Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Scarlett

Amber Guyger

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Kate in Arabia said:

I think the judge went way over the line.  The case isn't even over, what if there's an appeal or other activity where she could be called upon to act in an official capacity? How is she going to claim to be 100% unbiased now? And speaking as a non-Christian, to have a judge proselytizing from the bench... well, I guess some people of that faith may find it inspiring, but I feel the opposite...

 

I thought it was weird too. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

The assumptions that we all have that the anger of black people is somehow scary and dangerous is so engrained in us that we can't even recognize the bias. And the contrast is the docile "Magical Negro." 

I keep hearing white people pontificating on this subject, "I think..." "I think..." "I think..." Like it matters at all what we think. We should just shut up and listen to African American voices. 

And how privileged are we to not pay attention to this case. "Oh, I don't have television so I wasn't following it." It sure is nice for us that we don't need to follow the news isn't it? But that doesn't stop people from having opinions, right? 

All of the people sharing these videos and commenting about what a great Christian the brother is and how we should strive to follow his example - that's the end of their thinking about this case. It's all wrapped up in a nice little bow. Makes them feel good inside. And the next police shooting? It'll be, "why can't those protestors be more like Brandt Jean or MLK?" While they do absolutely nothing to protect another black kid from being shot by a cop. And that fact that most can't even begin to comprehend the other side demonstrates how messed up the white church is in this country. No doubt some are thinking - oh no, not my church. We have some black people and aren't they nice. 

 

Not everyone thinks like the bolded above.  I know I don't.  But I doubt I am typical white woman so, there is that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

 

And how privileged are we to not pay attention to this case. "Oh, I don't have television so I wasn't following it." It sure is nice for us that we don't need to follow the news isn't it? But that doesn't stop people from having opinions, right? 

 

I agree.  It's very easy to have an opinion about something, but it takes a lot more effort to have an informed opinion.  But it's the uniformed or the too quickly informed opinions that dominate most present day conversations.  

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Kate in Arabia said:

I think the judge went way over the line.  The case isn't even over, what if there's an appeal or other activity where she could be called upon to act in an official capacity? How is she going to claim to be 100% unbiased now? And speaking as a non-Christian, to have a judge proselytizing from the bench... well, I guess some people of that faith may find it inspiring, but I feel the opposite...

 

I’m Christian and I completely agree with you. That judge was way, WAY out of line. Not inspiring at all to me; horrifying is the adjective I was leaning toward. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, brehon said:

I’m Christian and I completely agree with you. That judge was way, WAY out of line. Not inspiring at all to me; horrifying is the adjective I was leaning toward. 

Obviously I have big problems with the media coverage of the "forgiveness" videos but I'm troubled by criticizing the judge's behavior. Everything that happened in that courtroom after the sentencing is loaded with history. There's 400 years worth of race relations impacting how everyone acted. Christianity was one of the most effective tools that was used to control African Americans from slavery through today. 

IDK but it's hard for me to be horrified by the strange behavior of victims. Slavery and Jim Crow created generational trauma that is still felt today. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Obviously I have big problems with the media coverage of the "forgiveness" videos but I'm troubled by criticizing the judge's behavior. Everything that happened in that courtroom after the sentencing is loaded with history. There's 400 years worth of race relations impacting how everyone acted. Christianity was one of the most effective tools that was used to control African Americans from slavery through today. 

IDK but it's hard for me to be horrified by the strange behavior of victims. Slavery and Jim Crow created generational trauma that is still felt today. 

I don't understand.  You think the judge acted appropriately?  I am much less bothered by however the dead's man's family acts in their grief than I am by a judge who is showing such favor to a convicted defendant.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I don't understand.  You think the judge acted appropriately?  I am much less bothered by however the dead's man's family acts in their grief than I am by a judge who is showing such favor to a convicted defendant.  

(popping back in as this caught my eye)
I’m not sure it’s really showing favor when the sentence has already been handed down, impact statements have been made, and they’re just awaiting transfer. There is an ethics complaint against the judge now for this, but since she discharged her duties in the case before approaching and speaking with the convicted killer about her faith, it probably won’t fly.  Judges have a lot of latitude for pontificating and moralizing in the court room by precedent.

