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

[spurraider21]

i think it's stupid how we are debating intent and , 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]

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 cir stances.

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_n...80a4bb4b8.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 -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 themselves.

[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 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.

[Blake]

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