Dallas Officer Amber Guyger's trial for the murder of Botham Shem Jean begins (FOUND GUILTY)

[ChicagoFigure]

It was pointless cause it doesn't prove shit against the officer.

The door very well could've been slightly ajar because Jean wanted it to be that way for whatever reason only he would know and we won't cause he dead.

You of the opinion it proved or showed you something. I'm of the opinion it didn't and was pointless.

So now what?

Gotta say i agree with this

She walks in, opens the door fully then lets it swing shut...then calls the cop a liar

After vid ended first thing i thought was, go back and crack that door open slightly n lets see if it still closes.

If it stays open, she wasted her time recording the vid.

If theres any possibility that door can stay open, she wasted her time recording the vid.

Unless she knows for a fact the dead dude walked into his apartment exactly like she did.

Its a pointless vid

 

[The Lonious Monk]

It was pointless cause it doesn't prove shit against the officer.

The door very well could've been slightly ajar because Jean wanted it to be that way for whatever reason only he would know and we won't cause he dead.

You of the opinion it proved or showed you something. I'm of the opinion it didn't and was pointless.

So now what?

It proved what I just said it proved. That's indisputable. You ignoring doesn't change that fact. You're acting like since it doesn't 100% without a doubt prove the cop was lying, it's pointless. That is incorrect and not at all how most evidence works when building a case against someone. They very seldom have a smoking gun that buries someone. More often than not, they have a bunch of little things that poke away at someone's story. The video is an example of one of those things no more no less. If you had simply said that it didn't definitively proved the door wasn't ajar, you'd have been right. Your opinion or my opinion doesn't matter. The idea that this video is pointless is factually incorrect. It is exactly the type of thing that would be brought up in a police interview or court case to impugn the credibility of the person being accused. It doesn't need to prove anything definitively to be used that way.

Gotta say i agree with this

She walks in, opens the door fully then lets it swing shut...then calls the cop a liar

After vid ended first thing i thought was, go back and crack that door open slightly n lets see if it still closes.

If it stays open, she wasted her time recording the vid.

If theres any possibility that door can stay open, she wasted her time recording the vid.

Unless she knows for a fact the dead dude walked into his apartment exactly like she did.

Its a pointless vid

That's simply not true. Let me ask you a question. Is it more likely that a door could be left ajar if it is spring loaded or not spring loaded? If you're being honest, you have to admit that the fact that the door is spring loaded decreases the likelihood that the door could have just been sitting ajar. That's all the video has to do. The chick in the video might have oversold it by claiming she proved the cop lied, but it doesn't make the video pointless.​

 

[ChicagoFigure]

It proved what I just said it proved. That's indisputable. You ignoring doesn't change that fact. You're acting like since it doesn't 100% without a doubt prove the cop was lying, it's pointless. That is incorrect and not at all how most evidence works when building a case against someone. They very seldom have a smoking gun that buries someone. More often than not, they have a bunch of little things that poke away at someone's story. The video is an example of one of those things no more no less. If you had simply said that it didn't definitively proved the door wasn't ajar, you'd have been right. Your opinion or my opinion doesn't matter. The idea that this video is pointless is factually incorrect. It is exactly the type of thing that would be brought up in a police interview or court case to impugn the credibility of the person being accused. It doesn't need to prove anything definitively to be used that way.

Sure a prosecution team can do that. They can say or do all types of shit.

But let a defense team prove it stays ajar in any way whatsoever, and that prosecution team better find a better argument.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

Sure a prosecution team can do that. They can say or do all types of shit.

But let a defense team prove it stays ajar in any way whatsoever, and that prosecution team better find a better argument.

You're assuming that the prosecution would rest it's whole case on the idea that the door couldn't be ajar. They wouldn't do that. Again, that's not how shit works in court 90% of the time. There is no one huge piece of evidence that wins the day. It's a lot of little things that build up to convince a jury that the defense's story doesn't really hold water.

 

[DMorgan]

Morgan, then why didnt her reports say the door was propped open then?

the door can be ajar if it was propped open, but its not like it was open b/c dude didnt close it all the way which is what the chick video is disproving.

You asking me this like cops don't lie in reports every fucking day.

