice and think she deserves what she's getting. Obviously we can't have a society in which acts like hers can avoid punishment. However, if the Jean family can overcome their horrific pain to not only forgive her but affirmatively show her the love of Christ, then who the hell are we to dishonor their example? Judge Kemp has also taken some flack. Yes, a judge's job is to apply the law. However, she gets to decide on matters of decorum in her courtroom. That means that if she feels the need to comfort a party (even a convicted murderer), she can do that, so long as her application of the law was impartial, which it clearly was, otherwise, the DA would object. Furthermore, if her comments and donating of her Bible helps change the heart of a murderer, doesn't that make all of society better? I think most voters in Dallas County would think so.
It is difficult, probably impossible, to reconcile "forgive everyone" with "justice" and an orderly society. Maybe that's why "you shall not kill" is mentioned.
This is a terrible story all the way around. He literally lost his life. She also lost her life due to what was obviously not intentional. Anyone finding this funny or that is happy about any part of this is a terrible human being.
The situation is tragic, but some good has been found. A jury has made it clear that even cops should be careful in potentially lethal situations. Brandt Jean has given heroic witness for Christ and much of the nation, including a mostly agnostic media, is filled with admiration and respect. And Amber has put a pretty white face on a felony convict and shown a segment of our society worthy of compassion and hope.
I think this misunderstands what forgiveness is. It is not the same as saying that something evil wasn't really all that bad, or doesn't deserve that much punishment.
Apparently the jury was only offered three choices; murder, manslaughter, and not guilty. I heard other criminal attorneys saying criminally negligent homicide should have been on the table.
Y'all ... I recognize some may think I'm a moonbat kook with "all this Jesus stuff." That's OK ... I am convinced this was a manifestation of what was promised to be increased "visitation" ... or the outpouring of The Holy Spirit in "The Last Days" ... as both completely irrational behavior/ideals are demonstrated/held ... and Amazing Grace is demonstrated. If Brandt's decision to forgive ... and then demonstrate that with an embrace of her brother's killer ... makes no sense ... PM me and let's have a conversation. If Judge Kemp's decision to act personally in that post sentencing moment, risking her future as a judge, blows your mind ... let's have a conversation. I am convinced time is very short for those who cannot understand what just happened in that court room. God Bless y'all!
In one of my earlier posts, I made a mistake on the potential for appeal bond. The 2017 revisions made offenses that we used to refer to as 3g ineligible for an appeal bond, even where the sentence is ten years or less. I should have remembered that but since we don't do trial work (generally), I only remembered the re-codification of the offenses formerly known as 3g. So...she remains in a segregated cell pending transfer to TDCJ. She will have no reasonable expectation of ever being in a dayroom or rec yard with other offenders. She can expect that hallways and sidewalks will be cleared before she is moved anywhere. If anyone is familiar with TDCJ operations, it will be akin to when males were moved from NPC at Eastham or from cells at the two other facilities that had a true double-door protective custody wing inside the double doors/gates you were going through to get INTO the main hallway (which is, of course, behind the double gates that you go through to get INTO a facility... In light of the post-sentencing events in the courtroom, I will not be surprised to get a call on the issue of parole and some other matters associated with TDCJ operations.
As pertains to the judge's action...given that she is black, I suspect it was somewhat of a design to try to mitigate the damage that could have come from protests and riots. I don't have an issue with judges making some manner of post-sentencing statements from the bench, but the hug and issuance of a bible has the potential to create issues that the Bar would take umbrage at if presented to them. It comes across as one branch of government favoring a religion which is a bad look when Constitutional standards are applied.
of this I would suppose she is/was well aware. Which makes the act that much more sincere. She evidently recognizes her identity is NOT in "the robe" but in Jesus Christ, the ultimate Judge. I'm not sure I follow all of this though ... Are you directly/going to be directly involved with Guyger's incarceration? From whom do you expect to receive a call regarding parole? thanks.