Edited by Arctic Mama
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Arctic Mama said:

I’m not sure it’s really showing favor when the sentence has already been handed down, impact statements have been made, and they’re just awaiting transfer. There is an ethics complaint against the judge now for this, but since she discharged her duties in the case before approaching not speaking with the convicted killer about her faith, it probably won’t fly.  Judges have a lot of latitude for pontificating and moralizing in the court room by precedent.

Ok, I see.  I guess I didn't realize she was completely finished.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

(popping back in as this caught my eye)
I’m not sure it’s really showing favor when the sentence has already been handed down, impact statements have been made, and they’re just awaiting transfer. There is an ethics complaint against the judge now for this, but since she discharged her duties in the case before approaching and speaking with the convicted killer about her faith, it probably won’t fly.  Judges have a lot of latitude for pontificating and moralizing in the court room by precedent.

Correct.  Someone above expressed concerns about any potential appeals being tainted by the judge's actions, but any appeals will go through different judges.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scarlett said:

I don't understand.  You think the judge acted appropriately?  I am much less bothered by however the dead's man's family acts in their grief than I am by a judge who is showing such favor to a convicted defendant.  

I don't think she acted appropriately. I just don't like to describe what she did as "horrifying." If it had been a white judge, I would not object to calling it "horrifying." 

 

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ChocolateReignRemix said:

Correct.  Someone above expressed concerns about any potential appeals being tainted by the judge's actions, but any appeals will go through different judges.

Yes, but I bet it will still influence other judges, as will the younger brother’s hug.

 

I fully support the brother hugging her.  He can do what he wants—we don’t get to dictate what is right and wrong for him regarding his feelings, no matter our color or position or anything else and it *sickens* me that anyone is criticizing this kid.   But, I can almost guarantee it will influence the appeals committee.  And that’s sad, because at the end of the day, a stranger entered another stranger’s home, his place of safety and respite, and shot him to death.    And she is going to prison for 10 years, but probably less.  That’s heartbreaking.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thatboyofmine said:

Yes, but I bet it will still influence other judges, as will the younger brother’s hug.

 

I doubt it.  Appeals are limited in scope.  No different than when a judge makes very negative comments at a sentencing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Thatboyofmine said:

I fully support the brother hugging her.  He can do what he wants—we don’t get to dictate what is right and wrong for him regarding his feelings, no matter our color or position or anything else and it *sickens* me that anyone is criticizing this kid.   But, I can almost guarantee it will influence the appeals committee.  And that’s sad, because at the end of the day, a stranger entered another stranger’s home, his place of safety and respite, and shot him to death.    And she is going to prison for 10 years, but probably less.  That’s heartbreaking.  

I haven't seen anyone criticize Brandt Jean himself, although some people feel he should have done it in private to avoid this media circus. But there's no way he could possibly have anticipated how his gesture would be exploited and used against his own community, or that it would totally shift the whole narrative to sympathy and compassion for the murderer. And now the jurors are being interviewed about how poor Amber was so remorseful, she'll never be the same, they cried about sending her to prison, they gave her a light sentence because Botham would have forgiven her. 

Black kids get longer sentences for minor possession or shoplifting, black women get sentenced to 5 years for voting or enrolling a child in the wrong school district. But a white cop who murdered an innocent black man in his own home, who made racist statements and joked about shooting first and carrying a gun, gloves, and a shovel to kill anyone who "got up in my ass," who had about 10 different chances to do the right thing but made the wrong choice every. single. time, who watched an innocent man bleed to death without rendering aid because she was too busy texting her boyfriend about losing her job, who lied that she had shouted warnings and that he was coming after her, only gets 10 years. Because the innocent black man she murdered was a really nice guy?

A white cop is finally held accountable for murder, and media are falling all over themselves to paint her as someone who deserves forgiveness and redemption, and holding up Brandt Jean as an example of how black people should face racism and murder with compassion and forgiveness. A small and all-too-rare victory for the black community, which should have been a catalyst for discussions about racism and police accountability, has been turned into a feel-good story for white people. 

