NYPD cop Brian Mulkeen was killed by FRIENDLY FIRE from fellow officers as he fought with gangster for control of his ow

[Animal]

She consciously entered the apartment instead of calling for backup and murdered a man sitting on his couch eating ice cream. And She admitted on the stand that she went in there full well with the intent to murder whoever she found inside. That is intent, and that is murder.

well that's an awfully convenient way to reconstruct the facts that were presented at the trial. at least if you are trying to make a biased point of some kind.

[Animal]

She re-enacted how she reached the apartment door, with her backpack, lunchbox and police vest in her left hand, and testified that she heard the sound of someone walking inside.

When Guyger put the key into the lock that night, she said she noticed the door was "cracked open" and that putting the key into the lock forced the door open to the dark apartment. Guyger said earlier she had experienced problems getting the door to lock completely at her apartment.

Jean, an accountant for the international stupidity firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, was sitting on his couch when Guyger opened the door, prosecutors said.

Guyger said she saw the silhouette of a figure, so she pulled her "gun out and I yelled at him."

"Let me see your hands! Let me see your hands!" she said she shouted.

She told the jurors the figure was moving around and she could not see his hands, and that the man "was yelling, 'Hey! Hey! Hey!' in an aggressive voice."

Guyger reenacted the next moment for the jurors, holding her right hand out as if she was holding a gun. Guyger said Jean was moving toward her when she fired.

Her attorney asked why she fired, and Guyger replied, "I was scared he was gonna kill me."

After the shooting, Guyger said she realized she was not in her own apartment and "had no idea where I was at," so she went outside to look at the apartment door.

The defense attorney played Guyger's emotional call to 911 in which she repeatedly said she thought she was entering her apartment.

Guyger told the court she did a sternum rub on the victim, which is often performed by EMTs.

"I wanted him to keep breathing," she testified. "The state he was in, I knew it wasn't good."

[CaptQuint]

She consciously entered the apartment instead of calling for backup and murdered a man sitting on his couch eating ice cream. And She admitted on the stand that she went in there full well with the intent to murder whoever she found inside. That is intent, and that is murder.

well that's an awfully convenient way to reconstruct the facts that were presented at the trial. at least if you are trying to make a biased point of some kind.

You don't like the facts? Would you prefer I come up with something out of whole cloth?

[Animal]

She consciously entered the apartment instead of calling for backup and murdered a man sitting on his couch eating ice cream. And She admitted on the stand that she went in there full well with the intent to murder whoever she found inside. That is intent, and that is murder.

well that's an awfully convenient way to reconstruct the facts that were presented at the trial. at least if you are trying to make a biased point of some kind.

You don't like the facts? Would you prefer I come up with something out of whole cloth?

read up. and let me know which one of those facts needs to be edited.

[necronomous]

I'm sorry I murdered that man in his own home your honor, won't happen again.

And that's manslaughter. A tragic mistake. But she won't get much time.

Found guilty of murder, hope she gets 99 years

So, tell me, in your opinion, what do you think she consciously did that night? Do you think she purposely went into the wrong apartment to murder some black guy because she hates black guys and then cooked up all of the rest of the story?

She consciously entered the apartment instead of calling for backup and murdered a man sitting on his couch eating ice cream. And She admitted on the stand that she went in there full well with the intent to murder whoever she found inside. That is intent, and that is murder.

Yes because she believed that someone was in her house. She thought that was her house. And someone broke in. Into her house.
But it seems you think she was thinking, well tonight I have to go kill a n!gger to make my monthly status quo. I know one up stairs. Let me go shoot that ni!gger. Yee haw. White power. Dukes of Hazzard BITCHES!!!

[CaptQuint]

Lot of people can't seem to have a conversation without putting words in my mouth. Pretty fucking pathetic.

[Animal]

Lot of people can't seem to have a conversation without putting words in my mouth. Pretty fucking pathetic.

i count 1. is that a lot?

[CaptQuint]

Lot of people can't seem to have a conversation without putting words in my mouth. Pretty fucking pathetic.

i count 1. is that a lot?

Post #30 and 57

[WestTexasCrude]

I'm sorry I murdered that man in his own home your honor, won't happen again.

I can't remember how long she was a Dallas PO (4 years or something?) But you know there was one fact that was damning in court. I'm assuming the vast majority of LEO's nationwide have never fired their service weapons on duty other than the shooting practice range. But like hiring practices that preach diversity, they are hiring unqualified women (JCW types- ignorant and wholly unqualified to even comment on the subject here). This was the second time in her short career she used her weapon to shoot someone.

You have an obvious dislike and disrespect for women.


How many do you have buried in the backyard?

