I was afraid.
I was confused.
I feared for my life.
I blew you away.
I wouldn't think it protects anyone as much as it's a defense to prosecution for intent. Yeah sounds the same but it's not. You're still not justified in killing someone, but you might be acquitted of murder one. The DA must think they have a strong case else they go for a lighter charge, maybe they are afraid of the ramifications and will let the judge and jury take the blame.
Doesn't even rhyme.
I don't expect LA-size riots, but the Guyger story is absolutely dwarfing the impeachment scandal here in Dallas.
Nah, no riots. People holding signs outside the police station, some cars lit on fire, maybe a few cartons of Newports and some beer stolen from the black owned convenience store in their own neighborhood.
Referred to above, I'm flabbergasted the constable's mistaken intent trumps the resident's right to live.
You seem to be cool with it though.
I hope you're right.
I think we'll probably see a couple of random acts of opportunistic vandalism that will be overblown, but most forecasts of potential riots have been unfounded since Ferguson.
This isn't a poetry board.
While you were eating ice cream
Whatever happens, the family will get a chance to ruin her in a civil trial.
I'd be surprised if the lemon is worth the squeeze. How well does DPD pay?
They'll probably include DPD and the City of Dallas in the suit and settle out of court.
Of course.
The resident isn't on trial. The question is intent, do the facts justify the charge? No one is arguing the victim's right to live. You either believe her or you don't. He's not alive to testify. If she's lying, she's a murderer. If she's telling the truth, do you still think she's a murderer?
The court cannot revive the deceased.
There's no reason whatsoever to bring in the Castle Doctrine as applied here. The Castle Doctrine protects the person in their own property/abode from intruders.
What the judge is ordering here is to consider an allegation over a fact. It's a fact she was in the wrong place. This is completely misapplied, and probably fairly solid grounds for an appeal if the case doesn't go the prosecution's way.
The judge can certainly consider her allegations and displays of remorse at sentencing, but this is a complete aberration.
Try being rational.
If she thought she was in her home and thus thought she had the right to use deadly force there, then the castle doctrine would be relevant because without it, you have no right to use deadly force. It's not about whether she was right about where she was, but about her mindset. Could the DA have taken a bigger bite than they can chew?
They will but I'm not sure they succeed unless the city just doesn't want any part at all of a lawsuit.
By law, she is. No doubt about it. "Mistakes were made" is not a defense.
It's doubtful that the Mayor nor most of Dallas City Council would have any desire to fight the Botham-Jean family in court.
She factually was not in her home. What she thought doesn't really matter at all. What matters are the facts: she was not at home and she shot to kill a person. That's it. There's no really gray area here. The only exceptions to this are mental illness of some sort.
The judge does have wiggle room in the sentencing phase, whether he believes what she's peddling or not.
There are reasons for this. People will make claims such that "god told me to do it", etc. Even if they were completely brainwashed and truthful, it's still murder.
Heck, the Castle Doctrine itself is an exception to the fact that if you kill somebody, you're going to be doing time. And the Castle Doctrine is not as simple as it looks either. The investigator has to conclude that you were being invaded and your life was in danger.
I think I've been pretty clear where I stand. If you don't follow me there that doesn't mean it isnn't rational.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
