Dallas cop fearing for her life shoots scary black man in apartment

[Fabbs]

smear campaign in full effect
<Crime-scene evidence from Botham Jean’s apartment supports Dallas police Officer Amber Guyger’s account that she shot Jean from across the room as she stood inside his apartment door, two law enforcement officials with direct knowledge of the case told The Dallas Morning News.
The evidence, at least so far, doesn’t conclusively determine whether the door was unlocked or ajar.

“We just don’t know,” said one of the two law enforcement officials, who each spoke on condition of anonymity because they aren't authorized to discuss the case publicly.>

And yet here are two police bitches leaking publicly to the media. :rolleyes

[Luka Doncic]

https://twitter.com/FOX4/status/1040361795519541249

smear campaign in full effect
:lmao dumbasses who thought the police weren’t circling the wagons around that murdering cunt.

[baseline bum]

:lmao dumbasses who thought the police weren’t circling the wagons around that murdering cunt.

:pctoss

[spurraider21]

“It doesn't change the story,” said Daryl Washington, attorney for the Jean family. “She claimed that she went into a place she thought was her apartment. She didn't claim she had gone somewhere because she thought there was some sort of criminal activity.”

[ElNono]

Sad situation...

Just surprised some twitter post of an old photo of the dude smoking pot hasn't surfaced in here posted by the usual suspects yet, tbh...

Not that far off, tbh... :lol

[spurraider21]

ElNonostradamus

[Spurminator]

https://twitter.com/FOX4/status/1040361795519541249

smear campaign in full effect

That is some disgusting bullshit.

Be warned, everyone, not only are you at risk of being killed in your own home, but your sins may be revealed to the world after you're dead.

[boutons_deux]

That is some disgusting bullshit.

Be warned, everyone, not only are you at risk of being killed in your own home, but your sins may be revealed to the world after you're dead.

Just like the Catholic Church, or any org.

To preserve, defend the group, the group will minimize, cover up any crimes by group members, and slander the victims.

[Fabbs]

That is some disgusting bullshit.

Be warned, everyone, not only are you at risk of being killed in your own home, but your sins may be revealed to the world after you're dead.
Exactly.
How the F is this public information?
Go into that cunts apt and tell us what all she had.

[pgardn]

Exactly.
How the F is this public information?
Go into that cunts apt and tell us what all she had.

She probably had alcohol, that would not look good.

[Blake]

https://twitter.com/FOX4/status/1040361795519541249

smear campaign in full effect

Like that episode of Chapelle show where the cops sprinkled the crack on him

[DMC]

Like that episode of Chapelle show where the cops sprinkled the crack on him

She smelled marijuana coming from the opened door, went in to investigate (probable cause) and confronted a drug crazed large black man with Doritos cheese up to his elbows and a liter of cola in his left hand who, instead of obeying her orders to drop to the floor, said "who is you" and that was all she could afford to risk. She had no choice.

[DMC]

Exactly.
How the F is this public information?
Go into that cunts apt and tell us what all she had.

Because it's a crime scene. Back to you in the studio, Bob.

[baseline bum]

That's not how the police fraternity works, tbh... then you would have every cop looking over their shoulders, since they could be next...

Could you imagine how hard it would be to do your job as a cop knowing you couldn't break into a black man's home and murder him to blow off some steam after your shift ended?

[ducks]

I expect all kinds of mitigating lies:

he hand something (lethal) in his hand

he had unpaid parking tickets

traces of ( but not actual ) mj found

etc

Message: cop executed him w/o trial because he was Bad Dude so deserved to die, no loss, racial cleansing is cops' first duty

Next ...
Yes un paid parking tickets should make him go to jail not Supreme Court
Liberals

[resistanze]

She smelled marijuana coming from the opened door, went in to investigate (probable cause) and confronted a drug crazed large black man with Doritos cheese up to his elbows and a liter of cola in his left hand who, instead of obeying her orders to drop to the floor, said "who is you" and that was all she could afford to risk. She had no choice.

:lol

[Luka Doncic]

Yes un paid parking tickets should make him go to jail not Supreme Court
Liberals
Shut up, you like peeing on children.

[Isitjustme?]

1040370861839200256

[boutons_deux]

That is some disgusting bullshit.

Be warned, everyone, not only are you at risk of being killed in your own home, but your sins may be revealed to the world after you're dead.

... if you're black

[pgardn]

Could you imagine how hard it would be to do your job as a cop knowing you couldn't break into a black man's home and murder him to blow off some steam after your shift ended?


Im betting she wished this never happened.
Im betting she wished it would have happened in a large white man’s apt.
Im betting this delay in details has brought this even more attention.

All of this cries out for a fundamental change in what we want police to do. As a society, it’s pretty clear, we want different roles for the police based on our experiences with them.

“Hunt the bastard down, he ruined my business and stole my stuff. Can’t you find him?”

“ Kindly diffuse the situation. If property is damaged, that’s to be expected. Just peacefully diffuse the situation with as little physical confrontation as possible”

Hands up, pick your profession...

Who wants to be a cop?

[boutons_deux]

"According to a search warrant affidavit released on Thursday, police seized

two fired cartridge casings,

one laptop,

a ballistic police vest,

a backpack with police equipment and paperwork,

two radio frequency identification keys,

10.4 grams of marijuana (equal to less than half an ounce) and

a marijuana grinder,

among other things, from Jean’s apartment.

The affidavit didn’t identify who owned which items,"

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bothan-jean-search-warrant-marijuana_us_5b9afc61e4b046313fb95f27?utm_medium=e mail&utm_campaign=__TheMorningEmail__091418&utm_content=__TheMorningEmail__091418+CID_4ae504ca 5c7b08a405af92b811ce4f78&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=HuffPost&ncid=newsltushpmgnews__TheMorningEmail__091418

[ElNono]

It’s not an issue of giving LE some leeway, it’s where do you draw the line.

In a perfect world, every American should look exactly the same under the law. If somebody kills another person, it shouldn’t matter what’s your job description.

But we know we’re not in a perfect world, and LE will get some leeway, the question is where do you draw the line?

I can’t even think what’s a lower bar than killing an innocent person in their own home, without even a dangerous episode going around. That goes not just to laws, but even constitutional protections.

Whether it wasn’t intentional or she’s really sorry about it shouldn’t preclude from applying the full extent of the law.

[boutons_deux]

"LE will get some leeway"

some? :lol LE is effectively immune prosecution.

[Fabbs]

On increasing the charge from manslaughter to murder:
A grand jury will ultimately decide whether Guyger's charges get bumped up.
-----------------------------

So that's why the DA/pigs thru the media have been trying to pollute jury pool as much as possible?

[Fabbs]

I can’t even think what’s a lower bar than killing an innocent person in their own home, without even a dangerous episode going around. That goes not just to laws, but even constitutional protections.

Whether it wasn’t intentional or she’s really sorry about it shouldn’t preclude from applying the full extent of the law.
This.
:spin The precedent set if she gets off or gets the expected slap on wrist.

[Spurminator]

I can’t even think what’s a lower bar than killing an innocent person in their own home, without even a dangerous episode going around. That goes not just to laws, but even constitutional protections.

Killing an innocent person in their own home, without even a dangerous episode going around, and then releasing to the media that you found pot in his apartment.

Wonder what other private and irrelevant information is going to be leaked out about this innocent dead man.

[resistanze]

I don't even know how the pot revelation helps the narrative, considering the lady's story is that she accidently ended up at his place and fully acknowledged she killed him over a 'mistake'. Pigs are amazing.

[pgardn]

It’s not an issue of giving LE some leeway, it’s where do you draw the line.

In a perfect world, every American should look exactly the same under the law. If somebody kills another person, it shouldn’t matter what’s your job description.

But we know we’re not in a perfect world, and LE will get some leeway, the question is where do you draw the line?

I can’t even think what’s a lower bar than killing an innocent person in their own home, without even a dangerous episode going around. That goes not just to laws, but even constitutional protections.

Whether it wasn’t intentional or she’s really sorry about it shouldn’t preclude from applying the full extent of the law.

What is clearly part of the reason this has gained so much traction is the poor guy was black. And the cop/perp is white. Did she know he was black? What if he was white, would it have gained this inertia? I don’t think so. Why did this gain traction? Because it looks like it’s a persistent problem. From my personal experience I absolutely don’t doubt that the SA police force, on the whole treats color differently.

So another issue is not only what we as a society want from cops (and therefore procedures that are consistent what we want), but transparency and data. The CDC has mounds of data on child abuse. Mountains. We know so much more about this issue than ever before. Uncle Cletus is gonna actually be a suspect now. He will be questioned. Stranger danger is a tiny fraction of child sexual abuse. We know this from analysis of stats, court cases....
We really don’t know a damn thing about incidents with cops and the public that involve guns. There are independent groups who TRY and follow this closely, but the organizations that can give you the best answers are only funded for only certain public health issues. This is a travesty imo.

[Pavlov]

It’s not an issue of giving LE some leeway, it’s where do you draw the line.

In a perfect world, every American should look exactly the same under the law. If somebody kills another person, it shouldn’t matter what’s your job description.

But we know we’re not in a perfect world, and LE will get some leeway, the question is where do you draw the line?

I can’t even think what’s a lower bar than killing an innocent person in their own home, without even a dangerous episode going around. That goes not just to laws, but even constitutional protections.

Whether it wasn’t intentional or she’s really sorry about it shouldn’t preclude from applying the full extent of the law.Dallas County just put away a cop for 15 years for killing a black kid on duty. It's the city this time but it's not the most favorable area for her to get a trial. Watch it get moved to the sticks.

[pgardn]

Btw...

Good data can also protect the innocent cop or day care worker.
Imo each side gets stimulated by cell phone videos etc...showing/printing incidents intended to incite anger with no sense of proportionality. Each side of the issue can find their vid/article and go viral with it to make it the norm.

This board excels at this tactic.

[Spurminator]

1040162553647620097

[Trill Clinton]

Can't trust police to investigate their own. It wouldn't surprise me if the weed was planted.

[pgardn]

1040162553647620097

Okay then...

Lets get that good cop recruiting program in full swing.

[boutons_deux]

Okay then...

Lets get that good cop recruiting program in full swing.

NRA Pres ex-con Oliver North said a long time ago, 20, 30 years on radio?, that citizens should aim for the neck and head when the cops come wearing body armor.

[pgardn]

NRA Pres ex-con Oliver North said a long time ago, 20, 30 years on radio?, that citizens should aim for the neck and head when the cops come wearing body armor.

This is a job that, imo, requires individuals who are good with people. It also requires the officer having very tough skin, especially when anyone in a crowd can yell anything they want at you. You must have enough self confidence in realizing they may not hate you as an individual. And silence, or actually explaining what you as Peace Officers intend to do to diffuse a situation peacefully. Including finding a vocal leader in a situation and possibly acquiescening to their plan on diffusing situations. This has become an extremely dangerous and difficult job.

So, thanks Oliver. It’s gonna be really tough to recruit Peace Officers, if this is what society wants out of the job.

[cd98]

This case is all kinds of crazy and all kinds of unusual. I mean, how does she not know where her apartment is? It's sad that someone dies in this scenario. I hope it's not because he played his music too loud for her liking.

[pgardn]

This case is all kinds of crazy and all kinds of unusual. I mean, how does she not know where her apartment is? It's sad that someone dies in this scenario. I hope it's not because he played his music too loud for her liking.

She was relatively new and tried to get in the apartment vertical with her own. Maybe a little booze after a tough nite. I could have made this mistake. But I have an incredibly bad sense of direction. She parked on the exactly the wrong floor as well. I’m in on that as well.

The wrong floor and apt. is not as mysterious as what went down at the door. I think it’s fairly clear she got the wrong apartment on accident.

[Blake]

She was relatively new and tried to get in the apartment vertical with her own. Maybe a little booze after a tough nite. I could have made this mistake. But I have an incredibly bad sense of direction. She parked on the exactly the wrong floor as well. I’m in on that as well.

The wrong floor and apt. is not as mysterious as what went down at the door. I think it’s fairly clear she got the wrong apartment on accident.

Anyone can make that mistake in an apartment complex where the doors and upper floors all look similar.

The problem is why she opened fire instead of getting out of there and calling 911

[Spurs Homer]

Can't trust police to investigate their own. It wouldn't surprise me if the weed was planted.

The weed is pretty irrelevant in this case. Someone just took an inventory and reported it. No reason to run with it and think something ominous.
She will be prosecuted fully and will pay for what she did.
The weed is not being used in any way at this moment.

[spurraider21]

Anyone can make that mistake in an apartment complex where the doors and upper floors all look similar.

The problem is why she opened fire instead of getting out of there and calling 911
easy. wants to avoid the situation at 1:41


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teknsj2vwYY

[Spurs Homer]

Anyone can make that mistake in an apartment complex where the doors and upper floors all look similar.

