texasfishingforum.com logo
Main Menu
Advertisement
Affiliates
Advertisement
Newest Members
TraeMartin, Power-Pole CS, T-Rigger, JoeGoes, EcKo
119150 Registered Users
Top Posters(All Time)
hopalong 120,565
TexDawg 119,511
Bigbob_FTW 94,879
John175☮ 85,892
Pilothawk 83,259
Bob Davis 81,478
Mark Perry 72,280
Derek 🐝 68,311
JDavis7873 67,416
Forum Statistics
Forums59
Topics1,037,810
Posts13,934,881
Members144,150
Most Online39,925
Dec 30th, 2023
Print Thread
Page 21 of 32 1 2 19 20 21 22 23 31 32
Re: Lets solve this Guyger thing... Justice OT STYLE [Re: TexasBlonde] #13295584 09/28/19 04:51 AM
Joined: Feb 2018
Posts: 15,025
S
Sawhorse Offline
TFF Guru
Offline
TFF Guru
S
Joined: Feb 2018
Posts: 15,025
Originally Posted by TexasBlonde
My problem is she is a cop and the first thing she should have noticed was HER STUFF WAS NOT IN THIS APARTMENT!

HER STUFF WAS NOT IN THE APARTMENT! It was not the couch and dinette that is in her apartment so how can you claim with a straight face that you thought it was your home?

I can understand all of it. Much of what you addressed can be explained by understanding how the brain works. It prioritizes certain functions over other functions...it has to make choices. She most likely couldn’t have noticed any of the things you mention. She was too vested in her mistaken assumption.

If you listened to her testimony, her all-in belief was that it was her apartment. She was 100% vested in that belief. As such, she found herself awakened from auto-pilot mode and instantaneously thrust into a “an intruder is in my apartment” situation. Her brain was trying to help her navigate an extremely volatile/dangerous situation, focused on preserving her life...it was already dialed-in to “fight or flight” mode.

Any channels for processing non-essential (as determined by the brain) information would be closed...or perhaps cleared and made exclusively available for achieving the unconscious “stay alive” objective. Tunnel vision to the nth degree. And in her testimony, she mentioned being aware of the things you mention...but only well after she had shot him. And then she described it and mentioned “being confused”. She almost seemed still confused...almost like “how did this happen?”

Not only is it plausible...it’s +/- not a whole lot of exactly how our brains are wired to work. To me, the crux of this case is in that one phrase she said on the tape, and she said it over and over and over and over...almost as though it was only her brain talking - “I thought it was my apartment”.

Re: Lets solve this Guyger thing... Justice OT STYLE [Re: Sawhorse] #13295663 09/28/19 12:30 PM
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 81,479
B
Bob Davis Online Content
Bunkeroid Bob
Online Content
Bunkeroid Bob
B
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 81,479
Originally Posted by Sawhorse
Originally Posted by TexasBlonde
My problem is she is a cop and the first thing she should have noticed was HER STUFF WAS NOT IN THIS APARTMENT!

HER STUFF WAS NOT IN THE APARTMENT! It was not the couch and dinette that is in her apartment so how can you claim with a straight face that you thought it was your home?

I can understand all of it. Much of what you addressed can be explained by understanding how the brain works. It prioritizes certain functions over other functions...it has to make choices. She most likely couldn’t have noticed any of the things you mention. She was too vested in her mistaken assumption.

If you listened to her testimony, her all-in belief was that it was her apartment. She was 100% vested in that belief. As such, she found herself awakened from auto-pilot mode and instantaneously thrust into a “an intruder is in my apartment” situation. Her brain was trying to help her navigate an extremely volatile/dangerous situation, focused on preserving her life...it was already dialed-in to “fight or flight” mode.

Any channels for processing non-essential (as determined by the brain) information would be closed...or perhaps cleared and made exclusively available for achieving the unconscious “stay alive” objective. Tunnel vision to the nth degree. And in her testimony, she mentioned being aware of the things you mention...but only well after she had shot him. And then she described it and mentioned “being confused”. She almost seemed still confused...almost like “how did this happen?”

