Random Tuesday Morning Thoughts

• Amber Guyger:
  
• I told you the Court's Charge to the jury was going to be a cluster and, man, it was.
• First off, that thing was put together outside the view of the cameras and probably after a several hour meeting with the lawyers and judge on Saturday. Generally, the Charge in most criminal cases is pretty simple. It might get handled on the record like this: Defense: "I'll request a self-defense and defense of third person instructions." Prosecutor: "That's fine. Judge: "OK." Then the Charge is prepared and tiny nit-picky objections to the wording are made. This case ain't simple. 
• Yesterday, the trial began with the "nit-picky" objection part. We missed the part as to how it was decided what would go into the Charge since the lawyers obviously knew when they walked in yesterday what was going to be in it. There's nothing sinister about this. (It's actually more common in civil cases than criminal cases, but still common.)
• Manslaughter was given as a lesser included. That's bizarre. There is no question that was done only by agreement by both sides because there is no way it should legally be given. I've not heard one legal "expert" on TV or radio who says otherwise. (And if you want to get really technical, the Manslaughter option oddly didn't even list, and require the jury to find, what specific reckless acts were committed by Amber. If a Manslaughter charge is included in an original indictment, the law requires that the reckless acts be specified. They couldn't do it here because it doesn't make sense -- she intended to kill him and didn't recklessly kill him.  Here the jury just could just make up whatever they want to as to the "reckless acts"  and convict her of Manslaughter if they desire.)
• Oddly, there was no Criminally Negligent Homicide option. That's weird. If Manslaughter  is ever given to a jury there is always a lesser included of Criminally Negligent Homicide given as well. Someone said yesterday they are "legal cousins" and that's close. They are basically legal father and son who are always together. The only explanation is that the neither the State or the Defendant wanted the Criminally Negligence submitted. 
• Everyone is screaming about the Castle Doctrine being included. That basically tells the jury to start with a presumption that deadly force in self defense is reasonable unless the State can overcome it. That really doesn't bother me. If Amber thought she was in her own home, she shouldn't be convicted for acting like she was in her own home based upon law applicable to those in their own home. (Side note: The Castle Doctrine is really over hyped in its intended use. No Texas jury is ever going to convict a home resident from killing an intruder. The resident is going to get a break from the jury every time even if the Castle Doctrine didn't exist.)  
• Here's the Nuclear Bomb in the Charge which I believe is completely wrong and completely a gift to the defense: The crazy Mistake of Fact Instruction at the very end. I was listening last night to a replay of the judge reading the Charge to the jury and it stopped me down so much I immediately transcribed it. Stay with me here . . . .
• The jury was told if they believed the defendant was guilty of murder or manslaughter (which means they had rejected self-defense) they were "next to decide whether the State has proved the defendant did not make a mistake of fact constituting a defense. To decide the issue of mistake of fact you must determine whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt one of the following: (1) That the defendant did not believe she was entering her own apartment or did not believe that the deceased was an intruder in her apartment, or (2) the defendant’s belief that she was entering her own apartment or her belief that the deceased was an intruder in her apartment was not reasonable.You must all agree the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt doubt either one of the two elements listed above."
• There's more to this which I'm about to reproduce, but stop right there. Holy, cow. That's insane. I can't get over the fact how it is on its own island. Do you understand how that literally reads? The jury could believe she was not justified in using self defense -- after all, they only get to Mistake of Fact if they believe she is guilty of murder or manslaughter -- but the State still also has to prove she didn't (1) actually believe or (2) reasonably believe she was in her own apartment or faced with an intruder while there. I could completely understand if the jury had been instructed that finding this mistake was a prerequisite before deciding whether Amber could invoke self-defense, but that's not what is going on here. And if you think I'm over-hyping this, look what comes next:
• "If you find the State has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt either element one or element two listed above you must find a defendant not guilty." And here's the only way they can find her guilty: "If you unanimously agree that the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of murder or manslaughter and you unanimously agree that the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt either element one, that the defendant did not believe she was entering her own apartment or did not believe the deceased was an intruder in her apartment or element two, that the defendant’s belief she was entering her own apartment or in her belief that the deceased was an intruder in her apartment was not reasonable, then you shall find a defendant guilty as alleged or included in the indictment." (This part of the Charge is read at 1:27:40 on this WFAA video.)
• Can you tell I can't believe that instruction is in there? Read it again and you'll understand. This is a complete misstatement of the law (and even I don't think Amber should be convicted.)  How the prosecution couldn't stop this from getting inserted in the Charge is beyond me. How the judge, who is no fool, put it in there is a mystery. The best explanation is that the paragraphs were inserted, removed, and moved around and  inserted, removed, and moved around again so many times in the multi-hour conference about the Charge that this paragraph ended up, once again, on its own island that no one saw. Talk about being on "auto-pilot."
• Could she possibly be convicted with that Mistake of Fact instruction? You would think the answer is, "Absolutely not." But here is the real world: All of the instructions in the Court's Charge are so convoluted that the jury is going to use them only as a guideline and do what they think is "right." That's not how it supposed to work, that's not the way the law is supposed to work, but that's how it actually works. And that's especially true in cases like this. 
• But this shows why the defense want people who work in technical fields (engineers, computer coders) on the jury for cases like this. You want someone who is used to logic and flow charts. You want someone who will stand up and say, "Do you see what that mistake of fact paragraph says!? It's a simple 'If-Then' construct! Can't you see that? There's no way we can find her guilty!"
• Remember when I said the first thing I would have done if I had been hired in this case would be to prepare the Charge. Now you know why. But even I wouldn't have thought I'd get that kind of Mistake of Fact instruction. 
• Finally, you'll hear people say, "The longer the deliberations go, the better it is for Amber." You'll hear me say, "The longer a jury deliberates, the more it means nothing." 
• That exhausted me. 
• There were three earthquakes around Snyder, Texas overnight. Are they fracking out there? (There was also one near Alvarado.) 
• Ukraine/Impeachment. With all the news yesterday afternoon, all four of these people should be sweating.
  