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Corraleno said:

I haven't seen anyone criticize Brandt Jean himself, although some people feel he should have done it in private to avoid this media circus. But there's no way he could possibly have anticipated how his gesture would be exploited and used against his own community, or that it would totally shift the whole narrative to sympathy and compassion for the murderer. And now the jurors are being interviewed about how poor Amber was so remorseful, she'll never be the same, they cried about sending her to prison, they gave her a light sentence because Botham would have forgiven her. 

Black kids get longer sentences for minor possession or shoplifting, black women get sentenced to 5 years for voting or enrolling a child in the wrong school district. But a white cop who murdered an innocent black man in his own home, who made racist statements and joked about shooting first and carrying a gun, gloves, and a shovel to kill anyone who "got up in my ass," who had about 10 different chances to do the right thing but made the wrong choice every. single. time, who watched an innocent man bleed to death without rendering aid because she was too busy texting her boyfriend about losing her job, who lied that she had shouted warnings and that he was coming after her, only gets 10 years. Because the innocent black man she murdered was a really nice guy?

A white cop is finally held accountable for murder, and media are falling all over themselves to paint her as someone who deserves forgiveness and redemption, and holding up Brandt Jean as an example of how black people should face racism and murder with compassion and forgiveness. A small and all-too-rare victory for the black community, which should have been a catalyst for discussions about racism and police accountability, has been turned into a feel-good story for white people. 

Son of a b.  I didn’t look at the links above about the jurors, and I’m really glad I didn’t.  This is freaking nuts.  Botham would have forgiven her?!?!  Wth?    Well, Botham is cold and in the ground because she’s a heartless p.o.s., so how can anyone possibly say what Botham would’ve done??  We can’t exactly ask him, now can we??  And who are they to think they have the right to put words in a murdered man’s mouth??  They sound like dumbasses. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/2/2019 at 10:05 AM, Scarlett said:

Well, true.   I Am still surprised at the murder charge.  Apparently the sentence could be as little as 5 years and as much as 99.....the court system just blows my mind.  

I’m appalled that the sentence isn’t longer. She will still be a fairly young woman when she gets out, if she serves the whole thing. 

Edited by TechWife
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Thatboyofmine said:

Son of a b.  I didn’t look at the links above about the jurors, and I’m really glad I didn’t.  This is freaking nuts.  Botham would have forgiven her?!?!  Wth?    Well, Botham is cold and in the ground because she’s a heartless p.o.s., so how can anyone possibly say what Botham would’ve done??  We can’t exactly ask him, now can we??  And who are they to think they have the right to put words in a murdered man’s mouth??  They sound like dumbasses. 

It didn't strike me that they thought they had a right to put words in Botham Jean's mouth.

They said that there were lots of tears in that jury room, and that deciding on a sentence was very hard.  The male juror said that he didn't feel he had any right to speak for "Bo".  The female juror said that this case was unlike any other and that "you can't compare this case to any of those other officers killing unarmed black men".  She went on to explain why she believed that was true.

These two thoughtful, articulate individuals sat in a courtroom and heard all the evidence and then finished their work on that jury.  This was a very difficult case, and I don't envy them. 

Those jurors did what they thought was right.  Obviously, you aren't going to agree with their reasoning or the result, but I hope you will consider hearing them out.  I don't think any of them deserve to be called such an ugly name.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Kate in Arabia said:

I think the judge went way over the line.  The case isn't even over, what if there's an appeal or other activity where she could be called upon to act in an official capacity? How is she going to claim to be 100% unbiased now? And speaking as a non-Christian, to have a judge proselytizing from the bench... well, I guess some people of that faith may find it inspiring, but I feel the opposite...

