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

[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

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 cir stances 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 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 cir stances 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 bull .

[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 bull .

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 bull .

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/D.../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/D.../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 ing 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 cir stances 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?