You don't know if that door being propped open is the only way it could be ajar. The chick in the video opened a spring loaded damn near all the way open and just let it go. Of course doing that the door is going to completely close. That shit obvious as fuck. Her doing that to you proves that the door can only be propped open to be ajar? Nobody know WTF dude did with his door.

I have a spring loaded door at my house and my rental. If I slow down the down after I walk in the door doesn't completely close. When my wife is taking to long to come in the house instead of letting the spring loaded door close all the way even though it would still be unlocked. I slow the door down from closing all the way so all she has to do is push the door instead of turning the knob to come in. You know what I don't have to use anything to prop the door to keep it ajar.

 

[ChicagoFigure]

You're assuming that the prosecution would rest it's whole case on the idea that the door couldn't be ajar. They wouldn't do that. Again, that's not how shit works in court 90% of the time. There is no one huge piece of evidence that wins the day. It's a lot of little things that build up to convince a jury that the defense's story doesn't really hold water.

Of course.

And this would be a very weak piece that a prosecution team would not even use if they tested the way the door closes every way possible n could keep it ajar in even one instance.

All we have to go off of is this vid the chick made which is incomplete af.

As stated before it doesnt prove shit or show inconsistencies or that anyone was lying....so far.

 

[DMorgan]

It proved what I just said it proved. That's indisputable. You ignoring doesn't change that fact. You're acting like since it doesn't 100% without a doubt prove the cop was lying, it's pointless. That is incorrect and not at all how most evidence works when building a case against someone. They very seldom have a smoking gun that buries someone. More often than not, they have a bunch of little things that poke away at someone's story. The video is an example of one of those things no more no less. If you had simply said that it didn't definitively proved the door wasn't ajar, you'd have been right. Your opinion or my opinion doesn't matter. The idea that this video is pointless is factually incorrect. It is exactly the type of thing that would be brought up in a police interview or court case to impugn the credibility of the person being accused. It doesn't need to prove anything definitively to be used that way.

That's simply not true. Let me ask you a question. Is it more likely that a door could be left ajar if it is spring loaded or not spring loaded? If you're being honest, you have to admit that the fact that the door is spring loaded decreases the likelihood that the door could have just been sitting ajar. That's all the video has to do. The chick in the video might have oversold it by claiming she proved the cop lied, but it doesn't make the video pointless.​

The video is pointless

 

[ChicagoFigure]

Matter of fact if another vid comes out where someone can keep that door cracked, im not listenin to shit the lady in first vid has to say from there on out

Cuz shes either purposely ignorant or accidentally blissful.

And if it turns out God couldnt even keep that door ajar by much better proof, her vid still begged the question, thus rendering it pointless still.

 

[Chi-Town B]

Wasn't her original statement to police was she was trying to open the door with her key but now the door was ajar.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

Matter of fact if another vid comes out where someone can keep that door cracked, im not listenin to shit the lady in first vid has to say from there on out

Cuz shes either purposely ignorant or accidentally blissful.

And if it turns out God couldnt even keep that door ajar by much better proof, her vid still begged the question, thus rendering it pointless still.

lol Bruh, you can say it's weak evidence. On it's own, it certainly is. But it makes no sense for you to continue to talk about how there are ways to keep the door ajar, when I keep saying that the point is not to suggest that it being ajar is impossible. What are you even refuting with the statements you keep making? And no one is trying to take that video to court and use it. For the 10th time, all I'm saying is that the video isn't pointless. I'm not saying that because I believe the video proves anything conclusively. I'm saying that because the video proves that her excuse is less likely and when you combine that with other pieces of evidence, her story starts to fall apart.

 

[ChicagoFigure]

What are you even refuting with the statements you keep making?

This one:

For the 10th time, all I'm saying is that the video isn't pointless.

In which my very first post in this thread made very clear:

Its a pointless vid

 

[ChicagoFigure]

Cop: door was ajar!

Random lady: but wait!!
*gives one single example of door closing by itself after opening it as much as possible*

Thelonius: yo we seein mad inconsistencies here b

U keep saying it makes the cops story "less likely"

While saying its still possible the door can be kept ajar, as stated by the cop.

U cant see that contradiction?

All im saying is....its a pointless vid.

 

[konceptjones]

Wasn't her original statement to police was she was trying to open the door with her key but now the door was ajar.

Yup, she made a big deal out of her using her key, now all of a sudden the door was ajar.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

Cop: door was ajar!

