- Joined
- May 6, 2016
- Messages
- 3,137
- Reaction score
- 28,316
IIRC 3AM.When did they test her?
IIRC 3AM.When did they test her?
IDK why he would think that. The amount of marijuana he had was effectively legalized in Dallas. IMO he didn't have time to think anything.
In my amateur opinion and speculation, they could certainly play a role and to be thorough, I think she should be tested.I don't think drugs are the issue here.
Don't give her any credit by associating her with law enforcement. She's a disgrace. We have many, many fine examples of honorable men and women in law enforcement. She isn't one of them, and likely should have never been hired.you'll be waiting a long time. there is no "smoking gun" (I wouldn't have used that phrase, for sure). this has been turned into a political football which fits an "anti-cop" narrative. all my opinion.
Same here. Maybe it was as simple as Texas law is, shall we say, different when it comes to defining murder?
ETA: Do I remember correctly that a judge refused to "sign off" on manslaughter, but would on murder?
One thing I'm curious about from today's testimony: the Chemistry teacher/football coach stated that after he parked his car in the garage (4th Floor), he saw Amber driving fast through the garage before parking her vehicle. He was a bit alarmed by that and it was one reason her noticed her.
I wonder what AG's frame of mind was at that point. Was she angry about something/at someone? Was she in a hurry because she had plans for that night? IIRC, she had pulled over in the garage before that to text her partner.
One thing I'm curious about from today's testimony: the Chemistry teacher/football coach stated that after he parked his car in the garage (4th Floor), he saw Amber driving fast through the garage before parking her vehicle. He was a bit alarmed by that and it was one reason her noticed her.
I wonder what AG's frame of mind was at that point. Was she angry about something/at someone? Was she in a hurry because she had plans for that night? IIRC, she had pulled over in the garage before that to text her partner.
Pot is as normal as glass of wine for millions and millions of people in the US. He had a small amount and a common tool used with it. I don't see this as abnormal for a anyone, let alone a religious person, one from the islands at that.
IDK. I don't remember him saying that.Was he the gentleman who disputed he'd told the Rangers he also had issues with his door lock? IIRC, he said something about "maybe a misunderstanding" while indicting he didn't have issues.
One thing I'm curious about from today's testimony: the Chemistry teacher/football coach stated that after he parked his car in the garage (4th Floor), he saw Amber driving fast through the garage before parking her vehicle. He was a bit alarmed by that and it was one reason her noticed her.
I wonder what AG's frame of mind was at that point. Was she angry about something/at someone? Was she in a hurry because she had plans for that night? IIRC, she had pulled over in the garage before that to text her partner.
IDK. I don't remember him saying that.
This is very interesting. Knowing what was to come, it reinforces the potential of being in a hothead state. Driving fast enough through the garage to alarm the football coach/teacher.One thing I'm curious about from today's testimony: the Chemistry teacher/football coach stated that after he parked his car in the garage (4th Floor), he saw Amber driving fast through the garage before parking her vehicle. He was a bit alarmed by that and it was one reason her noticed her.
I wonder what AG's frame of mind was at that point. Was she angry about something/at someone? Was she in a hurry because she had plans for that night? IIRC, she had pulled over in the garage before that to text her partner.
you'll be waiting a long time. there is no "smoking gun" (I wouldn't have used that phrase, for sure). this has been turned into a political football which fits an "anti-cop" narrative. all my opinion.
The subject matter maybe. But the texting itself and the focus might be very relevant. She was distracted. While exhausted from work and carrying a loaded weapon.
True, but many of those "racy" texts were hours before this event. The prosecution built this up like she was getting ready to get home and get laid...super horny and distracted.
However, when the love-interest officer takes the stand, he admits they broke up a long time ago and they were just flirting and he had no intent on seeing her that night. Even admitted that the text from her stating 'I need you hurry' didn't elicit anything but fear from him that she was in trouble. Sure, he could be full of crap. It's hard to judge given that both their testimonies are just weird. I mean who flirts with people they're not seeing anymore? Who sends pics of your junk when you have no interest in seeing them that night?
What the heck does it matter how he was portrayed? He is the victim. He didn't do one thing to cause this.
She is not be victim.
And it's not like he had childin there for God's sake. He had pot. Half the country uses it. People don't beat their wives, beat their kids, get in fights with strangers, start riots after their team loses, etc., when their stoned. Not like people do when they get drunk. They just relax.
Just because TX is behind much of the nation when it comes to the continued prohibition of a drug that continues to be illegal because it's associated with use by minorities, doesn't mean a man who uses it has a problem with morality. He has a problem with living in a backwards state.
It's ridiculous. And I don't even use the stuff. Not at all.
some people just drive too fastOne thing I'm curious about from today's testimony: the Chemistry teacher/football coach stated that after he parked his car in the garage (4th Floor), he saw Amber driving fast through the garage before parking her vehicle. He was a bit alarmed by that and it was one reason her noticed her.
I wonder what AG's frame of mind was at that point. Was she angry about something/at someone? Was she in a hurry because she had plans for that night? IIRC, she had pulled over in the garage before that to text her partner.
True, but many of those "racy" texts were hours before this event. The prosecution built this up like she was getting ready to get home and get laid...super horny and distracted.
However, when the love-interest officer takes the stand, he admits they broke up a long time ago and they were just flirting and he had no intent on seeing her that night. Even admitted that the text from her stating 'I need you hurry' didn't elicit anything but fear from him that she was in trouble. Sure, he could be full of crap. It's hard to judge given that both their testimonies are just weird. I mean who flirts with people they're not seeing anymore? Who sends pics of your junk when you have no interest in seeing them that night?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.