Runboard.com
You're welcome.





runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)

Page:  1  2  3  4 

 
mais oui Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 4828
Karma: 17 (+23/-6)
Reply | Quote
Re: "A stunning verdict" according to Norah O'Donnell


quote:

If a male cop had done the same thing she did, except for killing a woman instead of a man in her own apartment, he likely would not have been convicted of murder and might not even have been convicted of manslaughter.



all of which you cannot possibly know

 Im still awaiting your evidence that lots of times men walk into apartments and shoot people without getting convicted

---
HAPPINESS, THE IGNOBLE LIFE GOAL OF THE ILLITERATE
10/3/2019, 1:29 pm Link to this post PM mais oui Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 4467
Karma: 26 (+29/-3)
Reply | Quote
Re: "A stunning verdict" according to Norah O'Donnell


Here are a couple of examples. In both cases male police officers who shot and killed innocent people in their own homes after breaking in on them were let off the hook. One by a jury and the other even before it got to a jury. This sort of pattern of male cops getting away with killing people in their own homes may be why Norah O'Donnell was stunned by the murder conviction of Amber Guyger.


"On January 4, 2008, Tarika Wilson had been holding her 14-month-old son when an Ohio SWAT team broke down her front door. Sgt. Joe Chavalia entered the residence shooting both Tarika and her infant son. Unarmed and not suspected of any crimes, Tarika died of her wounds while her child survived. Chavalia was charged with two misdemeanors, negligent homicide and negligent assault. An all-white jury convened for three hours before returning with a not guilty verdict."

"During a drug raid in Modesto, California, 11-year-old Alberto Sepulveda was lying facedown on his bedroom floor when Officer David Hawn entered the room and fired his shotgun. Claiming his shotgun accidentally discharged, Hawn refused to take responsibility for taking Alberto’s life on September 13, 2000. Clearing Hawn of any criminal charges, former Attorney General Bill Lockyer admitted, “Unfortunately, too many times the deployment of a SWAT team has resulted in the unintentional death or injury to a peace officer or member of the public.”

https://andrewemett.com/2014/08/31/innocent-civilian-deaths-caused-by-police-militarization/comment-page-1/
10/3/2019, 3:09 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
mais oui Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 4828
Karma: 17 (+23/-6)
Reply | Quote
Re: "A stunning verdict" according to Norah O'Donnell


Oh dear Philer not the same, not the same at all



---
HAPPINESS, THE IGNOBLE LIFE GOAL OF THE ILLITERATE
10/3/2019, 3:26 pm Link to this post PM mais oui Blog
 
snowpixie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 1555
Karma: 10 (+14/-4)
Reply | Quote
Re: "A stunning verdict" according to Norah O'Donnell


 no comparison.

  Getting back to the topic. I firmly believe that it was not intentional. Just a tragic error that has ended two lives. She wasn't thinking and you can't do that while armed.

Phil mistake or not, the jury decided she had no cause to shoot to kill. And right there, is where they counted her guilty of Murder.

Last edited by snowpixie, 10/3/2019, 7:28 pm
10/3/2019, 7:12 pm Link to this post PM snowpixie Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 4467
Karma: 26 (+29/-3)
Reply | Quote
Re: "A stunning verdict" according to Norah O'Donnell


quote:

mais oui wrote:

Oh dear Philer not the same, not the same at all




Not precisely the same but the same in every way that counts. No justification for entering someone's private residence, an unarmed and innocent person being shot and killed, and no sign of criminal activity on the part of the victim.

In fact, about the only significant difference favors Amber Guyger since the two victims in those other cases either complied with police orders or were complying with them when they were shot.

The reality is that there was no justification for any of the shootings but only the female cop paid for her mistake with a murder conviction.
10/3/2019, 7:42 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 4467
Karma: 26 (+29/-3)
Reply | Quote
Re: "A stunning verdict" according to Norah O'Donnell


quote:

snowpixie wrote:

 no comparison.

  Getting back to the topic. I firmly believe that it was not intentional. Just a tragic error that has ended two lives. She wasn't thinking and you can't do that while armed.

Phil mistake or not, the jury decided she had no cause to shoot to kill. And right there, is where they counted her guilty of Murder.



There was no justification for shooting and killing people in those other two cases either. Even if we assume that David Hawn shot the little boy by accident while he was complying with police orders to lie on the floor that would still qualify as manslaughter so why wasn't Hawn charged with that crime? He wasn't even brought before a jury.
10/3/2019, 7:47 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
snowpixie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 1555
Karma: 10 (+14/-4)
Reply | Quote
Re: "A stunning verdict" according to Norah O'Donnell


  Phil, they are not the same, because of the circumstances. Ms. Guyger defense wanted to defend her using the "mistake of fact" defense.

