Reply With Quote
wishful thinking?
you seem to think the only thing the jury will have to go on is the killer's statement.
wishful thinking?
I just happen to have a short fuse for ignorance. Just tell us that's your hunch, that's perfectly fine.
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 bull on her belief that it was her apt.
I thought you were gonna leave it to the experts.
So much for false humility.
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.
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.
you said it wasn't a statute.
lol Spurstalk School of Law.
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.
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.
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.
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?
SH's lay reading of the Texas Penal Code trumps all comers -- sorry!
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.
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.
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.
Not my fault if the lawyer is mistaken about a subject he should know more about than I know.
oh ok
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 wads 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.
"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.
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.
except you are taking disagreement with you as "knowing less than you know"
it helps to have the Texas Rangers and Dallas Police Association lawyers managing your surrender
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