The problem is why she opened fire instead of getting out of there and calling 911

Someone reported a female voice saying "let me in" -
Maybe she did think it was her apt so she tried to get in and arrest the "burglar" in her mind - until she realized she fucked up and entered his place.
She can't get off - she clearly made a huge mistake.


She was a cop - she would not call 911- she would just handle the ongoing crime herself. Except her mistake ends up being the actual crime.

[koriwhat]

that cunt should be in prison already or have the same done to her. lights out!

[Spurs Homer]

that cunt should be in prison already or have the same done to her. lights out!

Didn't you just post else where that people are wrong to rush to judgement of Kavanaugh?

:lol

Must be that big (R) next to Kavanaughs name?

[koriwhat]

Didn't you just post else where that people are wrong to rush to judgement of Kavanaugh?

:lol

Must be that big (R) next to Kavanaughs name?

i don't care if SpecialK is a republican or not. and it's a totally different situation. that bitch went into that man's apartment and killed him in cold blood. totally different than being accused of a crime 40+ yrs later without proof.

you run on your feelings and get your directives from the left. your type sickens me.

[Spurs Homer]

i don't care if SpecialK is a republican or not. and it's a totally different situation. that bitch went into that man's apartment and killed him in cold blood. totally different than being accused of a crime 40+ yrs later without proof.

you run on your feelings and get your directives from the left. your type sickens me.

This is priceless!

Judge attempts a sexual assault. "is was 40 years ago/irrelevant"
Cop fucks up - will probably be imprisoned for her fuck up. "rape the cunt now-lock her up"

lolol

[Spurs Homer]

that cunt should be in prison already or have the same done to her. lights out!


:lol:lol:lol

[koriwhat]

This is priceless!

Judge attempts a sexual assault. "is was 40 years ago/irrelevant"

Cop fucks up - will probably be imprisoned for her fuck up. "rape the cunt now-lock her up"

lolol

you claim SpecialK attempted a sexual assault as if you're judge and jury or have actual proof to convict him. if you do, come forward and help!

as for the lady cop. i never advocated raping her. i think a life sentence behind bars or a quick death by lethal injection would suffice too. answer this, how many times have you mistaken your home/apt/condo, gotten inside, and drew your weapon and killed a man in cold blood while playing dumb? yeah, sounds like it was all just some accident.

you're a special type of dumb.

[Spurs Homer]

you claim SpecialK attempted a sexual assault as if you're judge and jury or have actual proof to convict him. if you do, come forward and help!

as for the lady cop. i never advocated raping her. i think a life sentence behind bars or a quick death by lethal injection would suffice too. answer this, how many times have you mistaken your home/apt/condo, gotten inside, and drew your weapon and killed a man in cold blood while playing dumb? yeah, sounds like it was all just some accident.

you're a special type of dumb.


Really?

that cunt should be in prison already or have the same done to her. lights out!


:lol:lol




I said a few times "if this is proven" it is a crime.

I also think the cop should be imprisoned - but it isn't murder - probably manslaughter - but I am pretty sure she cannot get out of jailtime.
My hope is that she just pleads guilty of fucking up and making a horrible mistake with deadly consequences.

[Blake]

This is priceless!

Judge attempts a sexual assault. "is was 40 years ago/irrelevant"
Cop fucks up - will probably be imprisoned for her fuck up. "rape the cunt now-lock her up"

lolol

It's kw shooting par on double standards

[Spurs Homer]

It's kw shooting par on double standards

:lol

[koriwhat]

Really?

that cunt should be in prison already or have the same done to her. lights out!


:lol:lol




I said a few times "if this is proven" it is a crime.

I also think the cop should be imprisoned - but it isn't murder - probably manslaughter - but I am pretty sure she cannot get out of jailtime.
My hope is that she just pleads guilty of fucking up and making a horrible mistake with deadly consequences.




you RED the text but don't understand how wrong you are? lmao! advocating that she should be killed(death sentence - death row) is definitely not the same as rape but a retard like you can connect the dots where no dots exist. btw, she fucking murdered that dude or else he'd still be here. why are you rushing to a murderers side?

[koriwhat]

It's kw shooting par on double standards

explain how it's a double standard cuck boy. i'd love to see how you try to wiggle out of this.

[Spurs Homer]

you RED the text but don't understand how wrong you are? lmao! advocating that she should be killed(death sentence - death row) is definitely not the same as rape but a retard like you can connect the dots where no dots exist. btw, she fucking murdered that dude or else he'd still be here. why are you rushing to a murderers side?

The law might say she murdered him - but as of now - I don't think the prosecutor has charged her with murder yet.
I am ok with her getting convicted of murder - but I don't see how they prove it. She fucked up - made a mistake - if her testimony is ruled credible. Murder is different though.
Murder would be if she - for example - hated the guy, planned to break in his apt and shoot him in cold blood and then did that.

If she did that and they can prove it - yes - murder.
But if her story is actually the truth - that she fucked up and opened the door thinking it was her apartment - then that would be Manslaughter - not murder.

[clambake]

The law might say she murdered him - but as of now - I don't think the prosecutor has charged her with murder yet.
I am ok with her getting convicted of murder - but I don't see how they prove it. She fucked up - made a mistake - if her testimony is ruled credible. Murder is different though.
Murder would be if she - for example - hated the guy, planned to break in his apt and shoot him in cold blood and then did that.

If she did that and they can prove it - yes - murder.
But if her story is actually the truth - that she fucked up and opened the door thinking it was her apartment - then that would be Manslaughter - not murder.

well then, in that case, she should be shot in her apartment by mistake

[koriwhat]

The law might say she murdered him - but as of now - I don't think the prosecutor has charged her with murder yet.
I am ok with her getting convicted of murder - but I don't see how they prove it. She fucked up - made a mistake - if her testimony is ruled credible. Murder is different though.
Murder would be if she - for example - hated the guy, planned to break in his apt and shoot him in cold blood and then did that.

If she did that and they can prove it - yes - murder.
But if her story is actually the truth - that she fucked up and opened the door thinking it was her apartment - then that would be Manslaughter - not murder.

again, how many times have you accidentally mistaken another home/apt/condo for your own and actually went inside? i've never done that once in 37 yrs. this bitch is a cold blooded killer and her past in the force is sketchy too with that other shooting she took part in.

[cd021]

According to 2 witnesses, she was banging on his door and shouting "let me in!"

His door also had a red rug, differentiating his apartment from hers and others. Also his apartment is on the 4th floor, so she would've had to walk up an extra flight of stairs.


Best guess is that she was wasted, mistook his apartment for her own and once her key did work, she started banging on the door. He opens up because she is still in uniform and let's her in.

Certainly makes more sense than her silly as story.

[cd021]

again, how many times have you accidentally mistaken another home/apt/condo for your own and actually went inside? i've never done that once in 37 yrs. this bitch is a cold blooded killer and her past in the force is sketchy too with that other shooting she took part in.
I have lived in aparments for most of my life, mistaking your apartment for the one above it is BS. She had to have known that she walked up an additional flight of stairs plus his apartment had a red rug outside of his door.

[baseline bum]

The law might say she murdered him - but as of now - I don't think the prosecutor has charged her with murder yet.
I am ok with her getting convicted of murder - but I don't see how they prove it. She fucked up - made a mistake - if her testimony is ruled credible. Murder is different though.
Murder would be if she - for example - hated the guy, planned to break in his apt and shoot him in cold blood and then did that.

If she did that and they can prove it - yes - murder.
But if her story is actually the truth - that she fucked up and opened the door thinking it was her apartment - then that would be Manslaughter - not murder.

Burglary is a violent offense in Texas and murder while in commission of a violent offense is capital murder. If that was you or me doing it we'd be facing the death penalty in trial. The plea offer would be life in prison.

[cd021]

The law might say she murdered him - but as of now - I don't think the prosecutor has charged her with murder yet.
I am ok with her getting convicted of murder - but I don't see how they prove it. She fucked up - made a mistake - if her testimony is ruled credible. Murder is different though.
Murder would be if she - for example - hated the guy, planned to break in his apt and shoot him in cold blood and then did that.

If she did that and they can prove it - yes - murder.
But if her story is actually the truth - that she fucked up and opened the door thinking it was her apartment - then that would be Manslaughter - not murder.

The prosecution can poke holes in her story, not only because it is nonsensical, but witnesses also contradict it.

His door was closed and she was heard banging on it saying "Let me in!"

That alone means that his door wasn't open and probably locked, the accident defense goes out of the window.

[Spurs Homer]

Burglary is a violent offense in Texas and murder while in commission of a violent offense is capital murder. If that was you or me doing it we'd be facing the death penalty in trial. The plea offer would be life in prison.

Are you saying she was burglarizing the mans apt?

[baseline bum]

Are you saying she was burglarizing the mans apt?

That's how either of us would be charged for illegally entering the man's house and murdering him.

[Spurs Homer]

That's how either of us would be charged for illegally entering the man's house and murdering him.

I don't care if this cop gets the book thrown at her - but why not wait to see if her story checks out? Why the rush?
There have been parents that left their kids in locked cars and their kids died - and the parents didn't even remember until late in the day.
I am sure the entire world agrees that those incidents are stupid acts - as is this cops story - but people do some weird shit. I can actually almost believe she pulled in on the wrong floor parking structure, walked the same way she did every night - completely zoned out - high/tired/drunk - whatever - and then ruined her entire life - but even worse - ruined the poor dude's life and his family's life forever too.

[Winehole23]

I don't care if this cop gets the book thrown at her - but why not wait to see if her story checks out? Why the rush?the police are working overtime to discredit the innocent victim and you, to rationalize what the cop did.

baseline bum doesn't see it your way. he sees it as a B&E followed by murder.

that doesn't mean he's in a rush, it means he has a different take than you.

[cd021]

I don't care if this cop gets the book thrown at her - but why not wait to see if her story checks out? Why the rush?
There have been parents that left their kids in locked cars and their kids died - and the parents didn't even remember until late in the day.
I am sure the entire world agrees that those incidents are stupid acts - as is this cops story - but people do some weird shit. I can actually almost believe she pulled in on the wrong floor parking structure, walked the same way she did every night - completely zoned out - high/tired/drunk - whatever - and then ruined her entire life - but even worse - ruined the poor dude's life and his family's life forever too.

Her story already doesn't check out, in fact it is fairly silly what she is saying happened.

[koriwhat]

but why not wait to see if her story checks out? Why the rush?

SpecialK lmao

[Spurs Homer]

SpecialK lmao

Repugs concealing documents, speeding thru process - uh huh - lmao

[Chinook]

Seriously, though, the only way that cop could redeem herself in my eyes is if she's about to get acquitted and goes on a "Law Abiding Citizen"--like rant about how fucked up the justice system is for almost letting her off after murdering someone.

[koriwhat]

Repugs concealing documents, speeding thru process - uh huh - lmao

more documents given for this one appointee vs the last 5 combined! uh huh - lmao

[Spurs Homer]

more documents given for this one appointee vs the last 5 combined! uh huh - lmao


Wrong - but you believe it. 7 percent out of 100 percent released.
Why hide 93 percent?

[Winehole23]

proportionality. the public record is much bigger. GOP is hiding the ball.

[pgardn]

Anyone can make that mistake in an apartment complex where the doors and upper floors all look similar.

The problem is why she opened fire instead of getting out of there and calling 911

Apparently the bolded Is surprise to the poster I responded to.

And this yet again is a rules of engagement problem.
We still don’t know what we want from the police. It varies greatly in different parts of the country. Some want police to provide their own kind of punishment if they are the victim. Now that we do know words were exchanged it’s clear she did not immediately get rushed by a guy who thought he was about to be assaulted. When this first broke it was not clear what went on. But it is significant she probably had a chance to retreat and try to get help. So imo she is gonna serve time based on what we now know. Which is still evolving.

Also protocol following incidents like this might need immediate review and decisions independent of her home office. I have no idea how to work this.

[SpursforSix]

I have lived in aparments for most of my life, mistaking your apartment for the one above it is BS. She had to have known that she walked up an additional flight of stairs plus his apartment had a red rug outside of his door.

She didn’t walk up an extra flight. She parked on the wrong floor.

[Isitjustme?]

1040593435214925824

[koriwhat]

Wrong - but you believe it. 7 percent out of 100 percent released.
Why hide 93 percent?

oh no i'm not wrong... you're just wrong with your assessment. his 7% is still 5 times more than any of the previous 5 combined.

who gives a shit about hiding paperwork when the last admin & a certain party + their presidential candidate hid their abuse of the fisa courts and their abuse of power to spy on US citizens? tell me again how much i give a fuck about that other 93% of SpecialK's paperwork.

[koriwhat]

She didn’t walk up an extra flight. She parked on the wrong floor.

making more excuses for a murderer. it's all good.

[SpursforSix]

making more excuses for a murderer. it's all good.

I’m not making excuses faggot. Just correcting someone misstating the facts.