• Wise County's 1/2 representative Mac Thornberry announced he won't run again. That doesn't make much sense. His district goes all the way out to Amarillo and voted 80% for Trump.
• The guy who was able to turn $3 billion into $3 billion after 20 years doesn't like an online sports news organization that is breaking the mold on making money. 
  
• Happy birthday to communism in China.
  
• There was some kind of brawl at a wedding rehearsal dinner in Rhome this weekend that left a couple of people in jail and a bridesmaid with a shiner. 
• I'm guessing the prosecutor isn't exactly a joy at parties. 

Random Monday Morning Thoughts

• Amber Guyger
• On Friday Amber took the stand, and this case finally began to play out like it should have. The focus was all on her actions once she entered the apartment. Everyone now basically concedes she actually believed she was in her apartment. 
• The most telling thing legally happened when the prosecutor asked her if she intended to kill Botham Jean.  She said yes. She had to say yes. The prosecutor did this so he can now argue to the judge that she can no longer legally ask the jury to consider lesser included offenses of manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide. As I've said from the beginning, she didn't recklessly or negligently kill him. She intended to kill him. And that's what makes this trial about whether she reasonably used deadly force in self defense based upon the facts as she knew them. We have finally gotten there. 
• I don't think the jury should be asked about anything other than murder and self-defense.
• There's going to be a fantastic strategic question that the defense team will face. The defense certainly knows that legally the jury shouldn't be asked about lesser included offenses of manslaughter and criminally negligently homicide, but they will try to get them submitted anyway. And does the prosecutor decide to agree to it for strategic reasons as well? The prosecutor has to have some fear of a not guilty verdict on murder and, after thinking about it for a couple of days, might want those lesser charges submitted as a fallback. And to complicate matters, just because both sides agree, the judge doesn't have to go along with it (although most of the time a judge will.)  
• Really technical: If the defense does ask for lesser included offenses of manslaughter or negligent homicide and it is submitted, rightly or wrongly, and she is convicted of one of those two offenses, can the defense later argue on appeal there is legally insufficient evidence of either of those charges since the uncontroverted evidence is she intended to kill Jean? I don't think so, but I'd have to research it. I think that if the defense asks for a lesser included offense they are stuck with it if she gets convicted of it. Those defense lawyers should know -- and absolutely must know -- the answer to this. 
• Here's why the lesser includeds are important: If she is convicted of murder, the jury will decide punishment with a range of 5 year to life. They cannot give her probation. Yep, the jury knows if they convict her of murder they are sending her to prison.  If a manslaughter charge is submitted (even if improperly) and she is convicted of it, the range is 2 to 20 years and the jury will have the option of giving her probation. 
• The defense may very well decide to go with an "all or nothing" strategy. That is, they don't even try to get the judge to submit manslaughter or criminally  negligent homicide charges, and give the jury the only option of murder or not guilty. Is it possible the jury will be nudged towards a not guilty verdict since they know a guilty verdict also means they must send her to prison? This is something they have to sit down with Amber about, make sure she 100% understands everything I've mentioned so far, give her advice as to what they think she should do, and then let her make the call. 
• Amber did a good job testifying, but the prosecutor struck some blows. Notice how he asked her what she "could" have done. Could she have taken cover instead of firing? Could she have called for back up? Amber answered yes to that series of questions.  Notice he didn't ask he "Did you feel you had time to take cover?" or "Did you feel you had time to call for backup." Her answers would not have been yes. 
• Both the prosecutors and the defense lawyers are very good.
• And, overall, the judge is good.  She might be on shaky ground on limiting evidence from the defense experts, but she's played it pretty straight. And one thing she needs extra credit for: She is not grandstanding for the cameras. 
• The judge severely limited Texas Ranger David Armstrong from offering opinions about the propriety of Amber's conduct once she entered into the room. The legal expert on WFAA criticized her about that on Saturday. He even speculated that the short session that morning was perhaps because the judge had been presented with "some new authority" which is making her question her decision. Notably, there was a case out of Texas' highest criminal court earlier this year which liberalized somewhat when an expert can testify in the field that does not involve "hard science." If  you hear a reference to the "Nenno Test" today or tomorrow, you heard it hear first.
• I think Amber Guyger should not be convicted. I'm beginning to worry that she might be convicted. 
• A house burned in Haslet on Saturday. Someone wants you to know about his photography business. 
  