Yeah, that's it instead of big city PD's "diversity policies " based on quotas instead of qualifications. Nah, that can't be the problem. That collapsed pedestrian bridge in Miami 2 years that killed all those motorists designed by an Engineering firm cited by Obama for "Gender Diversity". Nah, that can't be the problem. *lights fuse and walks away*.

[CaptQuint]

Bridge collapses in Miami, stupid texan blames Obama

[FSchmertz]

Yeah, I'm thinking she should have paused and called for backup, and covered the door until more police arrive. Poor decision making.

Did she identify herself as police? If not, no excuse for shooting anyway.

[Animal]

Yeah, I'm thinking she should have paused and called for backup, and covered the door until more police arrive. Poor decision making.

Did she identify herself as police? If not, no excuse for shooting anyway.

i can think of tons of things she should have done. i'm sure she can think of more than either one of us.

[Wut]

I'm sorry I murdered that man in his own home your honor, won't happen again.

I can't remember how long she was a Dallas PO (4 years or something?) But you know there was one fact that was damning in court. I'm assuming the vast majority of LEO's nationwide have never fired their service weapons on duty other than the shooting practice range. But like hiring practices that preach diversity, they are hiring unqualified women (JCW types- ignorant and wholly unqualified to even comment on the subject here). This was the second time in her short career she used her weapon to shoot someone.

You have an obvious dislike and disrespect for women.


How many do you have buried in the backyard?

Yeah, that's it instead of big city PD's "diversity policies " based on quotas instead of qualifications. Nah, that can't be the problem. That collapsed pedestrian bridge in Miami 2 years that killed all those motorists designed by an Engineering firm cited by Obama for "Gender Diversity". Nah, that can't be the problem. *lights fuse and walks away*.

*posts nonsense and walks away*.

[JCW]

If cops cant even handle guns properly with extensive training, how the fuck is some civilian with WTC-level intelligence and zero training supposed to be trusted with them again?

Because the 2nd amendment says you don't have to argue about it, at all. What is it people don't get about this?

Preeeeeeeetty sure the forefathers never intended for this to apply to assault rifles and protect people mowing down hundreds of innocent people at once. But hey, keep hiding behind that amendment, I'm sure that plus thoughts and prayers will make you feel better after your kid is shot in the face at school.

2nd amendment. No argument necessary.

Lord knows they never changed any parts of the constitution to keep up with the times. :eyeroll:

[Cassandros]

Considering multi-shot firearms (like the Puckle gun) existed before the Constitution was signed, it seems clear the Second Amendment was not supposed to be limited to 'muskets' and other slow reloading firearms.

The Second Amendment protects the rest. Always remember that.

Sadly, in most cases these mass (school) shootings could have been stopped if existing rules were followed.

[JCW]

The last thing I'm gonna say on this topic is thank fucking christ I live in Canada where I dont have to worry about my child coming home from 5th grade in a body bag because your right to own a gun is more important than other peoples right to be alive.

[VinceBordenIII]

If cops cant even handle guns properly with extensive training, how the fuck is some civilian with WTC-level intelligence and zero training supposed to be trusted with them again?

Because the 2nd amendment says you don't have to argue about it, at all. What is it people don't get about this?

Preeeeeeeetty sure the forefathers never intended for this to apply to assault rifles and protect people mowing down hundreds of innocent people at once. But hey, keep hiding behind that amendment, I'm sure that plus thoughts and prayers will make you feel better after your kid is shot in the face at school.

2nd amendment. No argument necessary.

Lord knows they never changed any parts of the constitution to keep up with the times. :eyeroll:

So CHANGE IT!
As it stands, people don’t have to argue to justify their right to bear arms. Because it’s in the Constitution.

[AnalHamster]

If cops cant even handle guns properly with extensive training, how the fuck is some civilian with WTC-level intelligence and zero training supposed to be trusted with them again?

Because the 2nd amendment says you don't have to argue about it, at all. What is it people don't get about this?

Preeeeeeeetty sure the forefathers never intended for this to apply to assault rifles and protect people mowing down hundreds of innocent people at once. But hey, keep hiding behind that amendment, I'm sure that plus thoughts and prayers will make you feel better after your kid is shot in the face at school.

2nd amendment. No argument necessary.

Lord knows they never changed any parts of the constitution to keep up with the times. :eyeroll:

The individual right to bear arms was discovered by them pesky activist judges in a 2008 case. The Holy Fathers just wanted folks to have muskets in their militias to keep the pesky Brits away.

[AnalHamster]

Yeah, I'm thinking she should have paused and called for backup, and covered the door until more police arrive. Poor decision making.

