Neither of those things have any bearing at all on whether she committed murder. Full stop.
5 Likes
I didn’t have anything constructive to say except for basically this. “Indicted on,” also works.
I like my pet ants.
3 Likes
No argument. But in a court trial, it could very much matter. Sucks, racism sucks, our criminal justice system sucks, but realistically, if true justice is delivered it will be a shock and a surprise. It should not be like that but it is.
7 Likes
Also, beware of dangling participles.
1 Like
Of course it took them a long time to indict this cop. They know she’s not going to try to abscond. They know that officer-involved shootings, where the officer claims self-defense (or whatever), have a lot of potential risks for prosecutors. The dumb move is to rush the charges and trial to show that they are angry at her and won’t let her get away with it. The smart move is to take plenty of time to get everything nailed down and have an absolutely solid case before moving forward. What’s better, an emotional but legally risky response, or a cold, but legally solid response? They want to convict her on serious charges, not satisfy peoples’ anger over the situation and potentially bungle the case.
1 Like
If this had happened in India, an “encounter” is precisely what it would be.
1 Like
Here’s a gem i read a few minutes ago, unrelated to this but in the vein of police brutality:
tl;dr: 4 white cops planned and went on the hunt to beat up protesters and ended up beating up a black cop. Surprise, the police union is saying not to rush to judgement. These guys could be innocent.
7 Likes
There are no words for people like this. Well there are, but I’m not going to repeat them here.
She shot a man after breaking in to his apartment when he was doing nothing wrong. Breaking and entering and deadly assault, leading to murder. I don’t fucking care what her job title is throw her in fucking jail after giving her a fair trial, which should lead to a fair conviction.
We seem to hold police in this country the least accountable when if anyone should be held to the highest standard it is exactly the police.
4 Likes
Yeah. Theres a pattern in cases like this where prosecutors deliberately charge them with a more serious crime they won’t be able to convict on, e.g. murder 1 instead of murder 2, so they will get off in the end.
2 Likes
She was charged with manslaughter rather than murder: the grand jury (not the prosecutor) upgraded the indictment to murder. Also, under Texas law, murder includes killings that elsewhere might be prosecuted as voluntary manslaughter; in Texas, manslaughter is restricted to involuntary killings, and by Guyger’s own admission this was not one.
ETA: but I’m not saying you’re wrong in general.
6 Likes
Don’t forget about the merger doctrine, though. Charging someone with a more serious crime does not mean the jury cannot convict on a lesser crime.
4 Likes
I’m sure they have.
But there’s a shitload of outside attention now.
And, since she’s not really one of the boys, they’re willing to let her take one for the team.
2 Likes
Nobody has to give a statement (except in some cases police officers). Any person accused of an offence can choose to remain silent and wait for disclosure to review the police evidence before making a statement.
While superficially correct, in practice this is not necessarily true. Accused cops in some jurisdictions get to immediately review internal police documents and evidence that normally aren’t available to the accused until discovery at trial, and then only if their lawyer knows about them and manages to squeeze them out of the prosecution, which doesn’t always happen.
I can’t tell if your post is just being pedantic or if you are trying to draw a false equivalency between the rights of the average citizen and the special rights granted to LEOs in many jurisdictions via their union contracts and other exemptions.
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