[Winehole23]

possible motive: Botham Jean was too noisy.


Merritt said that typically he can come up with some kind of theory about what happened in the cases he works, but in this situation he really doesn’t have a theory about what happened. And the only connections he can find between the two are a series of noise complaints.

Apparently, one of those complaints was made on the day that Jean was shot.

Merritt told CNN: “There were noise complaints from the immediate downstairs neighbors about whoever was upstairs, and that would have been Botham. In fact, there was a noise complaint that very day about upstairs activity in Botham’s apartment. Botham received a phone call about noise coming from his apartment from the downstairs neighbor.”
https://heavy.com/news/2018/09/amber-guyger-botham-jean-noise-complaints/

[Winehole23]

pure scuttlebutt, no corroboration here, but scandalous if true. Mr. Kingston is a Dallas City Councilman.

https://washingtonpress.com/wp-content/uploads/dallas.jpg

[Winehole23]

Guyger surrendered to Kaufman County (wait, wut?)



Dallas County District Attorney Faith Johnson was tight-lipped Monday morning about the facts of Thursday night's shooting at Jean's apartment at the South Side Flats in the Cedars, saying she wanted to make sure the case could stay in Dallas County.




"If the people of Dallas County have already made up their minds based on what they heard, it'll be very hard to get a fair jury," Johnson said at a news conference.



http://www.fox4news.com/news/dallas-mayor-councilman-feud-over-handling-of-botham-jean-shooting

[Winehole23]

Kaufman County is 83% white.

[Winehole23]

yes, that Barrett Brown:

1040685604449779714

[Winehole23]

Le Brocq noted the interesting and atypical choice of language used to describe Jean in the affidavit. “The individual the officer killed is referred to as ‘complainant’ when often times it is the ‘victim’ and reading it, I would think it was drafted by a defense attorney,” https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/completely-biased-dallas-area-defense-attorneys-slam-amber-guyger-arrest-document/

[Winehole23]

having punted almost immediately to the Texas Rangers, Dallas PD can now blame them for any subsequent investigative improprieties.

[Winehole23]

search warrant and arrest warrant do not agree as to facts. it's a fucking mess.

[ElNono]

Jean wasn't in the wrong apartment, but he was in the wrong State, tbh...

[Winehole23]

Dallas has just wasted any bona fides gained through the successful prosecution of the cop who killed Jordan Edwards, if it soft pedals this one.

[Winehole23]

Jean wasn't in the wrong apartment, but he was in the wrong State, tbh...ouch.

hurts cause it's true.

[Winehole23]

Daily Caller blames the media and race-baiting complainers, and solicits empathy for the 30 year old shooter. They might as well have blamed Botham Jean for turning up his stereo too loud.


Early reporting (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/09/10/texas-officer-faces-manslaughter-charge-in-neighbors-death.html) indicates the young officer had just left a 15-hour work day. Fatigue impacting her judgment and perception could prove a pivotal factor in the incident.


If the fatigue of a single or back-to-back overtime shifts, rather than race or inexperience or drugs or alcohol, proves to be a probable cause of Officer Guyger’s fatal misjudgment, municipalities across the country better be paying attention.


Police understaffing, exacerbated by retirement-eligible officers rushing to the exits, mainstream and social media negativity toward the profession and the concomitant dwindling recruitment pools that are being reported across the country have added stress to often stretched police forces.


The inevitable result is that the remaining workforce will face mandatory overtime shifts, canceled vacation days and less and less time to rest or decompress from already demanding work shifts.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/15/what-happened-in-dallas/

[Winehole23]

Botham Jean was shot on September 7th.


The warrant was signed and returned on Friday.https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/New-Search-Warrant-Shows-Investigators-to-Analyze-Doors-in-Botham-Jeans-Murder-Case-493339131.html

[TDMVPDPOY]

so from the start of this case till the present...wtf are those BLM movement? why arent they using those funds they raise to help fight win this case????

[Spurs Homer]

Daily Caller blames the media and race-baiting complainers, and solicits empathy for the 30 year old shooter. They might as well have blamed Botham Jean for turning up his stereo too loud.

https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/15/what-happened-in-dallas/


The OT thing is why I stated earlier - that for her own sake - she should just throw herself at the mercy of the court, plead guilty, and apologize to the family for fucking up, and taking her punishment for her mistake. She can say she was forced to work OT - because this is actually happening all over the country. Won't save her completely, but it is better than making up a bogus "fear for my life" story.

[Winehole23]

Guyger won't plead guilty to murder.

[Spurs Homer]

Guyger won't plead guilty to murder.

She didn't commit murder - from initial reports. She made a colossal blunder and then shot him in a panic.
Manslaughter appears to be her charge.
So far.

[Winehole23]

you're going on the arrest warrant written "as if" from her own point of view and accepting the tale told there as factual.

whether or not Guyger blundered and panicked is for a jury to decide.

[Winehole23]

btw, one of the rumored reasons Dallas PD punted to the Texas Rangers was that they couldn't find a judge to approve manslaughter charges -- because that wasn't the crime described.

so, maybe it's not so cut and dried as you think, SH.

[Winehole23]

are you an LEO, Spurs Homer?

or just biased in favor of the police?

[Winehole23]

coming to factual conclusions before there has even been an investigation?

[ElNono]

She didn't commit murder - from initial reports. She made a colossal blunder and then shot him in a panic.
Manslaughter appears to be her charge.
So far.

That's debatable, regardless of what the initial charge is. Intentionally shooting another person, regardless if her panic was a mistake or not, normally falls in the realm of murder, not manslaughter. It goes to intent: this wasn't a stray bullet or a warning shot gone bad, it was shoot to kill.

[Spurs Homer]

btw, one of the rumored reasons Dallas PD punted to the Texas Rangers was that they couldn't find a judge to approve manslaughter charges -- because that wasn't the crime described.

so, maybe it's not so cut an dried as you think, SH.

I agree - and did not mean to imply - her story was a fact. I meant it as - so far- this is the story until the investigation concludes.

Who knows - she could be a murderer. I do think - right now - it points to Manslaughter but let us see if her story holds up.

[Spurs Homer]

That's debatable, regardless of what the initial charge is. Intentionally shooting another person, regardless if her panic was a mistake or not, normally falls in the realm of murder, not manslaughter. It goes to intent: this wasn't a stray bullet or a warning shot gone bad, it was shoot to kill.

I doubt that.
It cannot be murder under those circumstances reported. It could be murder - if her story is a complete fabrication and another story emerges but we don't know. If her story holds- she will say she was - at this point - under the assumption that this was her apt and that there was an ongoing burglary and she reacted like any cop would - ordered the burglar to freeze and he didn't so she shot him. Manslaughter.

Murder would be way different.

[ElNono]

The whole panic/blunder argument centers on mental state, but there are murders on altered mental states all the time. Unless they're planning to plead insanity, which doesn't appear to be the case, there's no excuse there.

[Winehole23]

what if Officer Guyger knew Botham Jean personally because she had already made numerous noise complaints against him, and went up to confront him in her uniform, with her gun?

[Spurs Homer]

The whole panic/blunder argument centers on mental state, but there are murders on altered mental states all the time. Unless they're planning to plead insanity, which doesn't appear to be the case, there's no excuse there.

Ok - here is an example.

If this was actually her apartment = no crime - she just reacted and shot an intruder.
NOT her apt = Manslaughter (due to her colossal mistake) Remember a mistake takes it from murder down to manslaughter (I think - attorneys in the house can correct me)

This is why I think she will be advised to stick to the "mistake" defense. This might be the only way to avoid a murder charge.

Now - another example -

Let us say -she knew the victim, and suspected he was cheating and broke into his apt to catch him in the act intending to kill them both. Then we can say murder.

[ElNono]

I doubt that.
It cannot be murder under those circumstances reported. It could be murder - if her story is a complete fabrication and another story emerges but we don't know. If her story holds- she will say she was - at this point - under the assumption that this was her apt and that there was an ongoing burglary and she reacted like any cop would - ordered the burglar to freeze and he didn't so she shot him. Manslaughter.

Murder would be way different.

The problem is that manslaughter is split into voluntary or involuntary. If the allegation is that she was confused, it couldn't be voluntary. The problem with involuntary is that it's "a killing that stems from a lack of intention to cause death but involving an intentional, or negligent, act leading to death.". However, as already indicated, her intent was shooting to kill. That fails the first prong.

IMO, in most jurisdictions the charge would be second-degree murder. It wasn't premeditated, but there was obvious intent to kill (regardless of her mental state at the time).

[Spurs Homer]

what if Officer Guyger knew Botham Jean personally because she had already made numerous noise complaints against him, and went up to confront him in her uniform, with her gun?

Attorneys would know better than me - but I am totally guessing that would put her in the position of having to answer/prove -what were her intentions? To scare him? Bully him? Threaten him? kill him?

So who knows what story will emerge.

[Winehole23]

btw, you never answered. are you an LEO?

or just biased in favor of police?

[ElNono]

I should note that different States have different categories also (ie: PA has third degree murder, a catch all for non-premeditated, non-accomplice murders). Not sure what's the statute in Texas.

[Spurs Homer]

The problem is that manslaughter is split into voluntary or involuntary. If the allegation is that she was confused, it couldn't be voluntary. The problem with involuntary is that it's "a killing that stems from a lack of intention to cause death but involving an intentional, or negligent, act leading to death.". However, as already indicated, her intent was shooting to kill. That fails the first prong.

IMO, in most jurisdictions the charge would be second-degree murder. It wasn't premeditated, but there was obvious intent to kill (regardless of her mental state at the time).

Could be - but then the argument would be "she thought in her mind that she was shooting a burglar in HER OWN apt - so she was legally allowed to shoot" (except it was not her apt lol)
The shoot to kill I don't think is valid - because every single time a cop shoots - is to kill. There is no such thing as shoot to maim, injure, etc

Involuntary/Voluntary - that one - I am fuzzy about - I think DMC correctly described it better the other day.

Involuntary is I think running over someone in your car - which wasn't your fault - you didn't mean to kill- kid ran in front at the last second.
Manslaughter - is the same - except you were drinking/drunk.
Murder - would be if you chased the kid - kid evaded you at first but you ran him down and mowed him down.

I think lol.

[ElNono]

Should also be noticed that LE are not tried with the same standards as regular citizens, and they have more leeway as far as what they allege.

[Spurs Homer]

btw, you never answered. are you an LEO?

or just biased in favor of police?

lol no - I just play one on the internet!

[Winehole23]

Should also be noticed that LE are not tried with the same standards as regular citizens, and they have more leeway as far as what they allege.the lack of witness statements other than the perp's in the Texas Rangers' arrest warrant attests to that.

[boutons_deux]

https://washingtonpress.com/wp-content/uploads/dallas.jpg

"it took the authorities two whole days before the Texas Rangers finally issued an arrest warrant for manslaughter and took Guyger into custody —

not in the city of Dallas, where the murder was committed,

but in the neighboring Kaufman County (https://apnews.com/25044e46567e4f6591d5c30a612cc64a?utm_campaign=Soci alFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP&__twitter_impression=true&__twitter_impression=true&__twitter_impression=true), where she is much, much less likely to face a black jury

(last year’s census shows Kaufman County is 83% white (http://www.txcip.org/tac/census/profile.php?FIPS=48257),

as opposed to Dallas, which is only 53% white (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_County,_Texas))."

https://washingtonpress.com/2018/09/15/a-dallas-councilman-just-reignited-the-botham-jean-murder-controversy-with-an-eye-opening-facebook-post-2/

[Winehole23]

more boutons sloppy seconds.

[ElNono]

Could be - but then the argument would be "she thought in her mind that she was shooting a burglar in HER OWN apt - so she was legally allowed to shoot" (except it was not her apt lol)
The shoot to kill I don't think is valid - because every single time a cop shoots - is to kill. There is no such thing as shoot to maim, injure, etc

Involuntary/Voluntary - that one - I am fuzzy about - I think DMC correctly described it better the other day.

Involuntary is I think running over someone in your car - which wasn't your fault - you didn't mean to kill- kid ran in front at the last second.
Manslaughter - is the same - except you were drinking/drunk.
Murder - would be if you chased the kid - kid evaded you at first but you ran him down and mowed him down.

I think lol.

Under that premise, no cop can ever be charged with murder, regardless of the circumstances, and we know that's not a legally sound argument (see Oliver)

Already described what involuntary manslaughter means: no intent to kill (ie: stray bullet, accidental discharge, etc). That's also your typical drunk driving charge if you kill somebody. Voluntary manslaughter is typically the crime of passion type (heat of the moment, no premeditation, kill intent, malice afterthought).

[Spurs Homer]

Under that premise, no cop can ever be charged with murder, regardless of the circumstances, and we know that's not a legally sound argument (see Oliver)

Already described what involuntary manslaughter means: no intent to kill (ie: stray bullet, accidental discharge, etc). That's also your typical drunk driving charge if you kill somebody. Voluntary manslaughter is typically the crime of passion type (heat of the moment, no premeditation, kill intent, malice afterthought).

