Reply With Quote
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.
I think the main problem with that is that she had plenty of other options besides shooting
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.
the only option, the priority, for LE is to escalate immediately to shooting black men. BLM, Take A Knee
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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, 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.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.
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"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.
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.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.
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.
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 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)
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 ed 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 up. Does this make her a murderer because she momentarily believed she was in her apt?
Does this cons ute 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.
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.
yes. thanks for spelling out why people are outraged
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.
nm
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-c...sect-9-51.html
One is for a person other than a peace officer - and the other for peace officers.
Not in cal
People should get a bullet for that in 1 year or sooner after convicted not 20 years
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
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 cir stances 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...
That was not what her statement said. If she did say that - then yes - I agree.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