Random lady: but wait!!
*gives one single example of door closing by itself after opening it as much as possible*

Thelonius: yo we seein mad inconsistencies here b

U keep saying it makes the cops story "less likely"

While saying its still possible the door can be kept ajar, as stated by the cop.

U cant see that contradiction?

All im saying is....its a pointless vid.

If you don't know the difference between "less likely" and "impossible," there really isn't anything left to say. We can let it go.

 

[ChicagoFigure]

If you don't know the difference between "less likely" and "impossible," there really isn't anything left to say. We can let it go.

Ah, cheap shot its all good man. I think the diff is obvious to us both.

It doesnt make it less likely, bc vid didnt prove shit. Another point missed ur on a roll in this one bruh.

Lets let it go tho im good w that

 

[The Lonious Monk]

Ah, cheap shot its all good man. I think the diff is obvious to us both.

It doesnt make it less likely, bc vid didnt prove shit. Another point missed ur on a roll in this one bruh.

Lets let it go tho im good w that

Spring loaded doors are less likely to be left ajar accidentally. That is by design. For you to say that's not less likely is just objectively false.

And I wasn't taking a cheap shot. You said:

Cop: door was ajar!

U keep saying it makes the cops story "less likely"

While saying its still possible the door can be kept ajar, as stated by the cop.

U cant see that contradiction?

If you believe that "less likely" and "possible" contradict, I don't see how you can say you understand the difference. We just arguing around in a pointless circle. You got it.

 

[ChicagoFigure]

Spring loaded doors are less likely to be left ajar accidentally. That is by design. For you to say that's not less likely is just objectively false.

And I wasn't taking a cheap shot. You said:



If you believe that "less likely" and "possible" contradict, I don't see how you can say you understand the difference. We just arguing around in a pointless circle. You got it.

Lol i really gotta spell it out huh

Showing one way a door slams shut and not a way in which it can be kept ajar does not make the cops story less likely bc the possibility of the door still being able to be ajar

Nothing has been proven with her video nor does it make cops story less likely.

Now if the cop did in fact say she tried using her key, then changed up n said door was ajar, thats inconsistency n makes her account less likely to be true.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

Lol i really gotta spell it out huh

Showing one way a door slams shut and not a way in which it can be kept ajar does not make the cops story less likely bc the possibility of the door still being able to be ajar

Nothing has been proven with her video nor does it make cops story less likely.

Now if the cop did in fact say she tried using her key, then changed up n said door was ajar, thats inconsistency n makes her account less likely to be true.

Whatever you say bruh. If you walk into them normally, they close just as was shown in the video. That's how they are designed. The chick in the video could have gone through the effort of showing that if you try to leave the door ajar or hold it at some angle of release that doesn't make sense for a person entering the room, that it could have been left ajar. All that would prove is that someone would have to intentionally left the door ajar. She is basically claiming she believed him to be an intruder. What intruder would go into a room, but then put effort into leaving a clue of his presence in the place? That's not likely. So yes, her story does sound less credible given those facts and when you combine that with the facts that she allegedly claimed she tried her key, that people heard banging, and that someone said the cop yelled to open to door, it all works together make her story sound like bullshit.

 

[ChicagoFigure]

Whatever you say bruh. If you walk into them normally, they close just as was shown in the video. That's how they are designed. The chick in the video could have gone through the effort of showing that if you try to leave the door ajar or hold it at some angle of release that doesn't make sense for a person entering the room, that it could have been left ajar. All that would prove is that someone would have to intentionally left the door ajar. She is basically claiming she believed him to be an intruder. What intruder would go into a room, but then put effort into leaving a clue of his presence in the place? That's not likely. So yes, her story does sound less credible given those facts and when you combine that with the facts that she allegedly claimed she tried her key, that people heard banging, and that someone said the cop yelled to open to door, it all works together make her story sound like bullshit.

So many ifs

Video proved none of them to be true/false or more/less likely to occur

Whatever you say bruh.

Cosign

 

[The Lonious Monk]

So many ifs

Video proved none of them to be true/false or more/less likely to occur


Cosign

lol Again, if you're saying that a video that demonstrates that a particular door was designed specifically to make it hard for it to be left ajar doesn't indicate that its less likely that the door was just inadvertently left ajar, there's nothing else to say. That's just objectively wrong.