Was reading about amber guyger verdict and something stood out to me.

Let me preface this by saying she must be held legally responsibly, the same way a drunk driver who kills someone must be held responsible.I do personally think the deceased’s race is somewhat overblown, as she literally saw a person in the dark in the apartment.I also personally think this was manslaughter rather than murder. Murder implies evil intent of some kind, whereas manslaughter doesn’t go that far. I do believe from the totality of the circumstances that due to being overworked she was tired and confused and ultimately fucked up via poor judgement in part due to those aspects.But theres chatter that the murder charge stood not because some over zealous prosecutor wanted to look good by locking up a dirty cop, but because when asked if she INTENDED to KILL Jean, she said yes, instead of ‘I fired center to stop the threat like I’ve been trained’. Which IS something cops, military, civilian owners and carriers ARE trained to do when the threat presents itself.I’m no legal expert but that detail stood out to me. This is why if a defensive shoot gets to the point where an investigating officer asked if you intended to kill, never admit it. Defensive gun use is intended to STOP THE THREAT. Whether the threat ran away, is wounded, or deceased. Regardless, the result is the threat stopped. Like Phillip Brailford’s AR engraving, shit like that can and WILL be used against you. via /r/CCW https://ift.tt/2AOiEne