 

if the defendant had been a non-Christian (which there is nothing to lead anyone to assume that, even if it's just cultural) - it would have been wildly inappropriate. (and if the races had been reversed. would have been way beyond that)  as it was, I found it weird.  but - it's texas.  dfw - there are many churches, and my times that I have visited there (my dd lives there - and I have other family there), have left me feeling "this is bible belt country"  (some do practice the "my version of the bible - not yours".)

this judge won't oversee any appeal in this case, as appeals go through a different court system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, DoraBora said:

It didn't strike me that they thought they had a right to put words in Botham Jean's mouth.

They said that there were lots of tears in that jury room, and that deciding on a sentence was very hard.  The male juror said that he didn't feel he had any right to speak for "Bo".  The female juror said that this case was unlike any other and that "you can't compare this case to any of those other officers killing unarmed black men".  She went on to explain why she believed that was true.

Both of the jurors explicitly said that they were influenced by what they thought Botham "would have wanted" and that they thought "he would want to forgive her." The female juror said you can't compare this case to other cases because "ever since she killed that man she has never been the same."  Poor Amber, having her life permanently changed just because she shot and killed a man sitting in his own home minding his own business eating ice cream and watching TV. Sure was a stroke of luck, though, that she murdered such a nice guy so the jurors would let her off easy.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

16 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Both of the jurors explicitly said that they were influenced by what they thought Botham "would have wanted" and that they thought "he would want to forgive her." The female juror said you can't compare this case to other cases because "ever since she killed that man she has never been the same."  Poor Amber, having her life permanently changed just because she shot and killed a man sitting in his own home minding his own business eating ice cream and watching TV. Sure was a stroke of luck, though, that she murdered such a nice guy so the jurors would let her off easy.

They did say that, and also that they couldn't speak for him, since he isn't here anymore.  They said they had to consider Ms. Guyger's remorse and "the fact that the shooting was a mistake", perhaps because they heard from other South Side Flats residents who had "wrong apartment" experiences, and because on the 911 call recording, Ms. Guyger says over and over (and over), "I thought it was my apartment".  None of this absolves her of responsibility, but the jury evidently believed it made a difference and that Mr. Jean's reputation and the beliefs by which he lived meant he probably wouldn't have wanted revenge.  If they believed this killing was really an incredibly stupid mistake, should they have sentenced her to years and years just to satisfy some members of his family, or more to the point, to satisfy people who feel the way you do?

You have made it abundantly clear that you have no sympathy for Mr. Jean's killer.  Got it.

I still don't think these jurors should be called dumbasses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Thatboyofmine said:

Ok, I watched the juror interview.   It was awful and put my stomach in knots just listening to them. 

I'm very sorry you had such a strong reaction.  Thank you for giving them a hearing anyway.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone have any factual information about how long the average US sentence for manslaughter is?  I would guess that a 10 year sentence would be similar to or even more than such average.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, SKL said:

Does anyone have any factual information about how long the average US sentence for manslaughter is?  I would guess that a 10 year sentence would be similar to or even more than such average.


According to this, her sentence (10 years) was about 30% shorter than the average for murder/non-negligent homicide (15 years). The author deemed that difference “not much”. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1062271

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, gardenmom5 said:

if the defendant had been a non-Christian (which there is nothing to lead anyone to assume that, even if it's just cultural) - it would have been wildly inappropriate. (and if the races had been reversed. would have been way beyond that)  as it was, I found it weird.  but - it's texas.  dfw - there are many churches, and my times that I have visited there (my dd lives there - and I have other family there), have left me feeling "this is bible belt country"  (some do practice the "my version of the bible - not yours".)

this judge won't oversee any appeal in this case, as appeals go through a different court system.

 

I know she won't oversee the appeal.  She still could have activities to perform if the case is appealed.. settling the record, if the case is remanded, etc. etc., perhaps any and all unlikely, and I'm not suggesting she would necessarily show any bias, it is just my opinion that judges should not have any bias and maintain the appearance of the lack of any bias to the best of their ability within the courtroom.

I also understand that it's Texas. And I've read the statements from virtually all the officials around her saying that either they support her, or that "maybe they wouldn't have done that" but they would fight against any action against her because of it. I don't know that there should be any action, I was just commenting that it made me uncomfortable and crossed a line...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard the audio of the courtroom forgiveness, and have been reading reactions in this thread, not having a point of view I could well articulate. I confess that as a Christian, I celebrate forgiveness. But I have struggled with genuinely mixed feelings about what transpired in the courtroom. I appreciate the reactions all of you have shared, you’ve helped build a bigger picture than only my own perspective could have produced. 