Of course they can. There was a border patrol - serial killer -just saw it yesterday. He murdered 4 women and was going for #5 - except she escaped. Killing them in cold blood - not sure if he was in uniform or off duty or whatever but they will absolutely prosecute him for murder (or capital murder?)

[spurraider21]

btw, you never answered. are you an LEO?

or just biased in favor of police?
Do you generally beat women, or just your wife?

could be his honest take without some pre-existing pro police mentality.

[DMC]

Of course they can. There was a border patrol - serial killer -just saw it yesterday. He murdered 4 women and was going for #5 - except she escaped. Killing them in cold blood - not sure if he was in uniform or off duty or whatever but they will absolutely prosecute him for murder (or capital murder?)

What you described isn't what El was talking about. He was talking about killing a "suspect". The vic in the OP seems to be getting treated as a possible suspect. If at one point she was on the up and up, and thought she was facing a home invader, he was a suspect for intents and purposes. The women homey killed likely weren't suspects. He will be tried as a civilian and likely get the death penalty. The female cop has "muh duty" to fall back on and cops naturally get the benefit of doubt when the other side is deceased and there are no material witnesses.

Just to fling my hat into the guessing game ring - Deceased was noisy, female cop wanted to pay him a visit to tell him who she was and to let him know she can't have that noise while she's trying to sleep. She approaches appt, beats on door. Dude comes to door, opens it, they get into an argument and he goes to his bedroom and re-emerges. She thinks he's armed, she shoots him.

Just a WAG

[Winehole23]

could be his honest take without some pre-existing pro police mentality.yeah, it could be an honest take.

[spurraider21]

Under that premise, no cop can ever be charged with murder, regardless of the circumstances, and we know that's not a legally sound argument (see Oliver)

Already described what involuntary manslaughter means: no intent to kill (ie: stray bullet, accidental discharge, etc). That's also your typical drunk driving charge if you kill somebody. Voluntary manslaughter is typically the crime of passion type (heat of the moment, no premeditation, kill intent, malice afterthought).
In common law, yes. Texas doesn’t parce between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. Their manslaughter statute just says to recklessly cause the death of another.

“Capital murder” is their version of first degree murder and “murder” is their second degree (though still a first degree felony, carries lighter sentences). This can include intent to cause serious bodily injury that results in the persons death. If they argue adequate provocation or sudden passion it is still murder but drops to a second degree felony.

Cant see how this qualifies as reckless tbh

[Spurs Homer]

Do you generally beat women, or just your wife?

could be his honest take without some pre-existing pro police mentality.

lol - for real!

[Spurs Homer]

What you described isn't what El was talking about. He was talking about killing a "suspect". The vic in the OP seems to be getting treated as a possible suspect. If at one point she was on the up and up, and thought she was facing a home invader, he was a suspect for intents and purposes. The women homey killed likely weren't suspects. He will be tried as a civilian and likely get the death penalty. The female cop has "muh duty" to fall back on and cops naturally get the benefit of doubt when the other side is deceased and there are no material witnesses.

Just to fling my hat into the guessing game ring - Deceased was noisy, female cop wanted to pay him a visit to tell him who she was and to let him know she can't have that noise while she's trying to sleep. She approaches appt, beats on door. Dude comes to door, opens it, they get into an argument and he goes to his bedroom and re-emerges. She thinks he's armed, she shoots him.

Just a WAG

Ok. You completely discount all her statement and invent your own. Not disagreeing - you might be correct.
I know there should be high skepticism on a cops actions -and I know I am conflating different topics, but I have to ask:

Where was this skepticism on the Trump/Russia issue?
You completely give a yuuuge benefit of the doubt to Trump and his team, you discount the crimes as either minor crimes and/or HRC or Obama did the same thing and even in the face of public evidence you completely refuse to believe Trump is guilty of anything. You completely think that the left is making up crimes.

Here, you completely discount the cops story and pretty much think she went out of her way to murder someone?
You think she is lying and making up shit. You believe Trump team denials?

[Spurs Homer]

In common law, yes. Texas doesn’t parce between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. Their manslaughter statute just says to recklessly cause the death of another.

“Capital murder” is their version of first degree murder and “murder” is their second degree (though still a first degree felony, carries lighter sentences). This can include intent to cause serious bodily injury that results in the persons death. If they argue adequate provocation or sudden passion it is still murder but drops to a second degree felony.

Cant see how this qualifies as reckless tbh

I take it you are studying law - IIRC -
what do you think happened?

Manslaughter?
Something worse?

[FrostKing]

https://mobile.twitter.com/millerforthree/status/1030638146139111424/video/1

[Winehole23]

'Noles got whipped again yesterday

[FrostKing]

'Noles got whipped again yesterday
Best hip hop dancing team in the nation i tell ya what

[Winehole23]

esprit d'corps takes many forms

[FrostKing]

esprit d'corps takes many forms
Sure but I imagine some players (#16) feel they went to the club and a football practice broke out

[Winehole23]

uh huh.

do you have a topical take?

[boutons_deux]

more boutons sloppy seconds.

I don't wade through pages of asinine urine-soaked bullshit, so I intentional skip, ignore most of the pissers.

[spurraider21]

I take it you are studying law - IIRC -
what do you think happened?

Manslaughter?
Something worse?
i just looked up the texas penal code

but imo she should be tried for murder and manslaughter, and see which charge sticks

[pgardn]

What you described isn't what El was talking about. He was talking about killing a "suspect". The vic in the OP seems to be getting treated as a possible suspect. If at one point she was on the up and up, and thought she was facing a home invader, he was a suspect for intents and purposes. The women homey killed likely weren't suspects. He will be tried as a civilian and likely get the death penalty. The female cop has "muh duty" to fall back on and cops naturally get the benefit of doubt when the other side is deceased and there are no material witnesses.

Just to fling my hat into the guessing game ring - Deceased was noisy, female cop wanted to pay him a visit to tell him who she was and to let him know she can't have that noise while she's trying to sleep. She approaches appt, beats on door. Dude comes to door, opens it, they get into an argument and he goes to his bedroom and re-emerges. She thinks he's armed, she shoots him.

Just a WAG

She also moved her car to his floor to back up the mixed up claim.

[pgardn]

I don't wade through pages of asinine urine-soaked bullshit, so I intentional skip, ignore most of the pissers.

Kinda like the board does on your redlining the Vox and Vanity Fair articles.
Good deal.

[Spurs Homer]

i just looked up the texas penal code

but imo she should be tried for murder and manslaughter, and see which charge sticks

Is that allowable? I was - guessing really - that if they try for a Murder and fail? They cannot just go down the line can they? I am guessing again that the reason they go for the lesser charge is because the burden of proof has a better chance of being met. A Murder charge would absolutely have a higher burden of proof if I remember my basic college course accurately lol.

Plus what basis for Murder? You believe she wanted to kill him? I am starting to think - why would she even want to murder someone? Doesn't pass the smell test. Why work (15 hr days) and live in an Apt and be a working stiff if you hate and disrespect the law? Maybe I am naive.

[Spurs Homer]

She also moved her car to his floor to back up the mixed up claim.

Is this true? Did that come out?

[koriwhat]

I agree - and did not mean to imply - her story was a fact. I meant it as - so far- this is the story until the investigation concludes.

Who knows - she could be a murderer. I do think - right now - it points to Manslaughter but let us see if her story holds up.

she is a murderer and you keep making excuses for her. fucking unbelievable.

[koriwhat]

Kinda like the board does on your redlining the Vox and Vanity Fair articles.
Good deal.

for fucking real! fuck looney tunes boutons and his shit pile of far left fuck face "sources"!

[spurraider21]

Is that allowable? I was - guessing really - that if they try for a Murder and fail? They cannot just go down the line can they? I am guessing again that the reason they go for the lesser charge is because the burden of proof has a better chance of being met. A Murder charge would absolutely have a higher burden of proof if I remember my basic college course accurately lol.

Plus what basis for Murder? You believe she wanted to kill him? I am starting to think - why would she even want to murder someone? Doesn't pass the smell test. Why work (15 hr days) and live in an Apt and be a working stiff if you hate and disrespect the law? Maybe I am naive.
she fired a gun intending to kill him. you're confusing intent with pre-meditation

[DMC]

Ok. You completely discount all her statement and invent your own. Not disagreeing - you might be correct.
I know there should be high skepticism on a cops actions -and I know I am conflating different topics, but I have to ask:

Where was this skepticism on the Trump/Russia issue?
You completely give a yuuuge benefit of the doubt to Trump and his team, you discount the crimes as either minor crimes and/or HRC or Obama did the same thing and even in the face of public evidence you completely refuse to believe Trump is guilty of anything. You completely think that the left is making up crimes.

Here, you completely discount the cops story and pretty much think she went out of her way to murder someone?
You think she is lying and making up shit. You believe Trump team denials?

Non sequitur response is non sequitur

[DMC]

she fired a gun intending to kill him. you're confusing intent with pre-meditation

Technically this isn't necessarily true. Cops are taught they shoot to stop someone, not to kill them. That seems like a small difference but it's an important one.

[Spurs Homer]

she fired a gun intending to kill him. you're confusing intent with pre-meditation


Ok - but doesn't a jury get to decide if they buy her story or not?
If they buy the story - then they will have to conclude that she was in the mindset that some intruder was in HER apt and she was in her official capacity - stopping a crime.

If they call BS on her story - then the jury would have to believe she murdered the man for absolutely - what reason?
I am interested how this plays out - seems like - based on available info it is not clear cut.

[Spurs Homer]

she is a murderer and you keep making excuses for her. fucking unbelievable.

Isn't this how it works? You find out the entire evidence and then decide?
You exonerated Kavanaugh just yesterday and called Dems all kinds of names for inventing stories.
Today - the accuser revealed herself. She is a professor now. She says a lot of shit that leads a reasonable person to believe Kavanaugh is a pos.

I am not making excuses for the cop and if she really murdered him -so be it. Throw the book at her.
Except - the facts have not come out yet. I think she is guilty - of at least Manslaughter.
I am open to the fact that it might be murder.

I am not CONCLUDING anything yet.

[ElNono]

In common law, yes. Texas doesn’t parce between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. Their manslaughter statute just says to recklessly cause the death of another.

“Capital murder” is their version of first degree murder and “murder” is their second degree (though still a first degree felony, carries lighter sentences). This can include intent to cause serious bodily injury that results in the persons death. If they argue adequate provocation or sudden passion it is still murder but drops to a second degree felony.

Cant see how this qualifies as reckless tbh

Thanks scrah. I think intent is clear for what we read so far (how was this not escalated to the feds, tbh? Any State forensic report should be considered dubious/tainted at best at this point, considering the Rangers lethargy).

Obviously once a judge gets their hands on the case, we'll see how it develops.

[Fabbs]

Thanks scrah. I think intent is clear for what we read so far (how was this not escalated to the feds, tbh? Any State forensic report should be considered dubious/tainted at best at this point, considering the Rangers lethargy).

Obviously once a judge gets their hands on the case, we'll see how it develops.
The one black dude lawyer on her team seems to be a heavy hitter. The deceased (his relatives and close friends) are gonna need bucks and competence to fight the system. Has a GoFund or otherwise been set up for him?

[ElNono]

Technically this isn't necessarily true. Cops are taught they shoot to stop someone, not to kill them. That seems like a small difference but it's an important one.

As far as intent goes, the central question is if there was willful intention to shoot the victim or not (accidental discharge, etc). 'Shoot to kill' is police jargon for using deadly force (in this case a gun), but for all intents and purposes indicates willful intent.

[ElNono]

Ok - but doesn't a jury get to decide if they buy her story or not?
If they buy the story - then they will have to conclude that she was in the mindset that some intruder was in HER apt and she was in her official capacity - stopping a crime.

If they call BS on her story - then the jury would have to believe she murdered the man for absolutely - what reason?
I am interested how this plays out - seems like - based on available info it is not clear cut.

A jury will be convened, like any other trial, unless she cuts a deal with the prosecution first. The thing is that any normal citizen would be charged with everything possible under the book, and then eventually the jury will decide what makes sense based on the facts. By discarding murder from the get go, that's not happening here, even though, at first sight, looks like it would apply to any other citizen.

Again, we're just talking about what she was charged with, which looks fairly lenient, and the shit-show that the investigation has been so far. Obviously, there's a much longer road ahead.

[Spurs Homer]

A jury will be convened, like any other trial, unless she cuts a deal with the prosecution first. The thing is that any normal citizen would be charged with everything possible under the book, and then eventually the jury will decide what makes sense based on the facts. By discarding murder from the get go, that's not happening here, even though, at first sight, looks like it would apply to any other citizen.