Not only is it plausible...it’s +/- not a whole lot of exactly how our brains are wired to work. To me, the crux of this case is in that one phrase she said on the tape, and she said it over and over and over and over...almost as though it was only her brain talking - “I thought it was my apartment”.



Good analysis Sawhorse.
thumb


[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]



Foxtrot Juliet Bravo
Re: Lets solve this Guyger thing... Justice OT STYLE [Re: Sawhorse] #13295682 09/28/19 12:54 PM
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 14,326
B
bloo_rainger Offline
TFF Guru
Offline
TFF Guru
B
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 14,326
Originally Posted by Sawhorse
Originally Posted by TexasBlonde
My problem is she is a cop and the first thing she should have noticed was HER STUFF WAS NOT IN THIS APARTMENT!

HER STUFF WAS NOT IN THE APARTMENT! It was not the couch and dinette that is in her apartment so how can you claim with a straight face that you thought it was your home?

I can understand all of it. Much of what you addressed can be explained by understanding how the brain works. It prioritizes certain functions over other functions...it has to make choices. She most likely couldn’t have noticed any of the things you mention. She was too vested in her mistaken assumption.

If you listened to her testimony, her all-in belief was that it was her apartment. She was 100% vested in that belief. As such, she found herself awakened from auto-pilot mode and instantaneously thrust into a “an intruder is in my apartment” situation. Her brain was trying to help her navigate an extremely volatile/dangerous situation, focused on preserving her life...it was already dialed-in to “fight or flight” mode.

Any channels for processing non-essential (as determined by the brain) information would be closed...or perhaps cleared and made exclusively available for achieving the unconscious “stay alive” objective. Tunnel vision to the nth degree. And in her testimony, she mentioned being aware of the things you mention...but only well after she had shot him. And then she described it and mentioned “being confused”. She almost seemed still confused...almost like “how did this happen?”

Not only is it plausible...it’s +/- not a whole lot of exactly how our brains are wired to work. To me, the crux of this case is in that one phrase she said on the tape, and she said it over and over and over and over...almost as though it was only her brain talking - “I thought it was my apartment”.



Well said Sawhorse. It’s not that hard to wrap your head around that.

Re: Lets solve this Guyger thing... Justice OT STYLE [Re: bloo_rainger] #13295701 09/28/19 01:24 PM
Joined: Nov 2016
Posts: 582
F
FXfromTx Offline
Pro Angler
Offline
Pro Angler
F
Joined: Nov 2016
Posts: 582
Originally Posted by bloo_rainger
Originally Posted by Sawhorse
Originally Posted by TexasBlonde
My problem is she is a cop and the first thing she should have noticed was HER STUFF WAS NOT IN THIS APARTMENT!

HER STUFF WAS NOT IN THE APARTMENT! It was not the couch and dinette that is in her apartment so how can you claim with a straight face that you thought it was your home?

I can understand all of it. Much of what you addressed can be explained by understanding how the brain works. It prioritizes certain functions over other functions...it has to make choices. She most likely couldn’t have noticed any of the things you mention. She was too vested in her mistaken assumption.

If you listened to her testimony, her all-in belief was that it was her apartment. She was 100% vested in that belief. As such, she found herself awakened from auto-pilot mode and instantaneously thrust into a “an intruder is in my apartment” situation. Her brain was trying to help her navigate an extremely volatile/dangerous situation, focused on preserving her life...it was already dialed-in to “fight or flight” mode.

Any channels for processing non-essential (as determined by the brain) information would be closed...or perhaps cleared and made exclusively available for achieving the unconscious “stay alive” objective. Tunnel vision to the nth degree. And in her testimony, she mentioned being aware of the things you mention...but only well after she had shot him. And then she described it and mentioned “being confused”. She almost seemed still confused...almost like “how did this happen?”