This article from my twitter feed put words to my swirling thoughts. Justice and mercy go hand in hand. We should clamor for both. I know that over the next 5 years, whenever the Lord brings this case to mind, I will be praying that Amber Guyger will emerge from prison an educated advocate and voice for justice for her *entire* community. 

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/october-web-only/botham-jean-forgiveness-amber-guyger.html

Edited by Seasider too
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cringe when I see journalists, celebrities, politicians, people in academia, and others grandstanding about "MY whiteness" and "MY white privilege." I think it is just another form of white supremacy -- anything to keep the focus on white people. "Look at ME and how GREAT I am in my [laughable] 'self-loathing' and wokeness."

It does nothing to put the spotlight on those who are suffering and fearful and does nothing to solve any problems like disparity in education and other areas. Anytime it seems like there may be attention or traction on any of these issues, these types of people try to shift the attention.

An article in the Washington Post referenced above stated: 

Quote: The same Bible that urges forgiveness also urges justice. "Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.” (Isaiah 1:17).

None of this is achieved when people are constantly shifting the focus away from the oppressed to themselves.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kate in Arabia said:

What's the deal with the bailiff stroking/fixing Guyger's hair?

 

Searching for weapons or any contraband that’s might have been hidden there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Skippy said:

I cringe when I see journalists, celebrities, politicians, people in academia, and others grandstanding about "MY whiteness" and "MY white privilege." I think it is just another form of white supremacy -- anything to keep the focus on white people. "Look at ME and how GREAT I am in my [laughable] 'self-loathing' and wokeness."

It does nothing to put the spotlight on those who are suffering and fearful and does nothing to solve any problems like disparity in education and other areas. Anytime it seems like there may be attention or traction on any of these issues, these types of people try to shift the attention.

An article in the Washington Post referenced above stated: 

Quote: The same Bible that urges forgiveness also urges justice. "Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.” (Isaiah 1:17).

None of this is achieved when people are constantly shifting the focus away from the oppressed to themselves.

 

Sometimes I do too but I figure that some people really do need to hear things from someone like themselves. It's easy to dismiss the 'oppressed' as bitter and angry and out-of-touch (with what? Their own lives?). I don't know whether that's actually true; it's just my working assumption. I'd also LIKE to think these people can/would/will be allies in making substantive changes in policies (and political representation) to help alleviate disparities in healthcare, education, application of justice, etc.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sneezyone said:


According to this, her sentence (10 years) was about 30% shorter than the average for murder/non-negligent homicide (15 years). The author deemed that difference “not much”. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1062271

 

The issue here for me is that he’s comparing her full sentence to the median actual time served (13.4 in the link).  There might not be a giant difference between 13.4 and 10 but there’s a pretty big difference between the </=5 she is likely to serve and the 13.4 median.  

I know someone who killed a man when he was 15 or 16.  He served, IIRC, 22 on a 30 year sentence. He plead guilty.  There were more mitigating circumstances for him IMO than in this case and his remorse is very different than hers has been thus far.  He did a lot of work on himself in prison and has dedicated his life to helping others.  I honestly don’t see Amber doing what he did- I rather imagine a part of her will always be more sorry she was convicted and lost her job than she is for the loss of an innocent life.  I don’t think she’s going to come out of prison and dedicate her life to undoing racism or educating people about gun violence or helping released prisoners get back on their feet.  Maybe I will be proven wrong but I’m not holding my breath.  

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Seasider too said:

I heard the audio of the courtroom forgiveness, and have been reading reactions in this thread, not having a point of view I could well articulate. I confess that as a Christian, I celebrate forgiveness. But I have struggled with genuinely mixed feelings about what transpired in the courtroom. I appreciate the reactions all of you have shared, you’ve helped build a bigger picture than only my own perspective could have produced. 