Again, we're just talking about what she was charged with, which looks fairly lenient, and the shit-show that the investigation has been so far. Obviously, there's a much longer road ahead.

I was under the impression that they can still decide to charge her with murder???

I don't see why they would be tied to a charge yet - before all the evidence is reviewed and a preliminary investigation is completed?

[Fabbs]

Go Fund Me for Botham Jean.
https://www.gofundme.com/in-memory-of-botham-jean


Editors note, I have not vetted this, have no reason to believe it is not legit.

[spurraider21]

Technically this isn't necessarily true. Cops are taught they shoot to stop someone, not to kill them. That seems like a small difference but it's an important one.
the murder statute applies even if you intend to cause serious bodily injury and end up killing them

[spurraider21]

Ok - but doesn't a jury get to decide if they buy her story or not?
If they buy the story - then they will have to conclude that she was in the mindset that some intruder was in HER apt and she was in her official capacity - stopping a crime.

If they call BS on her story - then the jury would have to believe she murdered the man for absolutely - what reason?
I am interested how this plays out - seems like - based on available info it is not clear cut.
i dont think she has denied intending to hit him with the bullet tbh :lol

like if she says she meant to fire a warning shot into the ceiling and didnt intend him to get hit, that's one thing. but she pulled the trigger intending to put him down

[Trainwreck2100]

i think it's stupid how we are debating intent and shit, when she trespassed into a guy's home and clapped his ass.

[spurraider21]

i think it's stupid how we are debating intent and shit, when she trespassed into a guy's him and clapped his ass.
yep. clear murder imho

if the judge wants to buy her sob story then he can consider that during the sentencing stage

[Fabbs]

:spin I love how the smear campaign includes the official statement that Jean "ignored her commands".


How about he disregarded some phucking intruders 3 a.m. attempting to give orders in ones own phucking apt!

[DMC]

As far as intent goes, the central question is if there was willful intention to shoot the victim or not (accidental discharge, etc). 'Shoot to kill' is police jargon for using deadly force (in this case a gun), but for all intents and purposes indicates willful intent.

If the goal was to kill, cops would not call for medical support once the subject is incapacitated. Like I said, there's a difference between shooting to stop someone and shooting to kill someone. A grand jury would consider each differently.

[DMC]

the murder statute applies even if you intend to cause serious bodily injury and end up killing them

Of course. That's a different subject.

[spurraider21]

If the goal was to kill, cops would not call for medical support once the subject is incapacitated. Like I said, there's a difference between shooting to stop someone and shooting to kill someone. A grand jury would consider each differently.
with regards the the murder statute, they're virtually indistinguishable. that's something that would be considered during sentencing.

[DMC]

with regards the the murder statute, they're virtually indistinguishable. that's something that would be considered during sentencing.

Intent is important. If you were a CHL holder and you were involved in a fatal shooting, and you told the GJ that you wanted to kill someone, you'd likely not get a no bill. However if you said you just wanted to stop the attacker, you'd have a better chance at a no bill. For cops, I don't think they shoot to kill even if their shots are center mass. They just push the "deadly force" button until the other side stops. This is why you hear "show me your hands, show me your hands" after a shooting instead of "he's still moving, shoot him again".

[ElNono]

I was under the impression that they can still decide to charge her with murder???

I don't see why they would be tied to a charge yet - before all the evidence is reviewed and a preliminary investigation is completed?

There was an affidavit filed already seeking manslaughter charges in order to arrest the officer. While it's true it can be expanded before the trial (IIRC) in lieu of new evidence, this is normally where the defendant will get the book thrown at them, since there's no requirement to show evidence nor it needs to be factual.

[spurraider21]

Intent is important. If you were a CHL holder and you were involved in a fatal shooting, and you told the GJ that you wanted to kill someone, you'd likely not get a no bill. However if you said you just wanted to stop the attacker, you'd have a better chance at a no bill. For cops, I don't think they shoot to kill even if their shots are center mass. They just push the "deadly force" button until the other side stops. This is why you hear "show me your hands, show me your hands" after a shooting instead of "he's still moving, shoot him again".
when it comes to the murder statute, intent to cause serious bodily harm that results in a death is the same as intent to cause death that ends in a death.

[ElNono]

Intent is important. If you were a CHL holder and you were involved in a fatal shooting, and you told the GJ that you wanted to kill someone, you'd likely not get a no bill. However if you said you just wanted to stop the attacker, you'd have a better chance at a no bill. For cops, I don't think they shoot to kill even if their shots are center mass. They just push the "deadly force" button until the other side stops. This is why you hear "show me your hands, show me your hands" after a shooting instead of "he's still moving, shoot him again".

You're describing motive, not intent.

[ElNono]

Shoot to kill, shoot in self-defense, shoot to maim, shoot to cash-in an insurance... that's all goes to motive. Might or might not be premeditated, depending on the circumstances.

Intent is whether you shot the person on purpose or not. Obviously, motive is also important in determining the crime and charge (just as premeditation is). In this particular case, from what's been reported so far, intent is pretty definitive IMO.

[pgardn]

Is this true? Did that come out?

No.

But parking on the wrong floor definitely weighs in favor of her accidentally trying to get in the wrong apt. Ie... She was not hunting the guy down before going to the wrong apt. When people do believe that, imo, they do a deservice to the deceased cause. This is really about cops wielding weapons too quickly to solve a situation. And how mistakes by cops are treated so differently along with how these things are investigated and brought forth.

Based on what we have so far, she did not shoot him BECAUSE he was black. And in fact I will put this forward again... I don’t think this gains near as much inertia if the victim was white. I understand why people are trying to join these. Imo it’s not helpful.

[ElNono]

No.

But parking on the wrong floor definitely weighs in favor of her accidentally trying to get in the wrong apt. Ie... She was not hunting the guy down before going to the wrong apt. When people do believe that, imo, they do a deservice to the deceased cause. This is really about cops wielding weapons too quickly to solve a situation. And how mistakes by cops are treated so differently along with how these things are investigated and brought forth.

Based on what we have so far, she did not shoot him BECAUSE he was black. And in fact I will put this forward again... I don’t think this gains near as much inertia if the victim was white. I understand why people are trying to join these. Imo it’s not helpful.

Well, there's been reports posted here of neighbor complains about the victim being noisy (yet to know if that includes the officer). So I would certainly not jump the gun just yet on premeditation, "heat of the moment" or even racism being involved.

[pgardn]

Well, there's been reports posted here of neighbor complains about the victim being noisy (yet to know if that includes the officer). So I would certainly not jump the gun just yet on premeditation, "heat of the moment" or even racism being involved.

So she thought about parking on the wrong floor as cover?

Or, “damn I parked on the wrong floor, so while I’m down here let’s deal with the noise.”
Not buying that at all.
Its easier just to elevator or walk down a floor to kill a noisy neighbor.

[Spurs Homer]

yep. clear murder imho

if the judge wants to buy her sob story then he can consider that during the sentencing stage

Comments like that - are the reason that when a cop is acquitted - people go nuts and burn down cities.
That Philando guy - was the same -thing - everyone immediately thought it was a clear murder.
I knew then the cop would be acquitted.
(guy began reaching for something - directly after the cop said "don't reach for it now" -but he reached for it.
(of course - he was reaching for a wallet or something according to his girl - but he was reaching and lost his life)

Same with the one in Oklahoma where the guy reached in the car.
I knew then - she was going to be acquitted.

I am absolutely one of those people that support NFL players protesting - I agree 100% that too many cops (usually white cops) shoot too many unarmed blacks in this country - I absolutely think it is a huge problem.
But the cases where everyone is jumping to conclusions and immediately calling the cops murderers usually end up being the cases where the cop just had very little choice.

This case - is different. I do think right away she is guilty. Just not murder.

You just have to wait for all the facts - and so far we know maybe 5% out of 100%.

[Fabbs]

Well, there's been reports posted here of neighbor complains about the victim being noisy (yet to know if that includes the officer). So I would certainly not jump the gun just yet on premeditation, "heat of the moment" or even racism being involved.

Lawyer Lee Merritt: Dallas shooting witness heard knocking, 'Let me in'

Merritt said Monday that two independent witnesses have told him they heard knocking on the door in the hallway before the shooting. He said one witness reported hearing a woman's voice saying, "Let me in! Let me in!" Then they heard gunshots, after which one witness said she heard a man's voice say, "Oh my God! Why did you do that?">

http://www.newsandtribune.com/cnhi_network/lawyer-dallas-shooting-witness-heard-knocking-let-me-in/article_f3385650-0850-529b-9d8e-53980a4bb4b8.html

Assuming these two witnesses are not lynched and get to testify, will be very interesting to see what the DA attempts in cross exam.

[Blake]

Intent is important. If you were a CHL holder and you were involved in a fatal shooting, and you told the GJ that you wanted to kill someone, you'd likely not get a no bill. However if you said you just wanted to stop the attacker, you'd have a better chance at a no bill. For cops, I don't think they shoot to kill even if their shots are center mass. They just push the "deadly force" button until the other side stops. This is why you hear "show me your hands, show me your hands" after a shooting instead of "he's still moving, shoot him again".

Lol DMC's ramblings

[dabom]

A jury will be convened, like any other trial, unless she cuts a deal with the prosecution first. The thing is that any normal citizen would be charged with everything possible under the book, and then eventually the jury will decide what makes sense based on the facts. By discarding murder from the get go, that's not happening here, even though, at first sight, looks like it would apply to any other citizen.

Again, we're just talking about what she was charged with, which looks fairly lenient, and the shit-show that the investigation has been so far. Obviously, there's a much longer road ahead.

This is how the baby killer from florida got off the hook. They charged her with first degree and didn't charge her with the other ones like manslaughter. They couldn't agree on first degree but would have gotten manslaughter for sure. If the cops want to look impartially, they should charge her with everything and let a jury decide. Not predetermined that shit themselves.:lol

[DMC]

Lol DMC's ramblings

Blake's rent free gourd.

[Blake]

Blake's rent free gourd.

Lol dmc not understanding how rent free works

[ElNono]

So she thought about parking on the wrong floor as cover?

Or, “damn I parked on the wrong floor, so while I’m down here let’s deal with the noise.”
Not buying that at all.
Its easier just to elevator or walk down a floor to kill a noisy neighbor.

We don't know if she was already holding a grudge from earlier in the day, a day before, etc. Maybe the parking on the wrong floor can be read as she going directly to confront him. That's what the investigation is about.

Maybe it was a true, honest to god accident, tbh... the whole incident has sounded fishy as hell from the get go, IMO.

[ElNono]

Comments like that - are the reason that when a cop is acquitted - people go nuts and burn down cities.
That Philando guy - was the same -thing - everyone immediately thought it was a clear murder.
I knew then the cop would be acquitted.
(guy began reaching for something - directly after the cop said "don't reach for it now" -but he reached for it.
(of course - he was reaching for a wallet or something according to his girl - but he was reaching and lost his life)

Same with the one in Oklahoma where the guy reached in the car.
I knew then - she was going to be acquitted.

I am absolutely one of those people that support NFL players protesting - I agree 100% that too many cops (usually white cops) shoot too many unarmed blacks in this country - I absolutely think it is a huge problem.
But the cases where everyone is jumping to conclusions and immediately calling the cops murderers usually end up being the cases where the cop just had very little choice.

This case - is different. I do think right away she is guilty. Just not murder.

You just have to wait for all the facts - and so far we know maybe 5% out of 100%.

I don't disagree that more details need to come to light, however, I think what's being pointed out so far here is how different this case is being handled from 'normal' murder/manslaughter cases, and obviously that has everything to do with the person being a LEO.

I'm of the opinion that such tilted judicial standards does a disservice to the community, the police departments and the judicial in general.

[DMC]

Lol dmc not understanding how rent free works

Sure I do. In most of these posts you respond to, I am not talking to you. You just chase me around offering your midget mind droppings because you're triggered.

[Blake]

Sure I do.

Clearly you don't.

You're an idiot.

[Spurtacular]

Lol DMC's ramblings


Lol dmc not understanding how rent free works


You're an idiot.

Lots of cuckbacks in my absence. Not sure if DMC will recover from all that. :lol

[Blake]

Oh he'll be back with more nonsensical ramblings just like you'll bump my rent free thread.

[DMC]

Clearly you don't.

You're an idiot.

aaaaand you keep responding. You SO not triggered.

[Spurtacular]

Oh he'll be back with more nonsensical ramblings just like you'll bump my rent free thread.

Tell us how it's rent free.

[boutons_deux]

"disservice to ... the police departments"

PDs are corrupt, they "disserve" citizens, PDs are aren't "disserved".

Sheriff depts are worse. 19, so far, Bexar cty deputies arrested in 2018 :lol

and then there's prosecutors ... just as immune from prosecution of LEOs

[Bill_Brasky]

Police should be disarmed imo

[Blake]

aaaaand you keep responding. You SO not triggered.