• Messenger notes: (1) They are going to release news about a paywall of some sorts. Everyone quit griping and subscribe. They provide a critical service to the county. (2) Check out Brian Knox's column this week about one of oddest parts of the recent murder trial: The kid basically turned into the early days of Alexander Supertramp after the murder. It's pretty wild. (3) This could be a running bit for the coverage of every council meeting: Describe someone who speaks.
  
• Montana this weekend.
  
• I haven't read this but it's a great idea. Burn Big Tex just like the ending of the Burning Man festival. 
  
• Ukraine/Impeachment:
• Trump was an absolute raving paranoid maniac on Twitter this weekend. He retweeted on Sunday over 25 random Twitter accounts (some bots) who praised a Fox News segment that morning. That is disturbing and unbalanced behavior -- even for him.
• Then he amazingly quoted Money Changer In The Temple Robert Jeffress about a "Civil War like fracture" if he is impeached.
  
  
  
• He even intimidated the Whistleblower:
  
• Smart to do it late Friday: After the Ukraine memo mentioned envoy Kurt Volker, he abruptly quit.  (Side note: The Arizona State student newspaper broke the story.)
• This weird defense that the Whistleblower relied upon hearsay is bizarre. He was right. The White House's own memo about the Ukraine conversation confirmed what he said. 
• He's freaking out again this morning:
  
• This is now 100% Orwellian. It's not even funny. It is actually happening. And Trump's base is obeying The Party.
  
• Here's an example of that: House Minority leader Kevin McCarthy defiantly told 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley that he was making up the quote, "I need a favor though." Good lord. 
  
• If you care more about Robert De Niro dropping F Bombs on CNN than about the scandal, your missing it.
• Off beat images from the college football weekend. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• The Denton County Sheriff's Office continues to keep from the public any details regrading the shooting of the man who was running away from his deputies. The Sheriff won't even tell us the name of the officers involved. s
• Messenger: Above the Fold

It's Friday. Let's Get Out Of Here.

pic.twitter.com/Mb6Smp1ljF

— Timothy Burke (@bubbaprog) September 21, 2019

---

The app is living wine labels ... pic.twitter.com/Z1Hi3HKzDi

— Isabella ~🌹 (@playful_heart) September 21, 2019

---

No flag on this play. What?pic.twitter.com/nJzlLkZwjW

— Dov Kleiman (@NFL_DovKleiman) September 22, 2019

---

This tho. Day has just been made. 😂 pic.twitter.com/nyNBoFk9UN

— Allison Janney (@AllisonBJanney) September 25, 2019

---

These kids are way tougher than I am. Not all heroes wear capes.😇 The things we do for our dogs, bruh...💪🐶😍 pic.twitter.com/25xei1sLVw

