Needs to be higher IMO.
1 Like
Yeah, it is working as intended. People are being tried and punished.
Perhaps you are asking the wrong question. Maybe you should be asking “is it ideal?” or “Is there a better way?”
He posed no threat.
What is your angle here? Is it your perspective that she should not have been convicted?
It goes to intent.
She probably was hired to make sure the department look more diverse as opposed to real skill.
Perhaps who ever hired her should be tried for manslaughter too.
1 Like
How do you tell the race of someone in the dark?
“ believing him to be an intruder in her home .”
They’re definitely being punished. What’s that doing to address the problem?
While you’re defending the current system?
Question: Were Guyger and especially Potter set up for success?
An intruder in your home is a threat.
Addressing the actual problem?
Her intent was to find an intruder in her home?
Uh oh.
With tunnel vision and auditory exclusion.
Address what problem?
Set up for success? What does that even mean? They both made terrible mistakes, but how does blame for that redound anywhere but to them?
For example.
1 Like
Ouch. Astute observation.
1 Like
This one belongs in this thread. Take it one step further and the injured 58 YO woman had died of her injuries.
What happened to this country?
1 Like
Lawyers. Civil tort law mostly. Using law for power, fun, and profit.
I almost went to law school and luckily realized the unassailable laws of physics were more to my temperament.
1 Like
It wasn’t her apartment.
Can’t you do both? Punish the offender and address the underlying issue?
Yes it was.
Punish the “offender” for what? Making a mistake?