Aaaaaaand so do you so now what?

[Blake]

Tell us how it's rent free.

Lol "us"

[spurraider21]

Comments like that - are the reason that when a cop is acquitted - people go nuts and burn down cities.
That Philando guy - was the same -thing - everyone immediately thought it was a clear murder.
I knew then the cop would be acquitted.
(guy began reaching for something - directly after the cop said "don't reach for it now" -but he reached for it.
(of course - he was reaching for a wallet or something according to his girl - but he was reaching and lost his life)

Same with the one in Oklahoma where the guy reached in the car.
I knew then - she was going to be acquitted.

I am absolutely one of those people that support NFL players protesting - I agree 100% that too many cops (usually white cops) shoot too many unarmed blacks in this country - I absolutely think it is a huge problem.
But the cases where everyone is jumping to conclusions and immediately calling the cops murderers usually end up being the cases where the cop just had very little choice.

This case - is different. I do think right away she is guilty. Just not murder.

You just have to wait for all the facts - and so far we know maybe 5% out of 100%.
explain a scenario out of the "95%" unknown facts that you think would justify this homicide to the point it would no longer be a murder. one that is consistent with the shooter's story so far.

[Spurs Homer]

explain a scenario out of the "95%" unknown facts that you think would justify this homicide to the point it would no longer be a murder. one that is consistent with the shooter's story so far.

Easy. If she testifies to a jury and breaks down because of her guilt in killing an innocent man and swears up and down that she was exhausted, confused, thought someone was in her apt - and she instinctively tried to stop an ongoing incident involving an intruder. She explains that she reacted the same as in any other incident - her adrenaline was going and she ordered the "intruder" to freeze and he refused - so - "fear for her life blah-blah"

Then she can recount in horror when she realized after the lights came on and she was not in her own apt - she was horrified of what she had done. She only meant to stop a burglary.

If a jury thinks she is credible - they could say manslaughter - her horrible fuck up was a tragedy but she is not a murderer (according to jury)

So - maybe you think it is crazy -but it just might be what really happened.
And- I am in no way suggesting that is is justified - I am saying that this might just be exactly what she is saying - a real horrible fuck up that cost an innocent life. I don't like it - but I don't see how she can be convicted of a murder - simply because it does not appear to be a murder in the eyes of the law.

[pgardn]

We don't know if she was already holding a grudge from earlier in the day, a day before, etc. Maybe the parking on the wrong floor can be read as she going directly to confront him. That's what the investigation is about.

Maybe it was a true, honest to god accident, tbh... the whole incident has sounded fishy as hell from the get go, IMO.

The evidence out so far, which is scarce, is that she was relatively new to the complex and she had zero contact with him before. But as you say this is an information mess for the public.

[pgardn]

Police should be disarmed imo

They are in certain places in Europe. But part of the job can be getting the hell beat out of you. And in the US, shot.

You want the job?
Seriously who is gonna take this job, the clergy? Some nonviolent religious order? Peace Corps?

[pgardn]

I don't disagree that more details need to come to light, however, I think what's being pointed out so far here is how different this case is being handled from 'normal' murder/manslaughter cases, and obviously that has everything to do with the person being a LEO.

I'm of the opinion that such tilted judicial standards does a disservice to the community, the police departments and the judicial in general.

It does.

And what should be included is the Michael Brown “hands up, don’t shoot” fiasco. The lying and disinformation from both sides was horrible. This can go both ways. The lying and hiding...

[FrostKing]

What happened

[spurraider21]

Easy. If she testifies to a jury and breaks down because of her guilt in killing an innocent man and swears up and down that she was exhausted, confused, thought someone was in her apt - and she instinctively tried to stop an ongoing incident involving an intruder. She explains that she reacted the same as in any other incident - her adrenaline was going and she ordered the "intruder" to freeze and he refused - so - "fear for her life blah-blah"

Then she can recount in horror when she realized after the lights came on and she was not in her own apt - she was horrified of what she had done. She only meant to stop a burglary.

If a jury thinks she is credible - they could say manslaughter - her horrible fuck up was a tragedy but she is not a murderer (according to jury)

So - maybe you think it is crazy -but it just might be what really happened.
And- I am in no way suggesting that is is justified - I am saying that this might just be exactly what she is saying - a real horrible fuck up that cost an innocent life. I don't like it - but I don't see how she can be convicted of a murder - simply because it does not appear to be a murder in the eyes of the law.
in your scenario she's pleading guilty to murder but asking for the circumstances to warrant a lighter sentence. maybe calling it heat of passion and getting it down to a second-degree felony. but it's still murder.

i'm not intimately familiar with texas common law, just going off reading the penal code...

[Bill_Brasky]

They are in certain places in Europe. But part of the job can be getting the hell beat out of you. And in the US, shot.

You want the job?
Seriously who is gonna take this job, the clergy? Some nonviolent religious order? Peace Corps?

I think firearm ownership should be heavily restricted and regulated and the police should be disarmed so that they aren't constantly introducing deadly force into non deadly situations. I know, crazy.

[Spurs Homer]

in your scenario she's pleading guilty to murder but asking for the circumstances to warrant a lighter sentence. maybe calling it heat of passion and getting it down to a second-degree felony. but it's still murder.

i'm not intimately familiar with texas common law, just going off reading the penal code...

No- not pleading guilty to murder - pleading guilty to manslaughter if that ends up being the charge.
She would probably plead to committing a horrible blunder and mistakenly thinking she was discharging her official duties -in her own apt - but then realizing it was not her apt.

[spurraider21]

No- not pleading guilty to murder - pleading guilty to manslaughter if that ends up being the charge.
She would probably plead to committing a horrible blunder and mistakenly thinking she was discharging her official duties -in her own apt - but then realizing it was not her apt.
how.

when she shot him, did she intend to cause serious injury? then thats enough for murder, per the texas statute. period, end of story. there's literally no way around that, legally, in a state like texas

in common law, things like adequate provocation or heat of passion could bring a murder down to manslaughter. but i dont see that in the texas penal code, which says that those could be grounds to reduce it to a felony of the second degree. but still murder and not manslaughter. which would mean lighter sentencing.

manslaughter in texas is the reckless killing of another. like going hunting and accidentally killing someone when aiming for an animal. the only way she would get manslaughter here would be to say if she meant to fire a warning shot away from him but accidentally hit him. which would be pure bullshit.

[pgardn]

I think firearm ownership should be heavily restricted and regulated and the police should be disarmed so that they aren't constantly introducing deadly force into non deadly situations. I know, crazy.

Crazy only from an implementation point of view.

As I said unarmed peacekeepers and crime investigators are going to have to come from a nunnery. Or maybe actual angels can assist.

[Spurs Homer]

how.

when she shot him, did she intend to cause serious injury? then thats enough for murder, per the texas statute. period, end of story. there's literally no way around that, legally, in a state like texas

in common law, things like adequate provocation or heat of passion could bring a murder down to manslaughter. but i dont see that in the texas penal code, which says that those could be grounds to reduce it to a felony of the second degree. but still murder and not manslaughter. which would mean lighter sentencing.

manslaughter in texas is the reckless killing of another. like going hunting and accidentally killing someone when aiming for an animal. the only way she would get manslaughter here would be to say if she meant to fire a warning shot away from him but accidentally hit him. which would be pure bullshit.

I don't know the legal terms - but manslaughter (reckless) - could be her state of mind - "she thought she was in her home and she was acting within her legal rights to stop a crime in progress"

I get that it is a reach - but unfortunately is appears to actually be true (unless she lied in her statement) and a big reach but if the jury thinks her intent was to act within her legal right to stop a crime in progress (in what she was convinced was her home) - it could be a reckless homicide - ie manslaughter.

If murder is to be the charge - then I think after the preliminary investigation moves along - the prosecutor will decide that he is confident it is a murder. If that happens I would probably trust the prosecutors findings and agree that he/she must have a good idea of how he/she can prove a murder occurred.

I am pretty sure they can upgrade or downgrade a charge before putting her through trial.

[pgardn]

how.

when she shot him, did she intend to cause serious injury? then thats enough for murder, per the texas statute. period, end of story. there's literally no way around that, legally, in a state like texas

in common law, things like adequate provocation or heat of passion could bring a murder down to manslaughter. but i dont see that in the texas penal code, which says that those could be grounds to reduce it to a felony of the second degree. but still murder and not manslaughter. which would mean lighter sentencing.

manslaughter in texas is the reckless killing of another. like going hunting and accidentally killing someone when aiming for an animal. the only way she would get manslaughter here would be to say if she meant to fire a warning shot away from him but accidentally hit him. which would be pure bullshit.

So reckless = accidental + inadequate caution ?

[spurraider21]

So reckless = accidental + inadequate caution ?
here are the grades in texas per their penal code (https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.19.htm)

Capital Murder - this is the worst of the worst, and only applies in certain scenarios (killing more than one person, killing somebody under age of 10, killing someone during the commission of another felony, notably burglary, arson, kidnapping, aggravated sexual asasult, etc). this is a capital felony meaning you could get a death sentence

Murder (felony in first degree) - basically what you would think of as murder, for those that don't qualify in the category above. either:
a) intentionally causing the death of another
b) intent to commit serious bodily injury and committing an act clearly dangerous to human life (ding ding ding)
c) killing somebody in the commission or attempted commission of a felony aside from those listed in the "capital murder" guidelines

Murder (felony in the second degree) - when you have a murder from the previous section, but with an excuse such as adequate provocation or heat of passion. second degree mainly matters for sentencing purposes. but as you see, still murder. this is basically what Spurs Homer keeps suggesting, without realizing that it is still a murder in texas. in other jurisdictions, this would be pretty close to voluntary manslaughter.

Manslaughter - reckless killing of another (texas does not differentiate between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, but has a separate code section for vehicular manslaughter). there are different definitions of reckless... but consider it a conscious disregard of obvious risk of an unjustifiable risk. in other jurisdictions, this would be pretty close to involuntary manslaughter. like throwing a single punch at somebody's face and you didnt realize he has standing in front of a staircase and he falls and dies.

Criminally Negligent homicide - basically manslaughter... but not rising quite to the level of being "reckless." could be something like not calling an ambulance for a person who clearly needs it.

[Spurs Homer]

here are the grades in texas per their penal code (https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.19.htm)

Capital Murder - this is the worst of the worst, and only applies in certain scenarios (killing more than one person, killing somebody under age of 10, killing someone during the commission of another felony, notably burglary, arson, kidnapping, aggravated sexual asasult, etc). this is a capital felony meaning you could get a death sentence

Murder (felony in first degree) - basically what you would think of as murder, for those that don't qualify in the category above. either:
a) intentionally causing the death of another
b) intent to commit serious bodily injury and committing an act clearly dangerous to human life (ding ding ding)
c) killing somebody in the commission or attempted commission of a felony aside from those listed in the "capital murder" guidelines

Murder (felony in the second degree) - when you have a murder from the previous section, but with an excuse such as adequate provocation or heat of passion. second degree mainly matters for sentencing purposes. but as you see, still murder. this is basically what Spurs Homer keeps suggesting, without realizing that it is still a murder in texas. in other jurisdictions, this would be pretty close to voluntary manslaughter.

Manslaughter - reckless killing of another (texas does not differentiate between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, but has a separate code section for vehicular manslaughter). there are different definitions of reckless... but consider it a conscious disregard of obvious risk of an unjustifiable risk. in other jurisdictions, this would be pretty close to involuntary manslaughter. like throwing a single punch at somebody's face and you didnt realize he has standing in front of a staircase and he falls and dies.

Criminally Negligent homicide - basically manslaughter... but not rising quite to the level of being "reckless." could be something like not calling an ambulance for a person who clearly needs it.

Looking at that - doesn't it make sense that it is either Manslaughter or Criminally Negligent Homicide?

I'm gonna wait until the pros do their jobs - but I would stick to my feeling that it is not murder.

[Winehole23]

of course you would. no one else can teach you a thing, not even the lawyers on this board.

[Bill_Brasky]

Looking at that - doesn't it make sense that it is either Manslaughter or Criminally Negligent Homicide?

I'm gonna wait until the pros do their jobs - but I would stick to my feeling that it is not murder.

Did she or did she not intend to kill the man? If the answer is yes, then it is murder. Period.

Also keep in mind that cops are trained to kill what they shoot at.

[spurraider21]

Looking at that - doesn't it make sense that it is either Manslaughter or Criminally Negligent Homicide?
i see zero sense that it qualifies as manslaughter or negligent. she shot a bullet at the guy intending to cause serious bodily harm. it's right fucking there as definition (b) for murder.

explain to me how that was reckless or negligent. she accidentally shot him? no. you keep thinking the surrounding circumstances turn it into a reckless act. it doesn't. when she pulled out her gun and fired, did she intend to cause serious bodily injury yes or no. that's it.