Guyger believed she was entering her apartment and it was up to prosecution to prove "that Guyger could not have reasonably made the mistake of going to the wrong floor and opening her neighbor’s door; using that defense the prosecutor would needed to convince a jury that Guyger intended to kill"...except she was already on record stating (she shot to kill), so that defense was dropped and instead they relied on Castle Doctrine.

since she wasn't in her home the jury believed the Castle Doctrine defense didn't apply because she disregarding the red doormat when she walked into the apartment, she disregarded the furniture was different and not in the same place as hers. In your cases the SWAT team were given the correct addresses, they were on duty. SWAT teams are called only when the situations is dangerous with the high probability that
they will be shot at. They are risking their lives. I have to agree with Mary. These cases are not similar at all.

Last edited by snowpixie, 10/4/2019, 6:27 am
10/4/2019, 6:14 am Link to this post PM snowpixie Blog
 
mais oui Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 4828
Karma: 17 (+23/-6)
Reply | Quote
Re: "A stunning verdict" according to Norah O'Donnell




Iam sorry but in a civilized country you cant just shoot people - even people in your home if they are posing no threat.

As I have said many times here walking into some ones home here isnt even a criminal offence!

---
HAPPINESS, THE IGNOBLE LIFE GOAL OF THE ILLITERATE
10/4/2019, 9:33 am Link to this post PM mais oui Blog
 
mais oui Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 4828
Karma: 17 (+23/-6)
Reply | Quote
Re: "A stunning verdict" according to Norah O'Donnell


Hungover man wakes up to find couple staring at him – then realises he’s in wrong house



One Scottish man found out the hard way when he emerged from a heavy night of drinking. The hungover gent had been at a house party the night before. Then in his drunken state, wandered into the kitchen to make himself some noodles before sleeping on the living room sofa. It was only until the morning that, in his confused state, realised he had made a very big error of judgement.


And that the kitchen he was cooking in the night before – was not the kitchen he thought it was, the Daily Record reports.

In a hilarious clip, he explains: ”A couple woke me up going 'who are you?'.

"I'm like 'what are you talking about? I was here at the party last night'.

"And he went 'trust me man, there was no party here last night'."

As he barely controls himself laughing, he continues: "I went to get a taxi last night.

“The taxi left and I came into the wrong house.

"I came in, got a cover and went to sleep.

"Instead of going back to the party I went into the house next door.”

he couple explained they found cooked food in the kitchen, to which he says: “I must have been making myself noodles."

The video has been watched more than 70,000 times.

Luckily for the unnamed man it didn’t turn sour.

The couple found the funny side of his story – despite accidentally breaking into their home.

They even made him a cup of tea and shared a cigarette with him to show there were no bad feelings.

He added: "Thank god this woman is from Glasgow.

"She was like 'aye we're welcoming'. Got a cup of tea and a fag!

"Thank you very much for being so understanding."


https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1115056/Drunk-Scottish-man-house-party-lost-drinking-alcohol-viral-video

---
HAPPINESS, THE IGNOBLE LIFE GOAL OF THE ILLITERATE
10/4/2019, 9:37 am Link to this post PM mais oui Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 4467
Karma: 26 (+29/-3)
Reply | Quote
Re: "A stunning verdict" according to Norah O'Donnell


quote:

snowpixie wrote:

  Phil, they are not the same, because of the circumstances. Ms. Guyger defense wanted to defend her using the "mistake of fact" defense.

Guyger believed she was entering her apartment and it was up to prosecution to prove "that Guyger could not have reasonably made the mistake of going to the wrong floor and opening her neighbor’s door; using that defense the prosecutor would needed to convince a jury that Guyger intended to kill"...except she was already on record stating (she shot to kill), so that defense was dropped and instead they relied on Castle Doctrine.

since she wasn't in her home the jury believed the Castle Doctrine defense didn't apply because she disregarding the red doormat when she walked into the apartment, she disregarded the furniture was different and not in the same place as hers. In your cases the SWAT team were given the correct addresses, they were on duty. SWAT teams are called only when the situations is dangerous with the high probability that
they will be shot at. They are risking their lives. I have to agree with Mary. These cases are not similar at all.



From Amber's perspective her life was at risk as well.

The cases are more similar than you seem willing to believe and in ways they are different they actually favor Amber. In Amber's case she apparently was acting out of fear like one of the other officers, the one who faced a jury. But in that case he shot someone who was complying with police orders. In the other the claim isn't even that the officer believed he was in danger. It's simply that he accidentally shot a young boy who was complying with an order to lie on the floor. Why should that sort of shooting be treated like it was not the officer's fault?

Another similarity is that there was no need for the officers to bust into private homes or in one case an apartment. But they did so anyway. They then shot and killed innocent people. But in every case the claim is that it was a mistake. Why is the mistake by Amber greater than the mistake made by those other officers? People were killed in all three cases.

If Amber was telling the truth her crime wasn't significantly different from the crimes the other officers committed unless that one involving an alleged accident was no accident.

One other thing I learned today. One of the black jurors in Amber's case considers her to be more remorseful than a lot of other police officers who have shot unarmed persons, a belief that appears to be justified. That's one reason why she wasn't able to go along with the 28 year sentence that the prosecution requested and opted instead for the 10 year sentence.
10/4/2019, 6:30 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3  4 





You are not logged in (login)