have no idea what you are fabricating / trolling.
As we can all see, Botham Jean's certainly was.
have no idea what you are fabricating / trolling.
The cop killed an innocent dude.
She admitted that.
That isn't contested.
What do you think I'm "fabricating?"
You're clear, just not rational. You keep pining on and on. The defense is arguing mistake of fact and self defense, the two are tied. You're being irrational because you're relying on emotive jargon and hand waving.
In Texas burglary of an occupied house/apartment is considered a violent crime so you're weapons free if you're the homeowner in your house/apartment.
In her case they don't have to prove anything. The state has the burden of proof. The investigator (Texas Rangers) stated that it was not unreasonable that she went to the wrong apartment, since 44% of the occupants they interviewed said they'd done the same thing. It wasn't unreasonable that she entered her apartment even considering she thought an intruder was inside because she's a cop, and she's taught to address a situation like that, not like a call of intruder. In fact, the entire argument comes down to whether or not she knowingly entered that man's apartment and killed him in cold blood. That's the state's claim, and I don't think they proved that or that the evidence supports it, but jurors can be swayed by the political environment and so we'll see.
She's not innocent of killing that man wrongfully, she's innocent of murdering him with intent. I still think she could get manslaughter even though that requires that she didn't intend to kill and she's testified she did. If the jurors overlook the Castle Doctrine and mistake of fact/self defense, she could get murder. It seems binary, either murder or innocent, which is unfortunate for the city of Dallas.
Intent matters. Charges and burden of proof to support those charges beyond a reasonable doubt matter. Trials like this aren't to establish the facts of the case, but to establish intent. Everyone knows the facts, the guy was in his home, she wasn't, she shot and killed him. What she thought vs her actions, her training, how her peers and the TR testify, that means a lot.
You're so progressive and edgy
says the eternally wannabe edgelord.
Pardon me for not jumping to her defense. If you think she should be rewarded for her actions, that's all you. She gives cops a worse reputation than they need.
There's ample room between jumping to her defense and wanting her to rot.
More narrative from the narrative crew, you and Winehole clutching your pearls.
let's make it about me like you always want to.
wannbe edgelord
actually another derp
Legally probably yes, morally no. She had ample time to back out and away and call 911. I'm also fine with her trigger happy ass rotting.
DMC
You're on Chump's approved talk-to list for the next few weeks. He's been banned from others.
Seems like the correct decision since she is claiming self defense
Already said I think murder is the correct charge but why do you think the jury shouldn't be able to consider her defense? She's en led to one right?
Nah I won't waste much time feeding quarters to the monkey.
No she should rot in with Donald Trump. If there was a .
Since they aren't in a trial about morality, legal will be all that matters. Benefit of the doubt. Good to know your uninformed mob mentality is intact. Keep up the fight. the justice system.
Oh, it could go either way. I'm just more fine with her rotting.
Sorry, edgelord.
Judge also ruled that the jury could consider manslaughter
Don't feed the creeper...
But that includes lack of intent to kill. She testified she intended to kill. I think it's either murder or she walks. She'll never wear a badge again, but she should serve some time just for the fact of wrongful death. We know she won't be able to pay off a lawsuit, and the city won't need to settle until the wrongful death civil case.
I didn't say 'prove' anything. I said that the investigators that handle the case have to conclude that you were being invaded and your life was in danger. Otherwise, charges are filed on you, even if you're in your own home.
But it doesn't apply to this case at all, since it wasn't her home (regardless whether she thought it was or not).
Intent in criminal proceeding isn't what you think it is (at least when it comes to murder charges). Intent in a murder case is arguing whether she shot with the intent to kill or not, that's about the extent of it. Again, there are facts (she shot and killed someone), that preclude allegations (I didn't mean to!)
What you're suggesting as wrongful death, is a civil claim, not a criminal one. Because criminal law has a higher bar, which is 'without a reasonable doubt', what's judged in criminal proceedings are provable facts.
This is why when this case happened, there was simply no way she wasn't going to get charged with murder, especially after she admitted to entering and shooting on purpose. And her story about getting confused, or showing remorse doesn't really enters the picture in a criminal proceeding until sentencing.
We discussed manslaughter extensively in this thread a while ago, and there were reasons why it didn't apply to this case, but they escape me at the moment.
I wish you were coherent.
You're not.
Pity, no help though
Actually, this trial is to judge the former, not the latter. The latter can be taken into consideration for sentencing, but not for finding her guilty of murder.
Even though this case should be a slam dunk for the prosecution, our Cons ution guarantees everybody their day in court, and so she's indeed innocent (as in, she didn't shot and kill anybody) until this jury says otherwise.
It's part of the steps in imparting justice.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)