I'm gonna wait until the pros do their jobs - but I would stick to my feeling that it is not murder.
so you get upset for people thinking there's murder despite not having "95%" of the info, yet you have no problem thinking there's no murder despite not having that 95% of the info

[Fabbs]

When will the dog n pony show (trial) start?
2019?
2020?

[Blake]

Looking at that - doesn't it make sense that it is either Manslaughter or Criminally Negligent Homicide?

I'm gonna wait until the pros do their jobs - but I would stick to my feeling that it is not murder.

I think the main problem with that is that she had plenty of other options besides shooting

[LaMarcus Bryant]

i see zero sense that it qualifies as manslaughter or negligent. she shot a bullet at the guy intending to cause serious bodily harm. it's right fucking there as definition (b) for murder.

explain to me how that was reckless or negligent. she accidentally shot him? no. you keep thinking the surrounding circumstances turn it into a reckless act. it doesn't. when she pulled out her gun and fired, did she intend to cause serious bodily injury yes or no. that's it.


so you get upset for people thinking there's murder despite not having "95%" of the info, yet you have no problem thinking there's no murder despite not having that 95% of the info

She's going to argue that she mistook facts, but what she did believe at the time (her apt, he was an invader) she REALLY did think was true. The law is a stupid thing sometimes.

[boutons_deux]

I think the main problem with that is that she had plenty of other options besides shooting

the only option, the priority, for LE is to escalate immediately to shooting black men. BLM, Take A Knee

[Blake]

She's going to argue that she mistook facts, but what she did believe at the time (her apt, he was an invader) she REALLY did think was true. The law is a stupid thing sometimes.

why did she shoot? Did he attack? Did he have a weapon?

The report I've seen says he just failed to obey her orders.

Even in your own home, I don't know how you don't stand down and assess the situation here with shooting being your absolute last option as self defense.

[spurraider21]

She's going to argue that she mistook facts, but what she did believe at the time (her apt, he was an invader) she REALLY did think was true. The law is a stupid thing sometimes.
but that should be for the jury to decide... she should be charged and have the opportunity to present her defense. prosecution shouldn't just be sitting on their hands because "oh geez, she might try to raise a defense!"

also it is highly unlikely that her defense attorney would ever put her on the stand to testify to that point. it would just be an inference made in opening/closing arguments. zimmerman never testified either

[spurraider21]

i mean, i never thought the officer would face charges for the michael brown incident, i was one of the ones on this board who felt confident zimmerman wasn't going to get convicted... i dont think i'm very one-sided on these matters.

but this case is absurd

[Spurtacular]

Lol "us"

Stop giggling like a school girl and tell us how your rent free thing works.

[Pavlov]

Stop giggling like a school girl and tell us how your rent free thing works.I'll explain.

Blake lives rent free in your head because you dedicated a thread to him in which you cry out for him pretty much every day and night.

Reck also lives in your head rent free for the same reason.

lol

[Spurs Homer]

i see zero sense that it qualifies as manslaughter or negligent. she shot a bullet at the guy intending to cause serious bodily harm. it's right fucking there as definition (b) for murder.

explain to me how that was reckless or negligent. she accidentally shot him? no. you keep thinking the surrounding circumstances turn it into a reckless act. it doesn't. when she pulled out her gun and fired, did she intend to cause serious bodily injury yes or no. that's it.


so you get upset for people thinking there's murder despite not having "95%" of the info, yet you have no problem thinking there's no murder despite not having that 95% of the info

You won't like it - but the rules actually ARE a bit different when it is a uniformed police officer doing the shooting. It sucks - I know - but that part of "did she intend" is not applicable when you have a uniformed officer (mistakenly or not) doing the shooting - when said officer (in her mind) is just carrying out her duties.

Don't believe me if you want - but just wait and see - the jury will either throw out the premise that she was thinking she was in her apt doing her duty and mistook one apt for another - or they will find her credible and downgrade to manslaughter if she was just acting in a reasonable manner under the rules/laws governing a uniformed peace officer in the state of texas.

Go ahead and throw out whatever - but this cannot be murder in this scenario.

If she and the victim were in a relationship and she went there with the intent to walk in and bust her man with another woman in bed -or some other scenario - yes Murder.

Under this scenario that she wrote in her statement - not murder. People will be pissed and I don't blame them - but they will think it is some miscarriage of justice - when she gets convicted of manslaughter or a lesser charge.

[Spurs Homer]

I think the main problem with that is that she had plenty of other options besides shooting

I agree with this too. She will be grilled about other options.

It still would not make it murder - but if the prosecution could prove that the guy was ZERO threat to her at the time - I can see that - that fact might lead to a murder charge.
However if she convinces a jury that it was too dark and she felt that he was reaching for a weapon (I know that would suck -but it always happens in these cop shootings) then she might weasel out of that.

[spurraider21]

You won't like it - but the rules actually ARE a bit different when it is a uniformed police officer doing the shooting. It sucks - I know -
and that's precisely why people are outraged. there's no separate statute carved out for off-duty officers. but we're supposed to pretend the law acts differently for them? no, fuck all that.


but that part of "did she intend" is not applicable when you have a uniformed officer (mistakenly or not) doing the shooting - when said officer (in her mind) is just carrying out her duties.
but she WASN'T carrying out her duties. she wasn't on her shift. she was "going home", not responding to a call. everything a police officer does isn't an extension of their duties.


Don't believe me if you want - but just wait and see - the jury will either throw out the premise that she was thinking she was in her apt doing her duty and mistook one apt for another - or they will find her credible and downgrade to manslaughter if she was just acting in a reasonable manner under the rules/laws governing a uniformed peace officer in the state of texas.
yes. it should be a jury to decide. the prosecutors shouldn't be sitting on their hands thinking "well maybe she's going to raise a defense, so why bother"


Go ahead and throw out whatever - but this cannot be murder in this scenario.

If she and the victim were in a relationship and she went there with the intent to walk in and bust her man with another woman in bed -or some other scenario - yes Murder.

Under this scenario that she wrote in her statement - not murder. People will be pissed and I don't blame them - but they will think it is some miscarriage of justice - when she gets convicted of manslaughter or a lesser charge.
you keep saying that. i've shown you the texas penal code which directly contradicts that. as always, you have confused intent with premeditation. they are different.

there is no version of events where manslaughter makes sense. second-degree felony murder, maybe. manslaughter in texas requires a reckless killing. she didn't recklessly hit him with a bullet. she intentionally hit him with a bullet.

[spurraider21]

her story makes no sense. was jean's furniture/decor arrangements identical to her own so that she didnt notice IMMEDIATELY upon opening the door? how the fuck do you open a door and not even realize what house your in BEFORE pulling out a weapon and firing. its nonsensical.

jean's home had a red doormat outside the door. her's doesn't. she didn't notice THIS? (minus flowers, of course)

https://dallasnews.imgix.net/1536542650-flowersJeandoor.jpg?auto=format&q=50&or=0&w=800

[Spurs Homer]

and that's precisely why people are outraged. there's no separate statute carved out for off-duty officers. but we're supposed to pretend the law acts differently for them? no, fuck all that.


but she WASN'T carrying out her duties. she wasn't on her shift. she was "going home", not responding to a call. everything a police officer does isn't an extension of their duties.


yes. it should be a jury to decide. the prosecutors shouldn't be sitting on their hands thinking "well maybe she's going to raise a defense, so why bother"


you keep saying that. i've shown you the texas penal code which directly contradicts that. as always, you have confused intent with premeditation. they are different.

there is no version of events where manslaughter makes sense. second-degree felony murder, maybe. manslaughter in texas requires a reckless killing. she didn't recklessly hit him with a bullet. she intentionally hit him with a bullet.

Ok. If a cop is in uniform and is off duty and a crime takes place and the officer does not act, they will be prosecuted for dereliction or endangering the public or something. A uniformed officer is always required to enforce the law. Not optional- required by law.

For now let us put aside the fact that she royally fucked up and went to the wrong apt -


and focus on her actions that -IN HER MIND - she acted upon. She is in uniform and suddenly opens her apt door and there is a big shadowy figure in HER apt - she reacts swiftly - pulls out her weapon and gives an order and the guy refuses to comply. Instantly she acts the same as in any other duty incident and takes him down.

That describes a lawful police action.
(whether the shooting was justified or not we don't know - but the worst a cop would be charged with would be something less than murder - maybe loses his career if unjustified)

Now - the jury has to - see that and understand this was a lawful police action - and now the judge/prosecutor/whoever - will instruct them to -

OK - now bring back her colossal fuck up. Does this make her a murderer because she momentarily believed she was in her apt?
Does this constitute murder because of the location? Because of her blunder? Does a lawful police action become murder when a police officer goes to the wrong door?

Say a cop was responding to a call to a citizens house regarding an intruder and the door opens and it is dark and a shadow runs across the room and the cop orders him to freeze and the guy makes a sudden movement and the cop shoots? Is this murder? It is not the cops house- he is doing a duty and he completes his duty lawfully. He can testify that he could not see if the intruder was picking up a weapon and got scared and shot before he got shot himself. Is this murder?

So a jury might have to decide if her claim of BELIEVING she was at her apt is credible and if she is credible or is making it all up - just to randomly kill a black man?

[Blake]

Ok. If a cop is in uniform and is off duty and a crime takes place and the officer does not act, they will be prosecuted for dereliction or endangering the public or something. A uniformed officer is always required to enforce the law. Not optional- required by law.

For now let us put aside the fact that she royally fucked up and went to the wrong apt -


and focus on her actions that -IN HER MIND - she acted upon. She is in uniform and suddenly opens her apt door and there is a big shadowy figure in HER apt - she reacts swiftly - pulls out her weapon and gives an order and the guy refuses to comply. Instantly she acts the same as in any other duty incident and takes him down.

That describes a lawful police action.
(whether the shooting was justified or not we don't know - but the worst a cop would be charged with would be something less than murder - maybe loses his career if unjustified)

Now - the jury has to - see that and understand this was a lawful police action - and now the judge/prosecutor/whoever - will instruct them to -

OK - now bring back her colossal fuck up. Does this make her a murderer because she momentarily believed she was in her apt?
Does this constitute murder because of the location? Because of her blunder? Does a lawful police action become murder when a police officer goes to the wrong door?

Say a cop was responding to a call to a citizens house regarding an intruder and the door opens and it is dark and a shadow runs across the room and the cop orders him to freeze and the guy makes a sudden movement and the cop shoots? Is this murder? It is not the cops house- he is doing a duty and he completes his duty lawfully. He can testify that he could not see if the intruder was picking up a weapon and got scared and shot before he got shot himself. Is this murder?

So a jury might have to decide if her claim of BELIEVING she was at her apt is credible and if she is credible or is making it all up - just to randomly kill a black man?

Lol movie scenarios.

[spurraider21]

Ok. If a cop is in uniform and is off duty and a crime takes place and the officer does not act, they will be prosecuted for dereliction or endangering the public or something. A uniformed officer is always required to enforce the law. Not optional- required by law.

For now let us put aside the fact that she royally fucked up and went to the wrong apt -


and focus on her actions that -IN HER MIND - she acted upon. She is in uniform and suddenly opens her apt door and there is a big shadowy figure in HER apt - she reacts swiftly - pulls out her weapon and gives an order and the guy refuses to comply. Instantly she acts the same as in any other duty incident and takes him down.

That describes a lawful police action.
(whether the shooting was justified or not we don't know - but the worst a cop would be charged with would be something less than murder - maybe loses his career if unjustified)

Now - the jury has to - see that and understand this was a lawful police action - and now the judge/prosecutor/whoever - will instruct them to -

OK - now bring back her colossal fuck up. Does this make her a murderer because she momentarily believed she was in her apt?
Does this constitute murder because of the location? Because of her blunder? Does a lawful police action become murder when a police officer goes to the wrong door?

Say a cop was responding to a call to a citizens house regarding an intruder and the door opens and it is dark and a shadow runs across the room and the cop orders him to freeze and the guy makes a sudden movement and the cop shoots? Is this murder? It is not the cops house- he is doing a duty and he completes his duty lawfully. He can testify that he could not see if the intruder was picking up a weapon and got scared and shot before he got shot himself. Is this murder?

So a jury might have to decide if her claim of BELIEVING she was at her apt is credible and if she is credible or is making it all up - just to randomly kill a black man?
have the jury decide it. her actions fall squarely within the penal code definition of murder

[Spurs Homer]

have the jury decide it. her actions fall squarely within the penal code definition of murder

Well - first the damn prosecutor has to decide if he is going to CHARGE her with murder. So far - Manslaughter.

[spurraider21]

Well - first the damn prosecutor has to decide if he is going to CHARGE her with murder. So far - Manslaughter.
yes. thanks for spelling out why people are outraged

[ElNono]

You won't like it - but the rules actually ARE a bit different when it is a uniformed police officer doing the shooting. It sucks - I know - but that part of "did she intend" is not applicable when you have a uniformed officer (mistakenly or not) doing the shooting - when said officer (in her mind) is just carrying out her duties.