Not only is it plausible...it’s +/- not a whole lot of exactly how our brains are wired to work. To me, the crux of this case is in that one phrase she said on the tape, and she said it over and over and over and over...almost as though it was only her brain talking - “I thought it was my apartment”.



Well said Sawhorse. It’s not that hard to wrap your head around that.


I don't think anybody in is disagreeing that she thought it was her apartment. The question is should she be charged? And in my opinion the answer is yes. Carrying a weapon offers great protection, but it also comes with great responsibility. Once you pull the trigger you can't take it back. Things you can't take back have consequences. I feel terribly for her, as I don't know for sure how I would react in that situation, but I know for a fact if I killed somebody I would be held accountable. She even said herself that she feels like a "piece of [censored]" and she "shouldn't be allowed to see her family and friends and enjoy life". She knows she messed up and when you mess up there are consequences. If she knows that, why are a bunch of strangers who know nothing about her saying she doesn't deserve to be punished?


"The fishing was good; it was the catching that was bad."
Re: Lets solve this Guyger thing... Justice OT STYLE [Re: Dan90210 ☮] #13295704 09/28/19 01:29 PM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 15,800
S
steveiam Online Content
TFF Guru
Online Content
TFF Guru
S
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 15,800
I haven’t seen anyone say they think she shouldn’t be punished, I have seen disagreements about the punishment-

Last edited by steveiam; 09/28/19 01:29 PM.

What has happed to you does not define who you are-

HOW you react to what happens to you DOES!
Re: Lets solve this Guyger thing... Justice OT STYLE [Re: TexasBlonde] #13295720 09/28/19 01:45 PM
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 7,737
GIG'EM AGGIES Offline
TFF Celebrity
Offline
TFF Celebrity
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 7,737
Originally Posted by TexasBlonde
My problem is she is a cop and the first thing she should have noticed was HER STUFF WAS NOT IN THIS APARTMENT! Anyone should be able to sit in their own home, eat ice cream, and not be afraid someone is going to kill them because they went into the wrong apartment.

HER STUFF WAS NOT IN THE APARTMENT! It was not the couch and dinette that is in her apartment so how can you claim with a straight face that you thought it was your home?

No excuses here but the first thing she saw was a huge black man, she saw nothing else after that. Nothing else mattered after that.


I am a Senager. (Senior teenager) I have everything that I wanted as a teenager, only 50 years later. I get an allowance every month. I have PU truck and a bass boat, I am blessed.
Conscience never acquits, it either accuses or excuses.
Re: Lets solve this Guyger thing... Justice OT STYLE [Re: steveiam] #13295724 09/28/19 01:52 PM
Joined: Nov 2016
Posts: 582
F
FXfromTx Offline
Pro Angler
Offline
Pro Angler
F
Joined: Nov 2016
Posts: 582
Originally Posted by steveiam
I haven’t seen anyone say they think she shouldn’t be punished, I have seen disagreements about the punishment-


You must not have read all 21 pages if you haven't seen the list of people saying "her punishment is having to deal with knowing that she killed a man, she shouldn't get any prison time". That's no punishment. And all of the people arguing over what the punishment should be seem to be confused. Seems like everybody arguing for manslaughter thinks that is a lesser sentence than criminally negligent homicide. Criminally negligent homicide in Texas is 180days-2years and up to $10,000. Manslaughter is 2years-20years and $10,000. Murder is 5-99 and $10,000. We all know murder is the harshest charge but it seems that a few of the people wanting to "let her off easy because it was an accident" want to give her manslaughter which is the second-tier offense!


"The fishing was good; it was the catching that was bad."
Re: Lets solve this Guyger thing... Justice OT STYLE [Re: FXfromTx] #13295731 09/28/19 02:06 PM
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 7,737
GIG'EM AGGIES Offline
TFF Celebrity
Offline
TFF Celebrity
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 7,737
Originally Posted by FXfromTx
Originally Posted by bloo_rainger
Originally Posted by Sawhorse
Originally Posted by TexasBlonde
My problem is she is a cop and the first thing she should have noticed was HER STUFF WAS NOT IN THIS APARTMENT!

