FBI Opens Investigation into Shooting of Michael Brown

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Sounds as if babies' mother is in denial.

Sounds to me like she wants a check from the city.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by digamma

Star Tribune Error: 404

So this happened in my neighborhood, three blocks from where I live. So far, no information from police other than body cameras were not activated. There are so many layers as to why this could be a really difficult one. And I'm waiting for more to the story.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/30/us/mi...ict/index.html

[bhlloy]

I’m not a lawyer, and I’m sure there are good reasons, but the difference in outcome between this and the Philando Castile shooting in the same state make me really freaking uncomfortable

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

I’m not a lawyer, and I’m sure there are good reasons, but the difference in outcome between this and the Philando Castile shooting in the same state make me really freaking uncomfortable

You mean this difference?

Lt. Derrick Hacker of the Crystal Police Department in Minnesota said that Noor's use of deadly force was "excessive and objectively unreasonable."
Being "startled" is different than "fearing death or great bodily harm," Hacker said.

Not sure I have ever heard an LEO make this distinction publicly.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

I’m not a lawyer, and I’m sure there are good reasons, but the difference in outcome between this and the Philando Castile shooting in the same state make me really freaking uncomfortable

Yup

[Radii]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

You mean this difference?

Not sure I have ever heard an LEO make this distinction publicly.

Seeing other law enforcement officers testify against a cop sure seems odd to me.

But nah, in the two cases of "innocent person following all rules gets shot to death by police anyway" I think we can just focus on the white cop shooting the black guy who is free and the black cop who shot a white woman who is going to prison.

[digamma]

The biggest difference to me is the firing of seven shots into a car of someone who is cooperating with you verbally and firing a single shot (maybe two) in an unknown situation, albeit across your partner's lap. Both may be reckless and unreasonable disregard for life, but I know which one I'd rank as having more disregard for life.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by digamma

The biggest difference to me is the firing of seven shots into a car of someone who is cooperating with you verbally and firing a single shot (maybe two) in an unknown situation, albeit across your partner's lap. Both may be reckless and unreasonable disregard for life, but I know which one I'd rank as having more disregard for life.

To me one is much greater, as you have full knowledge of the situation. The verdict in the Noor case should have been the same, at minimum, in the Castile murder.

[cartman]

Amber Guyger, the off-duty Dallas cop who shot the guy when she entered the wrong apartment, was found guilty of murder.

Amber Guyger convicted of murder for killing Botham Jean

[NobodyHere]

Wow, I really thought that was going to be only manslaughter.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Wow, I really thought that was going to be only manslaughter.

It's Texas, and after seeing the DA violate the gag order, I thought he was gunning for a mistrial.

I figured she'd skate.

[CU Tiger]

Glad they got it right.

[stevew]

Thank god there was some sort of justice.

[Groundhog]

Colour me surprised.

[cartman]

Jury handed down a 10 year sentence to Guyger

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

Jury handed down a 10 year sentence to Guyger

So parole in five?

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by papers

Heavily nonwhite jury handed down a 10 year sentence to Guyger

edit seems relevant

[tarcone]

I think this was fair. I think she was stupid and deserves all 10 years. But I think she will feel guilty for the rest of her life.

[Groundhog]

Deserved twice that, IMO. Hope she does feel guilty, because she is.

[Kodos]

And in 10 years, the person she shot will still be dead.

[JPhillips]

The brother of Botham Jean that publically forgave her and hugged her is an inspiration.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Kodos

And in 10 years, the person she shot will still be dead.

So is the logic that anyone who ever causes a death, regardless of the intent/malice/facts, the person should be locked away for life no parole? Every DUI, every slip-and-fall-and-die tort, every bad judgment call shooting, and so forth? That's not the standard we apply today, but in theory it could be. That would be the only way I could see to satisfy the embedded grievance in your point above.