Can you quote the statute on this? Otherwise, we would infer you're talking out of your ass, and we certainly wouldn't want that.

[Winehole23]

nm

[ElNono]

yes. thanks for spelling out why people are outraged

:lol

[Spurs Homer]

Can you quote the statute on this? Otherwise, we would infer you're talking out of your ass, and we certainly wouldn't want that.


Yeah - it is not a statute - it is just the Penal Code of Texas giving a cop authority to use deadly force. This is why I was saying that if the jury believes that the cop is credible and had a reasonable belief that her use of deadly force was justified - then they could possibly not convict for murder - here is the section;

https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-51.html


One is for a person other than a peace officer - and the other for peace officers.

[ducks]

People get the needle for that.

Not in cal

People should get a bullet for that in 1 year or sooner after convicted not 20 years

[Winehole23]

Yeah - it is not a statute - it is just the Penal Code of Texas giving a cop authority to use deadly force. This is why I was saying that if the jury believes that the cop is credible and had a reasonable belief that her use of deadly force was justified - then they could possibly not convict for murder - here is the section;

https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-51.html


One is for a person other than a peace officer - and the other for peace officers.well, if the jury believes she went up there with her uniform and gun to complain about the noise, all that's out the window

[ElNono]

Yeah - it is not a statute - it is just the Penal Code of Texas giving a cop authority to use deadly force. This is why I was saying that if the jury believes that the cop is credible and had a reasonable belief that her use of deadly force was justified - then they could possibly not convict for murder - here is the section;

https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-51.html

One is for a person other than a peace officer - and the other for peace officers.

The Penal Code *IS* a statute... smh

And what you're quoting is not what you're arguing... you argued that 'the rules' are different when LEO is doing the shooting and that somehow exculpates murder charges. However, the section you quoted (specifically section C) only delineates the circumstances by which a peace officer is authorized to use deadly force (something nobody here argued was illegal or improper). There's not a single mention of 'murder, homicide, manslaughter' on then entire section.

So let's try this again, can you point the statute that makes your case for you? spurraider21 was kind enough with his time to point you to the same penal code backing up what he was talking about...

[Spurs Homer]

well, if the jury believes she went up there with her uniform and gun to complain about the noise, all that's out the window

That was not what her statement said. If she did say that - then yes - I agree.

[Winehole23]

you seem to think the only thing the jury will have to go on is the killer's statement.

[Winehole23]

wishful thinking?

[ElNono]

I just happen to have a short fuse for ignorance. Just tell us that's your hunch, that's perfectly fine.

[Spurs Homer]

The Penal Code *IS* a statute... smh

And what you're quoting is not what you're arguing... you argued that 'the rules' are different when LEO is doing the shooting and that somehow exculpates murder charges. However, the section you quoted (specifically section C) only delineates the circumstances by which a peace officer is authorized to use deadly force. There's not a single mention of 'murder, homicide, manslaughter' on then entire section.

So let's try this again, can you point the statute that makes your case for you? spurs (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=1680)raider21 was kind enough with his time to point you to the same penal code backing up what he was talking about...

Ok - I don't know or care if it is a statute or what - but it is the law regarding the use of DEADLY FORCE by a cop.


If she believes she was conducting an authorized police action - how can it be murder. If she succeeds in convincing a jury that she correctly used deadly force as described in the penal code - only to realize later it was not her apt - then she could be spared murder charges.

Did you read it and understand it?

(c) A peace officer is justified in using deadly force against another when and to the degree the peace officer reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to make an arrest, or to prevent escape after arrest, if the use of force would have been justified under Subsection (a) and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct for which arrest is authorized included the use or attempted use of deadly force;  or

(2) the actor reasonably believes there is a substantial risk that the person to be arrested will cause death or serious bodily injury to the actor or another if the arrest is delayed.


She seems to be close to that and conceivably could convince a jury that she was just doing her job.

She reasonably believed the deadly force was necessary because she found an intruder, it was dark, she had no time to ascertain if he was armed, she was in uniform with clearly identified patches and police badge displayed, she ordered the suspect to freeze and he made a sudden move. She will then say - it was so dark and I feared that he was about to shoot me - so I fired twice to stop the threat.

This is how cops get out of murder charges.

If you read the paragraphs above from the penal code - she qualifies on all counts.

The real question is if a jury - calls bullshit on her belief that it was her apt.

[Winehole23]

I thought you were gonna leave it to the experts.

So much for false humility.

[Winehole23]

the fact that Guyger had to go to Kaufman County to surrender on manslaughter charges might tell you something -- possibly that Dallas judges wouldn't let her.

[Spurs Homer]

I thought you were gonna leave it to the experts.

So much for false humility.

Talking bout me?

I was answering Nono's questions - he asked for the statute - or that (if i didn't provide) I was talking out my ass - so I am just trying to be fair in this discussion.

I am not expert - just using common sense - and if the cop goes down for Murder - good - I won't be upset. I will be surprised that they convict on Murder - but not upset.

[Winehole23]

you said it wasn't a statute.

lol Spurstalk School of Law.

[ElNono]

Ok - I don't know or care if it is a statute or what - but it is the law regarding the use of DEADLY FORCE by a cop.


If she believes she was conducting an authorized police action - how can it be murder. If she succeeds in convincing a jury that she correctly used deadly force as described in the penal code - only to realize later it was not her apt - then she could be spared murder charges.

Did you read it and understand it?

(c) A peace officer is justified in using deadly force against another when and to the degree the peace officer reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to make an arrest, or to prevent escape after arrest, if the use of force would have been justified under Subsection (a) and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct for which arrest is authorized included the use or attempted use of deadly force;  or

(2) the actor reasonably believes there is a substantial risk that the person to be arrested will cause death or serious bodily injury to the actor or another if the arrest is delayed.


She seems to be close to that and conceivably could convince a jury that she was just doing her job.

She reasonably believed the deadly force was necessary because she found an intruder, it was dark, she had no time to ascertain if he was armed, she was in uniform with clearly identified patches and police badge displayed, she ordered the suspect to freeze and he made a sudden move. She will then say - it was so dark and I feared that he was about to shoot me - so I fired twice to stop the threat.

This is how cops get out of murder charges.

If you read the paragraphs above from the penal code - she qualifies on all counts.

The real question is if a jury - calls bullshit on her belief that it was her apt.


We're going in circles. Nobody is saying she was not authorized to take out her gun out and shoot. Nobody made that claim, please quote anybody in this thread that made that claim. You're arguing something nobody here brought up.

That she was authorized to use deadly force does not imply she's immune to the consequences of using such deadly force, which *IS* what's being discussed and it's *NOT* addressed in the part of the Texas penal code you quoted.

Under your logic, any cop can simply claim they thought their life was at peril, wrap themselves around that section, and it's an insta-murder-free card. But we also know that argument is patently false, because cops have not only been charged with murder, but actually convicted of murder.

The part of the statute that deals with such consequences was already quoted by an actual lawyer in here (ironically, something you requested), and the decision will be made by a jury. The problem here is that the jury can't decide if it's murder if the prosecutors don't charge her with murder. Which is patently ridiculous, in light of Texas' own penal code.

[ElNono]

I am not expert - just using common sense - and if the cop goes down for Murder - good - I won't be upset. I will be surprised that they convict on Murder - but not upset.

I won't lose sleep if she walks either. That's not the point. It would be outrageous though. The issue we're discussing is that no jury will look at murder charges if the prosecution doesn't bring them, and it's patently ridiculous that they have not so far.

[Spurs Homer]

I won't lose sleep if she walks either. That's not the point. It would be outrageous though. The issue we're discussing is that no jury will look at murder charges if the prosecution doesn't bring them, and it's patently ridiculous that they have not so far.

And the point I was making was that it is not murder - and she wasn't charged with murder - and I was trying to explain why. I was asked several questions and responded to why I thought she did not commit murder - so having a hard time understanding your snarkiness.

Oh - and by the way - several posters here said it was automatically murder - and that is what I originally responded to.

[ElNono]

And the point I was making was that it is not murder - and she wasn't charged with murder - and I was trying to explain why. I was asked several questions and responded to why I thought she did not commit murder - so having a hard time understanding your snarkiness.

Oh - and by the way - several posters here said it was automatically murder - and that is what I originally responded to.

You're confusing a charge with a verdict. Prosecutors charge based on the statutes (laws). A jury then comes up with a verdict based on the charge(s).

The first firmly follows the law. The second is a matter of opinion.

The problem here is the first does not seem to be following the law, which is what makes this whole thing extremely fishy.

[ElNono]

The reason I'm snarky is that after all your demands were met, you're still arguing your point, so why bother demanding a lawyer to explain anything at all?

[Winehole23]

SH's lay reading of the Texas Penal Code trumps all comers -- sorry!

[Spurs Homer]

The reason I'm snarky is that after all your demands were met, you're still arguing your point, so why bother demanding a lawyer to explain anything at all?

What demands? Someone asked me something - and I wasn't sure about it - so I said - any lawyers in the house.
Spurraider answered something - but I just disagreed that it was a clear cut case of murder.

Not arguing it - I was answering peoples questions just like when you demanded I show you the statute or else.

[ElNono]

You asked for a lawyer to explain how and why this should be charged a murder. He did. Now your argument is that the lawyer is wrong. :lol

[Spurs Homer]

You asked for a lawyer to explain how and why this should be charged a murder. He did. Now your argument is that the lawyer is wrong. :lol


Not my fault if the lawyer is mistaken about a subject he should know more about than I know.

[ElNono]

oh ok

[Chinook]

Homes has made three separate arguments so far:

1) "Beyond a reasonable doubt" hasn't been established for murder

2) It's manslaughter because she was confused

3) Murder becomes manslaughter when it's a cop

Everyone concedes 1), in the sense that we all know evidence could come out to change the way we view this case.

2) has already been established to be wrong in Texas. Confusion or passion is just not a condition of lower the charges. Even the most sympathetic interpretation that we know now would still lead to murder charges. Moreover, the prosecution shouldn't charge people based on the most sympathetic interpretation. They should do the opposite. Moreover, they WOULD do and HAVE done the opposite in many other cases.

3) is cobbled together and dangerous. An officer being authorized to use deadly force isn't the same as them being justified in doing so. An office worker may be authorized to used the company credit card, but that does not mean they can use it on whatever they want, whenever they want. Being at an active crime scene is typically not enough to warrant opening fire. In her official capacity, she should be held to a higher standard than a lay person "standing their ground". You don't call the cops so they can come in like crazed, confused fuckwads and shoot up the place. The trade-off in getting the authorization to use deadly force is that they are able to handle these situations without resorting to violence.

[boutons_deux]

"Moreover, the prosecution shouldn't charge people based on the most sympathetic interpretation. They should do the opposite. "

charges and sentencing must be the max, as racist JeBo's guidance dictates, but I'm sure he had blacks and browns in mind not white cops nor white collar criminals.

[DMC]

Shoot to kill, shoot in self-defense, shoot to maim, shoot to cash-in an insurance... that's all goes to motive. Might or might not be premeditated, depending on the circumstances.

Intent is whether you shot the person on purpose or not. Obviously, motive is also important in determining the crime and charge (just as premeditation is). In this particular case, from what's been reported so far, intent is pretty definitive IMO.

Motive would be the underlying reason. Intent is the desired outcome of the act. Shoot to kill for insurance, insurance would be the motive. There's no "shoot to cash in" because you have to kill someone first. So the goal would be 1st to cause death, with a motive of financial gain.

[ElNono]

Motive would be the underlying reason. Intent is the desired outcome of the act. Shoot to kill for insurance, insurance would be the motive. There's no "shoot to cash in" because you have to kill someone first. So the goal would be 1st to cause death, with a motive of financial gain.

No, again, intent is whether the action was deliberate or not. IOW:

Intent: Did she intend to shoot the person? (this can be self-defense, not self-defense, warning shots, etc, motive does not matter one bit to answer this question). As spurraider said, it doesn't even need to involve shooting, just intention to do bodily harm is enough.

Motive: What was the rationale for the intent?

Premeditation: Was motive pre-planned?

But, then, again, all 3 go into charging and setting up a case. In home invasion, self-defense cases, intent could be relatively irrelevant, for example.

The main reason to establish intent is to determine if the death was voluntary or involuntary, and this doesn't always necessarily matches the accused's claim. They could claim they fired warning shots, and forensics might come back with irrefutable evidence that's not the case. So at trial, the prosecution will prove intent based on that evidence, etc. That then backs up the charges they filed.

[spurraider21]

Not my fault if the lawyer is mistaken about a subject he should know more about than I know.
except you are taking disagreement with you as "knowing less than you know"

[Isitjustme?]

1042191035122765824

[Winehole23]

it helps to have the Texas Rangers and Dallas Police Association lawyers managing your surrender