— Rex Chapman🏇🏼 (@RexChapman) September 26, 2019

---

Random Friday Morning Thoughts

• Ukraine:
• Watergate never moved as quickly as this scandal has over the last three days. 
• The tip-off was when the Administration went into full damage control by releasing a memo which, despite being its best version of the facts, is so damaging you have to wonder what the true transcript says. Trump never goes on the defensive and he did.
• Then we learn the true transcript is so politically damaging that it was placed on a super secret system reserved for national security concerns and there are probably others.
• The hearing yesterday with Joseph Maguire, the acting director of national intelligence, demonstrated the Republicans had no defense for Trump's conduct. They can't attack the Whistleblower's allegations because he has been shown to be correct even based on the limited memo, and they can't attack his character because Maguire said the whistleblower "did the right thing" and called the situation "unprecedented."
• After Maguire said "he would to the best of his ability . . .  offer [the whistleblower and his sources] the full protections of the whistleblower statute to prevent acts of possible retaliation", Trump was recorded as saying "You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? The spies and treason, we used to handle it a little differently than we do now." Treason is punishable by death.
• Trump is out Nixoning Nixon.
• The question in my office yesterday was if and when the Republican senators would finally turn on Trump. If so, it's over.  I don't think it'll ever happen. But if this ship goes down, people like Ted Cruz shouldn't be allowed to jump off. He sold his soul to Trump. That should have consequences. 
• Can we just impeach him for being the dumbest man alive?
  
• Some people are like Brad. Don't be like Brad.
  
• Good lord. 
  
• Our local Texas Ranger is featured in the Los Angeles Times.
  
• Amber Guyger:
• The State rested yesterday. Yep, that's all they had.
• Amber may very well testify today. I'd certainly put her on the stand, but I could see the defense now having second thoughts since the State's case was such a dud. But the defense promised the jury she would testify during opening statements, so they are stuck with it. 
• Even when I'm 99% sure the defendant will testify I always tell the jury: "You may hear from him or you may not. I don't know. It is truly his decision. But it may very well be that that the State's case is so weak that there's no need for him to explain anything at all. Remember, if the State can't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, the judge will tell you that you can't convict him. And you've promised me you won't hold it against him if he chooses not to testify." That at least gives me an out. Amber's lawyers didn't create that out. 
• Once both sides rest and close, the jury instructions are going to be insane. Heck, they are ridiculous in even a simple criminal case. The terminology going forward is that the jury will be given the "Court's Charge." It will contain definitions of what the law is and one multi paragraph question applying them (i.e. "If you find . . . but if you also find . . . . "). 
• The charge is critically important because the lawyers will be able to stand in front of the jury and say, "The judge has told you the law is . . . ." Even better, the defense can stand up and say, "Look at page 6. The judge is telling you what the the law is about self-defense  -- and it's what I've been telling you all along. She has told you that if you have a reasonable doubt about [insert x], then you must find her not guilty." So, in complicated legalize, a lawyer wants as much good stuff in the charge as he can get. 
• The first thing I would have done if I were representing her would have been to create the jury charge. (It's really Trial Law 101. You prepare and tailor your case based upon what the instructions the jury will be given. You focus from the get-go on what the jury will be faced with. ) And once I confirmed there is not an appellate case out there concerning jury instructions which even remotely concerns this bizarre fact pattern involving Mistake of Fact and Self-Defense (there's not), I'd consult the smartest lawyers I know to get their opinion on what should be in it. If there had even been a trial before which had Mistake of Fact and Self Defense, I'd got to the district clerk and get a copy of that charge as a starting point. And then I'd prepare it. 
• If Amber is convicted, the greatest chance that the case will get reversed on appeal is the judge refusing to include an instruction in the charge requested by the defense. The judge isn't bad, but she's proven she's no scholar (she's already commented on the evidence which, although harmless so far, is something a judge knows to never do.)  If you are watching the trial, watch the upcoming part when both sides rest and the lawyers are asking the judge for specific instructions they want in the charge. I think it will be wildly entertaining especially since I don't think the prosecutors, amazingly, have completely thought about it like they should have. 
• One thing that has not been mentioned is that it is very common for a jury to be instructed on the issue of "apparent danger" in self-defense cases involving deadly force. It's really a "mistake of fact" defense in this scenario: A defendant thought the victim was pulling a gun on him so he shot and killed him. Turns out, the guy was not pulling out a gun but some innocent object. Yep, it's still a defense. Even placing aside for a moment the mistake of going in the wrong apartment, "apparent danger" is going to be a big player in this case.  Once she opens the door, if it was reasonable for Amber to believe Botham Jean was a threat to her life, from her standpoint, then the jury will be instructed to acquit. Here's an example out of a book widely used by trial judges (I got it from a trial judge.): 
  