HER STUFF WAS NOT IN THE APARTMENT! It was not the couch and dinette that is in her apartment so how can you claim with a straight face that you thought it was your home?

I can understand all of it. Much of what you addressed can be explained by understanding how the brain works. It prioritizes certain functions over other functions...it has to make choices. She most likely couldn’t have noticed any of the things you mention. She was too vested in her mistaken assumption.

If you listened to her testimony, her all-in belief was that it was her apartment. She was 100% vested in that belief. As such, she found herself awakened from auto-pilot mode and instantaneously thrust into a “an intruder is in my apartment” situation. Her brain was trying to help her navigate an extremely volatile/dangerous situation, focused on preserving her life...it was already dialed-in to “fight or flight” mode.


Any channels for processing non-essential (as determined by the brain) information would be closed...or perhaps cleared and made exclusively available for achieving the unconscious “stay alive” objective. Tunnel vision to the nth degree. And in her testimony, she mentioned being aware of the things you mention...but only well after she had shot him. And then she described it and mentioned “being confused”. She almost seemed still confused...almost like “how did this happen?”

Not only is it plausible...it’s +/- not a whole lot of exactly how our brains are wired to work. To me, the crux of this case is in that one phrase she said on the tape, and she said it over and over and over and over...almost as though it was only her brain talking - “I thought it was my apartment”.



Well said Sawhorse. It’s not that hard to wrap your head around that.


I don't think anybody in is disagreeing that she thought it was her apartment. The question is should she be charged? And in my opinion the answer is yes. Carrying a weapon offers great protection, but it also comes with great responsibility. Once you pull the trigger you can't take it back. Things you can't take back have consequences. I feel terribly for her, as I don't know for sure how I would react in that situation, but I know for a fact if I killed somebody I would be held accountable. She even said herself that she feels like a "piece of [censored]" and she "shouldn't be allowed to see her family and friends and enjoy life". She knows she messed up and when you mess up there are consequences. If she knows that, why are a bunch of strangers who know nothing about her saying she doesn't deserve to be punished?

Here's an analogy, a weak one but an analogy. Yesterday I was hitting into a green that was around the corner from some trees. I could see the bottom half of the green but not the flag. I hit a hook around the corner, the ball hit the side of the green and kicked left but I couldn't see where it landed. My partner ask where my ball was, I said not sure because I didn't see where it stopped. There were 3 balls on the green and I knew none were mine. As we rounded the corner he said there it is on your left. I grabbed a wedge and chipped on the green. When I bent over to mark the ball I realized it wasn't my ball because I mark my ball. Looked a little farther up and there was my ball settle down in some grass. Too late, I got myself a 2 stroke penalty for hitting the wrong ball. Guyger gets a penalty for being in the wrong apartment. The question is will it be a 2 stroke penalty. I could have taken the time legally to identify my ball to make sure it was mine, Guyger had no time in her mind to identify her apartment, there was a huge black man walking toward her. Will the jury take that into consideration ? No idea. Will Guyger live with this the rest of her life ? You betcha. She has as they say a hard row to hoe the rest of her life. Sorry for her, her family, the deceased and his family. No winners to be found.


I am a Senager. (Senior teenager) I have everything that I wanted as a teenager, only 50 years later. I get an allowance every month. I have PU truck and a bass boat, I am blessed.
Conscience never acquits, it either accuses or excuses.
Re: Lets solve this Guyger thing... Justice OT STYLE [Re: Dan90210 ☮] #13295769 09/28/19 03:13 PM
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,490
T
TR176 Online Content
TFF Celebrity
Online Content
TFF Celebrity
T
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,490
Where does this huge black man meme come from? Is that part of the testimony or is that something made up?
In any event it is “out of order” and Dan needs to rule as to whether it is an admissible fact or made up.