This article from my twitter feed put words to my swirling thoughts. Justice and mercy go hand in hand. We should clamor for both. I know that over the next 5 years, whenever the Lord brings this case to mind, I will be praying that Amber Guyger will emerge from prison an educated advocate and voice for justice for her *entire* community. 

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/october-web-only/botham-jean-forgiveness-amber-guyger.html

It's not surprising, though, that the "forgiveness" video got more press than the "justice" video.  We humans love forgiveness and mercy.  We love justice (usually meaning punishment, or at least unpleasant consequences) for others.  But we don't love it for ourselves, which is probably the reason most of us don't want to take Mrs. Jean's words to heart and examine ourselves. 

It's not surprising because it happens all of the time.  People wanting to flout God's laws -- even people who claim no faith -- readily quote Jesus words, "Judge not, and you will not be judged", all the while ignoring his less popular teachings about God's righteous judgement and punishment of sinful deeds.  No one likes that.  No one wants to hear that.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Skippy said:

I cringe when I see journalists, celebrities, politicians, people in academia, and others grandstanding about "MY whiteness" and "MY white privilege." I think it is just another form of white supremacy -- anything to keep the focus on white people. "Look at ME and how GREAT I am in my [laughable] 'self-loathing' and wokeness."

It does nothing to put the spotlight on those who are suffering and fearful and does nothing to solve any problems like disparity in education and other areas. Anytime it seems like there may be attention or traction on any of these issues, these types of people try to shift the attention.

An article in the Washington Post referenced above stated: 

Quote: The same Bible that urges forgiveness also urges justice. "Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.” (Isaiah 1:17).

None of this is achieved when people are constantly shifting the focus away from the oppressed to themselves.

 

I generally reference that I have white privilege and am not immune from racism myself when other white people feel they are being called racist or eye rolling at the concept of privilege.  Not as an “I’m soooo woke thing” (I really dislike that word) but as a “I’m not bludgeoning you with this, this is something I take responsibility for myself.”  I also will try to push back against the “I can’t be racist if I have a black friend” stuff by pointing out that I have black family members  and I’m still not immune and I still have a lot of privilege. 

I used to have a policy of not talking about race to white people who didn’t get it because I was exhausted.  But then I realized that my exhaustion wasn’t anything compared to a black person’s AND by opting out of that discussion,  I’m leaving the work to others.  Which is kind of ugly.  Who am I to be exhausted by this?  No one.  No matter how close to this issue I have lived, including us leaving town for safety reasons after being targeted by skinhead types, I don’t have to face much of anything that a black person in America has to.  

 

Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, DoraBora said:

It's not surprising, though, that the "forgiveness" video got more press than the "justice" video.  We humans love forgiveness and mercy.  We love justice (usually meaning punishment, or at least unpleasant consequences) for others.  But we don't love it for ourselves, which is probably the reason most of us don't want to take Mrs. Jean's words to heart and examine ourselves. 

It's not surprising because it happens all of the time.  People wanting to flout God's laws -- even people who claim no faith -- readily quote Jesus words, "Judge not, and you will not be judged", all the while ignoring his less popular teachings about God's righteous judgement and punishment of sinful deeds.  No one likes that.  No one wants to hear that.

 

Indeed. It wasn't/isn't surprising at all but it is important to see it for what it is, acknowledge it, and DELIBERATELY shine a light on the lesser-seen parts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Arctic Mama said:

Searching for weapons or any contraband that’s might have been hidden there.

 

I don't think that's it.  They mention/show it in this Inside Edition video at the 00:15 mark... do they all know her or something? It's just... so strange/wrong...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Kate in Arabia said:

 

I don't think that's it.  They mention/show it in this Inside Edition video at the 00:15 mark... do they all know her or something? It's just... so strange/wrong...

 

They might know her since she was a cop, but I'm pretty sure that reporter was wrong about what's happening there wrt her hair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! Listening to the video from the CT link, Mother Allison is a very eloquent speaker. (I read one of the links that referred to her as Mother Allison, so I'm doing the same. If I need to edit her name, I would be glad to.) I'm not sure I would have as much composure as she had following the sentencing of her son's killer. I wish both members' perspectives were equally shared on mainstream media. Of the two, I believe the message that is more important is Mother Allison's. But it's also the more difficult message to hear.