Did she identify herself as police? If not, no excuse for shooting anyway.

i can think of tons of things she should have done. i'm sure she can think of more than either one of us.

You realise the jury unanimously convicted her of murder right? It means they rejected her whoopsy daisy manslaughter defense as unbelievable. Are you really against the idea that a cop can't stroll into your home, shoot you dead because they find you scary and then say 'oops, my bad I was sleepy and picked the wrong door' and get away with it?

[HighNDry]

889319C6-DF3F-4D09-9FD6-5E20CAAAC119.jpeg

Ok, enough o’ dis palaver. Take yer arses to the political forum.

[Animal]

Yeah, I'm thinking she should have paused and called for backup, and covered the door until more police arrive. Poor decision making.

Did she identify herself as police? If not, no excuse for shooting anyway.

i can think of tons of things she should have done. i'm sure she can think of more than either one of us.

You realise the jury unanimously convicted her of murder right? It means they rejected her whoopsy daisy manslaughter defense as unbelievable. Are you really against the idea that a cop can't stroll into your home, shoot you dead because they find you scary and then say 'oops, my bad I was sleepy and picked the wrong door' and get away with it?

i'm not at all suggesting that she get away with it. a guy died because of the sequence of events. What I'm against is people cherry picking the news story and portraying her as most of the things you and cquint did.

[AnalHamster]

Yeah, I'm thinking she should have paused and called for backup, and covered the door until more police arrive. Poor decision making.

Did she identify herself as police? If not, no excuse for shooting anyway.

i can think of tons of things she should have done. i'm sure she can think of more than either one of us.

You realise the jury unanimously convicted her of murder right? It means they rejected her whoopsy daisy manslaughter defense as unbelievable. Are you really against the idea that a cop can't stroll into your home, shoot you dead because they find you scary and then say 'oops, my bad I was sleepy and picked the wrong door' and get away with it?

i'm not at all suggesting that she get away with it. a guy died because of the sequence of events. What I'm against is people cherry picking the news story and portraying her as most of the things you and cquint did.

A convicted murderer who entered a man's home and shot the scary black man she found there dead? It's what happened.

Tired after a long day, sure. Even getting the wrong apartment, just about maybe enough to accept it on reasonable doubt grounds. But that gets you as far as her incorrectly concluding the guy was in her apartment, which she then took as licence to murder him. Even under the castle doctrine there has to be an immediate threat, you can't just decide to murder someone because you are angry they broke in. (Well you basically can, but only because it's hard to prove you didn't - it's not actually allowed.)

[necronomous]

Lot of people can't seem to have a conversation without putting words in my mouth. Pretty fucking pathetic.

i count 1. is that a lot?

Post #30 and 57

Now you're a liar too. I said it seems you're saying, which is not the same as you are saying. But have fun

[allwhitemeat]

Considering multi-shot firearms (like the Puckle gun) existed before the Constitution was signed, it seems clear the Second Amendment was not supposed to be limited to 'muskets' and other slow reloading firearms.

The Second Amendment protects the rest. Always remember that.

Sadly, in most cases these mass (school) shootings could have been stopped if existing rules were followed.

also, since they had firearms and multishot firearms the concept of guns improving in ability and speed was not out of the realm of reason. we are still talking about the same basic firearms today, chemically propelled small masses, not some futuristic phaser weaponry that would be outside what they could have conceived.

the first amendment offers protections in video, digital print, telephone, radio broadcasts, satellite broadcasts. All those are WAYYYY outside the realm of what the forefathers could have reasonably imagined as forms of public speech, yet 1st amendment protections extend to all modern forms of speech, like 2nd amendment extends to modern firearms, which aren't very different at all from the firearms they used when the constitution was written. chemical propellant of a small mass. Guns.

[VinceBordenIII]

If cops cant even handle guns properly with extensive training, how the fuck is some civilian with WTC-level intelligence and zero training supposed to be trusted with them again?

Because the 2nd amendment says you don't have to argue about it, at all. What is it people don't get about this?

Preeeeeeeetty sure the forefathers never intended for this to apply to assault rifles and protect people mowing down hundreds of innocent people at once. But hey, keep hiding behind that amendment, I'm sure that plus thoughts and prayers will make you feel better after your kid is shot in the face at school.

2nd amendment. No argument necessary.

Lord knows they never changed any parts of the constitution to keep up with the times. :eyeroll:

The individual right to bear arms was discovered by them pesky activist judges in a 2008 case. The Holy Fathers just wanted folks to have muskets in their militias to keep the pesky Brits away.

That is a mischaracterization of what occurred. I can assure you that, as an American going back many years, we never questioned the right as an individual right. That the court finally came out and said it is not at issue.