Re: Lets solve this Guyger thing... Justice OT STYLE [Re: TR176] #13295779 09/28/19 03:35 PM
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 10,380
B
barndoor Offline
TFF Guru
Offline
TFF Guru
B
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 10,380
It almost like people are saying the victim is wrong from getting up and inquiring about who is walking in HIS house. Since it is HIS house, he does not have to retreat.

Last edited by barndoor; 09/28/19 03:47 PM.
Re: Lets solve this Guyger thing... Justice OT STYLE [Re: GIG'EM AGGIES] #13295782 09/28/19 03:38 PM
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 10,380
B
barndoor Offline
TFF Guru
Offline
TFF Guru
B
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 10,380
Sounds like a good analogy to me. I don’t even understand golf, but I understood your message. thumb Even if we make a mistake, there are stills consequences.

Last edited by barndoor; 09/28/19 08:11 PM.
Re: Lets solve this Guyger thing... Justice OT STYLE [Re: Dan90210 ☮] #13295784 09/28/19 03:41 PM
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 28,416
Okie Poke Offline
TFF Guru
Offline
TFF Guru
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 28,416
It's just something about her demeanor that smells fishy. You cannot rightfully sob as hard as she did without flowing tears. Where were they? Most of her actions are a put on, IMO....


😎 Dallas Cowboys....eventual Superbowl Champions 😎



Re: Lets solve this Guyger thing... Justice OT STYLE [Re: TR176] #13295785 09/28/19 03:41 PM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 39,259
Dan90210 ☮ Offline OP
Jr Deputy Dan
OP Offline
Jr Deputy Dan
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 39,259
Originally Posted by TR176
Where does this huge black man meme come from? Is that part of the testimony or is that something made up?
In any event it is “out of order” and Dan needs to rule as to whether it is an admissible fact or made up.



Judge Dan will strike this reference to "huge black man" from the record. The size or race of the deceased is not the question here. Judge Dan feels she would have shot a white man just the same.

This about her being a jumpy, bad decision making, terrible cop and a harlot who needs to do 20 years for killing a man while he was chilling in HIS house eating ice cream and smoking weed, No man should have some one, with a badge or not, walk in and do that to him and the killer not do 20 years.

But, as noted, your Judge is impartial and not trying to taint you, the jurors.


Re: Lets solve this Guyger thing... Justice OT STYLE [Re: Okie Poke] #13295786 09/28/19 03:43 PM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 39,259
Dan90210 ☮ Offline OP
Jr Deputy Dan
OP Offline
Jr Deputy Dan
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 39,259
Originally Posted by Okie Poke
It's just something about her demeanor that smells fishy. You cannot rightfully sob as hard as she did without flowing tears. Where were they? Most of her actions are a put on, IMO....



Judge Dan agrees all that was fake AF.

If she is upset I think its about the fact she might do time. She is sad for herself not the man she murdered or his family and friends.

But as Judge, I am impartial. Just saying....

Re: Lets solve this Guyger thing... Justice OT STYLE [Re: Okie Poke] #13295809 09/28/19 04:08 PM
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 32,919
S
Scagnetti Offline
TFF Guru
Offline
TFF Guru
S
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 32,919
Originally Posted by Okie Poke
It's just something about her demeanor that smells fishy. You cannot rightfully sob as hard as she did without flowing tears. Where were they? Most of her actions are a put on, IMO....



Her and her attorneys, life coach, courtroom psychologist and clothing stylist have been rehearsing her testimony for weeks

What she wears, her tone, her empathy catch phrases and her cue to cry-talk have all been well rehearsed so she doesn’t come across as a POS murderer

I wonder if all this TFF sympathy would exist if she was the victim and the shooter was an illegal Mexican immigrant


[Linked Image]

Page 21 of 32 1 2 19 20 21 22 23 31 32
Previous Thread
Index
Next Thread

© 1998-2022 OUTDOOR SITES NETWORK all rights reserved USA and Worldwide
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3