• And one more thing about the "apparent danger" defense that is critical: The jury will be instructed the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she didn't have a reasonable belief she was in apparent danger. Man, that's a crazily high burden. 
• It boils down to this: Once Amber Guyger walked into the apartment believing it was her apartment, did she reasonably believe that deadly force was necessary even if she was factually wrong about the need to use deadly force. If you want to say she probably should have just tazed him or should have retreated, that's fair but that's not enough to convict. Once again, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she didn't have a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary.
• I continue to believe whether she was reasonable or unreasonable in going to the wrong apartment is a red herring. It is her conduct from the moment she opened the door is what the trial is about.
• Whether she should have provided medical care to him immediately after the shooting is also a red herring as well. (The lack of no blood on her uniform is absolute a b.s. stunt on the State's part.)
• This case drives me crazy. And that defense lawyer who was providing commentary yesterday during the breaks on WFAA's live feed would never be my co-counsel. 
• Watch it live here.
• I've criticized TCDLA for some of their stupid trial tips in the past. They actually got one right yesterday. 
  
• The Star-Telegram has a long feature story today on Ashley Fouts, the Boyd volleyball player who passed away in her sleep. 

Random Thursday Morning Thoughts

• Amber Guyger:
• It was outside of the presence of the jury, but the lead Texas Ranger investigating case, David Armstong, said on the witness stand that Guyger did not commit a crime and was reasonable in using self-defense. The judge won't let the jury hear this.
• WBAP's Hal Jay this morning: "Now which side hired David Armstrong?" Think I was punching my dashboard at that moment? 
• This trial is so weird because the facts are basically not in dispute. And trials are, by definition, for the jury to decide what the facts are. 
• A big moment in opening statements that no one seems to be talking about: The defense attorney promised the jury that Amber would testify. From the very beginning of my criminal defense career, I've been in the minority by almost always putting the defendant on the stand at trial. Your chances of winning without doing so are simply not good at all. 
• The DA's office is on an island in this case. Realize that every law enforcement officer who testifies is by and large not in favor of this prosecution. 
• Tomorrow I'll try to get you my best guess as to the exact instruction that the jury will be given for "mistake of fact." 
• Juul, the vaping company, announced yesterday that it will end almost all of U.S. advertising.  That's a huge hit to the print media. (As an example, I ended up with a subscription to Wired over the last year and it would not be unusual to see Juul with three or four full page ads in it. And there wasn't much advertising in that magazine to start with.)  Adweek says they spent $104 million in advertising in the last six months. 
• For those who use Reliant Energy, are you getting killed with high bills right now? I've got a sample size of three that show they are over-the-top unusual even for the hottest time of the year. 
• Ukraine-gate:
• The release of the memo (it's not a transcript) is an Orwellian Test. Do you reject the evidence of your eyes and ears?
  
• At least Nixon tried to be discreet.
• The White House, being the White House, accidentally released to Democrats the "talking points" oh how to address the memo. First and foremost, everyone was to say there was "no quid pro quo." 
  
• Trump then quickly regurgitated the talking points which had been quickly regurgitated by Fox News:
  
  
• Direct? I had no idea that the words "quid pro quo" actually had to exist much less literally used in order for there to be a scandal.   I suppose people who throw around Latin might say "quid pro quo" from time to time, but I suspect people from Trump's neck of the woods would say,  "I would like to ask you a favor though" before I commit to anything.
  
  
• Breaking: The Whistleblower complaint was just released.  We've got a Watergate Tapes 2.0 situation.  Literally. 
  
• Remember when President Obama wore a tan suit?
• Is a Texas search warrant valid if the officer admits he did not take an oath and swear that the affidavit to get the warrant was true and correct? Of course not, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals ruled in March. Yesterday, Texas' highest criminal court said it wants to decide the issue. Really? 
• In another case which seems like a big deal, the court agreed to hear a case involving the propriety of allowing a witness at trial to testify via Facebook Live from Montana. 
• The government of Texas executed a man last night by lethal injection even though the bailiff in the courtroom had a syringe print on his tie. The Supreme Court denied a stay of execution late yesterday afternoon.  In doing so, Justice Sotomayer said the wearing of the tie was "disturbing" and "deeply troubling" but that it was OK to kill the guy anyway. 
  
