Reply With Quote
I don’t think she acted with malice. She was likely mistaken. It’s just not a good enough one to avoid accountability when using lethal force.
Agreed. All else is reasonable. Cops are too comfortable with taking life.
I don’t think she acted with malice. She was likely mistaken. It’s just not a good enough one to avoid accountability when using lethal force.
She could have gotten off with less if she said "stop him" instead of "kill him"
She is culpable.
My initial assumption ITT was that manslaughter was a slam dunk charge until i actually read the Texas penal code sections on homicide. I think the leeway in sentencing makes up for that rigidity tbh
So what's the minimum under Texass law?
Right, but culpable is a huge step down from "murderer."
Anyway, credit to the jury for coming to the right decision under the law. Hopefully some healing comes from this.
It's unfortunate all around but if there is a responsible party it's her.
Black man kills white woman in Texas? He'd already be hanging in front of the court house. Give this life.
...
It's a fascinating case because you don't often, if ever, have a high-profile murder trial like this where the defendant (1) admits to killing someone, and (2) shows such a high level of remorse. To say nothing of the racial and law enforcement angles.
2 wrongs = 1 right?
I want her doing some serious time. With access to rehab so she can be productive. Would be nice to hear what really came down if she ever gets to the point to tell it without the filter of liarwyers. Her mind must have been out there after phoning and texting with her booty call.
I don’t really think she’d be a danger to society going forward tbh
I thought that at one time.... but then I guess you have to ask if a reflexive shooter who has a history of confusion about her surroundings is really that much less of a danger than your typical first-time murderer.
Not necessarily. Judges include instructions and questions to protect themselves on appeal.
But you're not sure.Can she move next door to you? Hey I agree she's probably never going to go near a gun again.
So what kind of a sentence are you imposing?
No need to take a side. Its not a team sport, dummy.
that reverse castle doctrine was disturbing imo
Well she's going to get at least a nickel. I'd at least double that but I'm biased.
On TV they said if she gets a sentence of 10 or less, she can be released from jail if she files an appeal.
, she's gonna have to move to Mineola if she's out.
She'll probably get hired, like ex-cops do, somewhere as sheriff's deputy. Sheriff depts seem to hire the bottom of the barrel.
BTW is it known who financed her high priced private defense liarwyers? The KKK? Good ole boy Dallas police alumni?
Doubt that's public knowledge but...
Can you picture some gov't dumb s sitting in a room making up these laws / loopholes.
From what I've read about the judge, this may be the case here. Seemed like it came in out of left field but I wasn't following the trial all that closely.
Her defense was basically that she thought she was defending herself on her own property. Makes sense to me that the judge would say the jury can consider her defense.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