Will DPD take it to heart?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EmseB said:

They might know her since she was a cop, but I'm pretty sure that reporter was wrong about what's happening there wrt her hair.

 

Yeah, I shouldn't have said "wrong" because I don't really know what's going on.. it doesn't look like comforting, and it doesn't really look like searching either (to me), I thought maybe someone on here had seen/heard something about that, since it's being pulled into the discussion on some websites I've seen.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Kate in Arabia said:

Yeah, I shouldn't have said "wrong" because I don't really know what's going on.. it doesn't look like comforting, and it doesn't really look like searching either (to me), I thought maybe someone on here had seen/heard something about that, since it's being pulled into the discussion on some websites I've seen.

This "explanation" is all over social media, but I have not seen a single statement from anyone who was actually there, or knows what was really going on, saying that the bailiff was "searching for contraband." If you see the full video, the officer walks over to the side of the room and gets two tissues or paper towels or something and hands one to Guyger, who appears to be crying and uses it to dab her eyes or nose.  Then, after handing her the tissue, the officer strokes Guyger's hair just before the lawyers sit down next to her. 

Why would a bailiff be "looking for contraband" while Guyger was sitting in the courtroom instead of before she entered? Why stroke her hair but not check her clothes or her shoes or even make her stand up? Why would they think she'd be hiding drugs or weapons in her hair — and where could she possibly have gotten those while sitting in a courtroom with police right beside her?

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the court officer is comforting her in that clip. I’ve testified in plenty of court cases, and that’s just...weird to me.  But as a police officer Guyger would have testified frequently and maybe they did know her. I’m still surprised a change of venue wasn’t granted.

For whatever it’s worth, the jury(12 plus four alternates) contained 12 people of color.  They were unanimous when polled on both guilt and a ten year sentence.  https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/10/04/amber-guyger-conviction-what-we-know-dont-know-about-how-diverse-juries-behave/%3foutputType=amp

Please don’t quote the following, because I will delete in a day or two. We have a local case that is just in the brewing stages(at grand jury). It’s the opposite, though—a white, mentally ill man was killed by a female African american police officer and her white male partner.  The details are horrific. It’s given me nightmares.  And it did not involve a weapon, but a complete freak out overreaction on the part of brand new rookie police officers. People who freak out in a moment of perceived danger, whether in uniform or not, and have a weapon or ability to harm someone, are dangerous. Amber Guyger made a series of very, very awful split second decisions, as did these other cops.  Is it racial? Maybe.  But maybe it also speaks to the increased need for available psychological services, better training and less willingness to just shoot someone.  I’ve walked into many situations as a paramedic that turned dangerous and I needed to retreat. Times in the ambulance where a patient attacked me; I’ve even been stabbed once on duty.  I always found ways other than shooting or beating a person to death in order to keep myself safe. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

This "explanation" is all over social media, but I have not seen a single statement from anyone who was actually there, or knows what was really going on, saying that the bailiff was "searching for contraband." If you see the full video, the officer walks over to the side of the room and gets two tissues or paper towels or something and hands one to Guyger, who appears to be crying and uses it to dab her eyes or nose.  Then, after handing her the tissue, the officer strokes Guyger's hair just before the lawyers sit down next to her. 

Why would a bailiff be "looking for contraband" while Guyger was sitting in the courtroom instead of before she entered? Why stroke her hair but not check her clothes or her shoes or even make her stand up? Why would they think she'd be hiding drugs or weapons in her hair — and where could she possibly have gotten those while sitting in a courtroom with police right beside her?

 

I thought it was standard procedure before going into jail after court because a defendant can wear street clothes and such to court (too much reality TV about jail) and since it was the same officer processing her in ther other clips it made more sense that she was doing something purposeful rather than the officer just standing there fondling her hair. I haven't read other sites talking about this; I just watch the clip posted above. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I thought it was standard procedure before going into jail after court because a defendant can wear street clothes and such to court (too much reality TV about jail) and since it was the same officer processing her in ther other clips it made more sense that she was doing something purposeful rather than the officer just standing there fondling her hair. I haven't read other sites talking about this; I just watch the clip posted above. 