[Kodos]

For accidental deaths, no. You accidentally run over a person who runs out in front of your car, there should be punishment if you were negligent, but they shouldn't put you away forever. Drunk when it happened? Increased sentence. Not drunk and in bad driving conditions? Decreased sentence. Bad things happen. But I do believe that if someone intentionally kills another person on the street without provocation, then yes, that person should live the rest of their life in jail. The dead person never comes back to life, their family has to deal with the loss for the rest of their lives. Why should the murderer get to move on? I know that seems harsh, but it's how I feel.

[Kodos]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...outputType=amp

This article makes it harder to be forgiving of the shooter, since Guyger seems to be a blatant racist.

Guyger has also come under fire for offensive texts made public before her sentencing: Messages show the former officer joking about the death of Martin Luther King Jr., disparaging black colleagues and responding to a friend’s warning that a dog “may be racist” with the words, “It’s okay. I’m the same.”

Those texts were on the minds of some people dismayed at Judge Kemp’s gestures to Guyger.

“How Botham Jean’s brother chooses to grieve is his business. He’s entitled to that. But this judge choosing to hug this woman is unacceptable,” tweeted Atlantic writer Jemele Hill, telling people to remember that “this convicted murderer is the same one who laughed about Martin Luther King Jr’s assassination.”

[JPhillips]

I'm not thrilled with what the judge did either.

But, forgiveness isn't about the person forgiven, it's about the forgiver. Forgiveness allows one to move on and not be consumed by bitterness or rage. It's hard, and understandable when a person isn't ready to do that, but the gift of forgiveness is given to the forgiver.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by cartman

Jury handed down a 10 year sentence to Guyger

Average murder sentence in state court is 15 years.

The median is around 13.4.

Guyger came in well below both. So, I mean, it's accountability for a white, female police officer in Texas, and that shouldn't be ignored...but while it's not quite a slap on the wrist and a "naughty naughty," it's also a much more lenient sentence than would have been given if Botham Jean had stumbled into the wrong apartment and shot Amber Guyger instead.

So there's work to be done yet on this whole "accountability" thing.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Average murder sentence in state court is 15 years.

The median is around 13.4.

Guyger came in well below both. So, I mean, it's accountability for a white, female police officer in Texas, and that shouldn't be ignored...but while it's not quite a slap on the wrist and a "naughty naughty," it's also a much more lenient sentence than would have been given if Botham Jean had stumbled into the wrong apartment and shot Amber Guyger instead.

So there's work to be done yet on this whole "accountability" thing.

Agreed, and I'd take it one step further/
As a TRAINED law enforcement officer she should be held to a higher standard. She should have advanced training in conflict resolution, firearms handling, and stress management. That she failed all 3 makes her actions much more egregious than if the same act was committed by John Doe on the street.

[cartman]

When I was on the jury last year, we gave the guy 20 years

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Agreed, and I'd take it one step further/
As a TRAINED law enforcement officer she should be held to a higher standard.

This right there.

People in a special position of power (LEOs, politicians, lawyers, judges, etc...) should always be held to a higher standard and punishments should be harsher, due to the power that they yield.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Average murder sentence in state court is 15 years.

The median is around 13.4.

Guyger came in well below both. So, I mean, it's accountability for a white, female police officer in Texas, and that shouldn't be ignored...but while it's not quite a slap on the wrist and a "naughty naughty," it's also a much more lenient sentence than would have been given if Botham Jean had stumbled into the wrong apartment and shot Amber Guyger instead.

So there's work to be done yet on this whole "accountability" thing.

We have a thread here dedicated the female child rapists that everyone laughs and says "Why not me?" and the women typically get very lenient sentences to what I would imagine their male child rapist counterparts get. So I would assume this is as likely/more likely gender than it is racial.

Would Amber Guyger's hypothetical unattractive white twin brother with neck tats had gotten 10 years?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

This right there.

People in a special position of power (LEOs, politicians, lawyers, judges, etc...) should always be held to a higher standard and punishments should be harsher, due to the power that they yield.

Again I will point people to the teacher child abuser thread to see that isn't the case at all.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by panerd

Again I will point people to the teacher child abuser thread to see that isn't the case at all.