• I haven't watch Ken Burns' Country Music documentary but over the last few months I've gone back and watched his documentaries on The West (1996) and Prohibition (2011).  They were great. Heck, all of his work is great. But you know who is the unsung hero in every single one of them? Narrator Peter Coyote. 

Random Wednesday Morning Thoughts

• If you want to know what all this Ukraine controversy is about, read this from The Washington Post which was released yesterday evening. It's simple. It all makes sense. It's not just about a phone call. And Trump is finally concerned. And Rudy, the worst lawyer in America, is smack dad in the middle of it. 
  
• Rudy was defending himself on Fox News last night saying that everything he did in the Ukraine was at the request of the State Department. He said he's documented it on his phone because "I'm a pretty good lawyer." The State Department had earlier said, "Not so much." If Giuliani was trying to get Trump impeached, which may very well happen, he couldn't have done a better job. 
  
  
• Rudy would later yell at a person to "shut up", tell the host to "turn his mic off", called him an "idiot" and say, "Keep your lying mouth shut!"  He's doing well. Real well. 
  
• The former Chief of Police in Jacksboro was indicted and our DA's office recused itself. A private attorney was then appointed as a special prosecutor (technically an "attorney pro tem"). The defense has now raised, by a filing yesterday, an interesting issue as they seek to have the private attorney removed.: A private attorney paid by the hour (by Jack County) as a prosecution has an inherent conflict of interest, the motion says. That is, there is a financial incentive to seek an indictment and take the case all the way to trial regardless of the merits of the case.  That creates a personal financial incentive to prosecute -- the more hours you put it, the more you make. The defendant's Motion points out that after the appointment in the case the legislature changed the law for future appointments so that private attorneys cannot be appointed as prosecutors -- the job must now go to a prosecutor from another jurisdiction without additional compensation above his/her normal salary. (Side note: The attorney pro tem in the Jacksboro case is currently also the attorney pro tem in the prosecution of a trooper in Wise County.) 
  
• The Denton Record Chronicle is still after the story where the deputy shot and killed a fleeing man.  The Sheriff's office is being less than transparent. 
  
• Looking at today's Messenger, anyone feel comfortable when a new reserve constable is described this way?: 
  
• Amber Guyger trial
• The State spent a lot of time yesterday pointing out that every other cop who came to the apartment in response to the shooting was able to go to the right place and didn't end up on the wrong floor. Why they want to establish this, I have no idea. By proving Guyger was absolutely zoned out, they are helping her establish the absolute defense of, "I thought I was in my apartment. I thought there was an intruder in my apartment. I shot and killed what I earnestly believed to be that intruder because I feared for my life."  
• Let me say it for the millionth time: She didn't recklessly kill him. That's why it was not manslaughter. That's why she's not charged with manslaughter. She intended to kill him -- meaning she pointed a gun at him and pulled the trigger with the intent to kill. That's why it is a murder case with a defense of mistake.
• These facts make the Amber Guyger case more understandable: Say you know of a husband and wife who had been fighting for months and rumors of an impending divorce were swirling. I mean, it's a bad and toxic relationship. You learn one day that the wife had been shot and killed by the husband in their home. But the husband immediately says, "I honestly thought that it was an intruder! I thought my wife was in bed!  I heard a noise and thought it was break-in!"  You buying that? Well, settling the issue in a criminal trial would make perfect sense and it's easy to understand. If the jury believed he honestly thought it was an intruder (or technically even had a reasonable doubt about it), they would find the man not guilty.  If they believed beyond a reasonable doubt he was making that up, he would be convicted.  But at least it's a legitimate question with battle lines clearly drawn. With Amber Guyger, no one disputes she thought there was an intruder in her apartment. 
• Now change those facts and have the husband shooting his son, who everyone knows he loved and cherished, in the middle of the night. Would there even be a trial? No. The DA would take the case to the grand jury and behind close doors recommend that they return a no-bill, and the case would be closed. 
• That's a power move right there.
  
• Never try to get snarky with young people on the Internet. It's their home field. 
  
  
  
  
• The Money Changer In The Temple has moved on to a shake down cruise.  He's literally making money as a travel agent.
  
• Messenger: Above the Fold