 

But Guyger wasn't entering jail or being "processed," she was just sitting in the courtroom after the guilty verdict was read. Guyger was crying, the officer went and got a paper towel for her, which she dabbed against her face, and then the officer ran her fingers through part (not even all) of Guyger's hair, which was slightly tangled, before stepping away. It was exactly the sort of gesture someone would do if a friend was crying after getting bad news. The claim that the officer was "searching for contraband" rather than expressing sympathy has no basis in fact, and doesn't even make sense, yet it's been repeated over and over as a way of dismissing comments from those who were upset by it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Medicmom2.0 said:

I think the court officer is comforting her in that clip. I’ve testified in plenty of court cases, and that’s just...weird to me.  But as a police officer Guyger would have testified frequently and maybe they did know her. I’m still surprised a change of venue wasn’t granted.

For whatever it’s worth, the jury(12 plus four alternates) contained 12 people of color.  They were unanimous when polled on both guilt and a ten year sentence.  https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/10/04/amber-guyger-conviction-what-we-know-dont-know-about-how-diverse-juries-behave/%3foutputType=amp

Please don’t quote the following,

<snip>

But maybe it also speaks to the increased need for available psychological services, better training and less willingness to just shoot someone.  I’ve walked into many situations as a paramedic that turned dangerous and I needed to retreat. Times in the ambulance where a patient attacked me; I’ve even been stabbed once on duty.  I always found ways other than shooting or beating a person to death in order to keep myself safe. 

 

You and me both, sister. Of course, we don’t carry firearms, either.

I mean, I’m sure my monitor or drug box is heavy enough to brain someone, but, honestly, I have a hard time lifting them let alone swinging them at someone. (Have you hefted the LP15? Holy rotator cuff injury, Batman!) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

 

But Guyger wasn't entering jail or being "processed," she was just sitting in the courtroom after the guilty verdict was read. Guyger was crying, the officer went and got a paper towel for her, which she dabbed against her face, and then the officer ran her fingers through part (not even all) of Guyger's hair, which was slightly tangled, before stepping away. It was exactly the sort of gesture someone would do if a friend was crying after getting bad news. The claim that the officer was "searching for contraband" rather than expressing sympathy has no basis in fact, and doesn't even make sense, yet it's been repeated over and over as a way of dismissing comments from those who were upset by it.

Okay, when watching the clip it just seemed off that a court officer would be stroking her hair (not so much supplying tissues). It doesn't even make sense to me that's what she's doing, but I'm not trying to dismiss anyone upset by it. 

Edited by EmseB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brehon said:

You and me both, sister. Of course, we don’t carry firearms, either.

I mean, I’m sure my monitor or drug box is heavy enough to brain someone, but, honestly, I have a hard time lifting them let alone swinging them at someone. (Have you hefted the LP15? Holy rotator cuff injury, Batman!) 

 

My last job had lifepacks. I hated them. We finally got the Zoll X and it’s so light....

Please no one get me wrong; I am very thankful for the cops with weapons who show up or accompany me.  But so many of these cop shooting cases seem very reactionary to a situation that needed an extra few seconds to de-escalate or, in this case, ascertain true danger. I am not speaking of times when, say, a suspect is shooting at an officer or civilian. But this one just needed a few extra seconds.

  I freely admit to having a lot of mixed feelings on this one. And I have walked into my apartment where someone unexpected was standing(turned out to be a maintenance man), I had a patient stab my leg, I’ve even had a family shoot at my ambulance. I’m not unsympathetic to or unfamiliar with that feeling of urgent danger, but people don’t have to die over it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Terabith said:

That’s absolutely terrible!  I hope it was unrelated violence and not a sign of further police corruption or vengeance, but the timing really looks suspicious.  I hope they canvas the department and her relatives as first line suspects.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...