Again, and I will apologize in advance for the potentially sexist nature of this comment, there is a perceived physical power difference assumed in one case versus the other WRT sexual assault though isnt there?

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

People in a special position of power (LEOs, politicians, lawyers, judges, etc...) should always be held to a higher standard and punishments should be harsher, due to the power that they yield.

Although I think you mean wield, and I'm not trying to go OT, but I just have to say, maybe the POTUS too?


{duh}

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by panerd

Again I will point people to the teacher child abuser thread to see that isn't the case at all.

I'm not quite understanding. Do you mean teachers should also be held to a higher standard? If so, to a certain degree, I agree. Though I feel their's is more a position of trust than a position of power, but, I will admit, that line can get blurry.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Although I think you mean wield, and I'm not trying to go OT, but I just have to say, maybe the POTUS too?


{duh}

Shoot. Yes I meant wield. Thank you sir!

It should especially apply to the POTUS as well, regardless of who that may be. That position literally has the power to end most life on Earth and if that isn't a good case for being held to a higher standard, then I don't what is.

If one good things comes out of this train wreck of an administration, it has shone a light on where the weaknesses in our Constitution are and laws regarding the powers of the President.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I'm not quite understanding. Do you mean teachers should also be held to a higher standard? If so, to a certain degree, I agree. Though I feel their's is more a position of trust than a position of power, but, I will admit, that line can get blurry.

I think he's talking about female teachers getting lighter punishments and many folks nudge-nudge/wink-winking over the whole thing.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I think he's talking about female teachers getting lighter punishments and many folks nudge-nudge/wink-winking over the whole thing.

I just think I'm less concerned about little Johnny getting a hummer from a hot 25 year old who "exploited" him than I am Botham getting shot in his home when he did nothing wrong by a cop and the cop getting a laughable sentence.

If we want to equivalize it (yeah I just a mae a word up - sue me)...ok if an average 25 year old exploits Johnny and gets 1 year in jail the teacher should get two and her career ruined.

But if I walk in the wrong house and shoot an unarmed man I should spend the rest of my free days in prison and a LEO should receive at LEAST the same and I suggest worse.

But since she hides behind the blue line she gets a reduced sentence.

[Ben E Lou]

I didn't follow the trial closely at all, so...


1. Is there any evidence that she had beef with this dude and wanted to kill him, or is it accepted that it really was a terrible (and negligent, in my opinion,) mistake?


2. Did she call 911, use police back channels to report it, or did someone have to find the body?


3. Did she attempt to give first aid?

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I think he's talking about female teachers getting lighter punishments and many folks nudge-nudge/wink-winking over the whole thing.

Ahhh, got it. I think punishments should be gender neutral regardless of the crime.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

if an average 25 year old exploits Johnny and gets 1 year in jail the teacher should get two and her career ruined

I *think* what he is trying to say is that if a 25 year old male teacher exploits Susie he gets x years, but if a 25 year old female teacher exploits Johnny she gets x*.65 years (or whatever). Not saying I agree or disagree, but that's how I read it--the idea being that this young pretty lady got a lighter sentence because she's a young pretty lady and not because she's white and/or a cop.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I *think* what he is trying to say is that if a 25 year old male teacher exploits Susie he gets x years, but if a 25 year old female teacher exploits Johnny she gets x*.65 years (or whatever). Not saying I agree or disagree, but that's how I read it--the idea being that this young pretty lady got a lighter sentence because she's a young pretty lady and not because she's white and/or a cop.

I get that and agree that yes it probably did play a roll. Shouldn't have but did.
I guess I am arguing a separate point, that because she was a cop her crime should be viewed harsher than that of a "lay" person without her specialized training.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I *think* what he is trying to say is that if a 25 year old male teacher exploits Susie he gets x years, but if a 25 year old female teacher exploits Johnny she gets x*.65 years (or whatever). Not saying I agree or disagree, but that's how I read it--the idea being that this young pretty lady got a lighter sentence because she's a young pretty lady and not because she's white and/or a cop.

Yes, stepped away from the thread right after posting. My point was that she was almost certainly punished less for being a woman and pretty than being white. My counter being if a rough looking white guy shot him he would have definitely gotten more than 10 years. Much like the male child rapist being rightfully sent to prison for a good amount of time while the "hot" women ones are not.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by panerd

Yes, stepped away from the thread right after posting. My point was that she was almost certainly punished less for being a woman and pretty than being white. My counter being if a rough looking white guy shot him he would have definitely gotten more than 10 years. Much like the male child rapist being rightfully sent to prison for a good amount of time while the "hot" women ones are not.

I agree with you for sure. I'm guilty of my own internal biases with that and I have to keep reminding myself that just because of how someone looks, it shouldn't be a factor.

[HomerSimpson98]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I didn't follow the trial closely at all, so...


1. Is there any evidence that she had beef with this dude and wanted to kill him, or is it accepted that it really was a terrible (and negligent, in my opinion,) mistake?

Complete mistake. No prior knowledge.



2. Did she call 911, use police back channels to report it, or did someone have to find the body?


She called it in. But she did it through a colleague she was banging at the time.



3. Did she attempt to give first aid?


Here is the confusing part. No she did not.

INline answered.


A truly bizarre case.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I guess I am arguing a separate point, that because she was a cop her crime should be viewed harsher than that of a "lay" person without her specialized training.

And given this particular set of circumstances, I agree with you 100%--assuming there's not reason to believe that this wasn't mistaken apartment/identity. If that's the case, then to me the whole issue should be "was this innocent man's life taken because she acted recklessly/negligently?" So naturally a person trained to handle this precise situation should be held to a higher standard in my view as well.

[Ben E Lou]

Wait. She called a co-worker with whom she was having a sexual relationship and told him or her to call it in for her???? Seriously????? So her judgement wasn't just seriously lacking when she did the shooting, but also in the time afterward?

[sabotai]

It's hard to find with the mountain of articles written about the case, but I'm trying to find an exact timeline of the night. IIRC, she called her fuck-buddy after realizing she was in the wrong apartment and then called 911 after.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Wait. She called a co-worker with whom she was having a sexual relationship and told him or her to call it in for her???? Seriously????? So her judgement wasn't just seriously lacking when she did the shooting, but also in the time afterward?

If you havent followed the case she lived in the apartment complex she shot the guy in.
Initially claimed she thought she was in her apartment and he was an intruder.
My first thought, she was hammered and staggered into the wrong place...but nope. Clear and clean toxicology.

She liteally opened a door, dude was sitting on his couch said 'Botch what you doing'..she said get down on the floor. He didnt. She smoked him.

And she gets 5 years.

Reverse that. Take color out. Random dude walks in and blazes a woman cop sitting on her couch. Dude is dieing in prison.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by sabotai

It's hard to find with the mountain of articles written about the case, but I'm trying to find an exact timeline of the night. IIRC, she called her fuck-buddy after realizing she was in the wrong apartment and then called 911 after.

It could be this case but you might be mixing it up with this St. Louis case where a cop shot his booty call playing Russian Roulette and tried to cover it up. Again it could be in this case as well but it sure sounds like this one...

Officers were playing Russian Roulette when off-duty officer was shot, prosecutors say | | kmov.com

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

If you havent followed the case she lived in the apartment complex she shot the guy in.
Initially claimed she thought she was in her apartment and he was an intruder.
My first thought, she was hammered and staggered into the wrong place...but nope. Clear and clean toxicology.

She liteally opened a door, dude was sitting on his couch said 'Botch what you doing'..she said get down on the floor. He didnt. She smoked him.

And she gets 5 years.

Reverse that. Take color out. Random dude walks in and blazes a woman cop sitting on her couch. Dude is dieing in prison.

Yes, I did know all of the stuff you mentioned from the original arrest, I guess. I had an insanely busy summer at work and didn't follow the trial, so I was essentially wondering "was all that stuff true or did different info come out in trial?" Sounds like the original story (at least the way I heard it) was pretty much true.