Page 30 of 45 FirstFirst ... 2026272829303132333440 ... LastLast
Results 726 to 750 of 1115
  1. #726
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    126,234
    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.

  2. #727
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    51,744
    Try being rational.
    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.

  3. #728
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    51,744
    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.
    As we can all see, Botham Jean's certainly was.

  4. #729
    Believe. MultiTroll's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Post Count
    9,387
    You would take the side of state power against the innocent victim.
    have no idea what you are fabricating / trolling.

  5. #730
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    51,744
    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?"

  6. #731
    Veteran DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    71,462
    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.
    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.

  7. #732
    俺のクローゼットの中に死んだユダヤ人が 二人でごめん baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    73,372
    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.
    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.

  8. #733
    Veteran DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    71,462
    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.
    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.

  9. #734
    Veteran DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    71,462
    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.
    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.

  10. #735
    Believe. Pavlov's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Post Count
    41,902
    Hope she rots.

  11. #736
    Veteran DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    71,462
    You're so progressive and edgy

  12. #737
    Believe. Pavlov's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Post Count
    41,902
    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.

  13. #738
    Veteran DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    71,462
    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.

  14. #739
    Believe. Pavlov's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Post Count
    41,902
    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

  15. #740
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    59,575
    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.
    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.

  16. #741
    5X ST MVP Spurtacular's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    43,579
    DMC

    You're on Chump's approved talk-to list for the next few weeks. He's been banned from others.

  17. #742
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Post Count
    10,341
    Couldn't say. The judge probably considers it a careful balancing of equities. Saying the castle doctrine protects the confused cop but not the legit resident confuses me

    How do you gloss it?
    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?

  18. #743
    Veteran DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    71,462
    DMC

    You're on Chump's approved talk-to list for the next few weeks. He's been banned from others.
    Nah I won't waste much time feeding quarters to the monkey.

  19. #744
    Veteran DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    71,462
    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?
    No she should rot in with Donald Trump. If there was a .

  20. #745
    Veteran DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    71,462
    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.
    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.

  21. #746
    Believe. Pavlov's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Post Count
    41,902
    Oh, it could go either way. I'm just more fine with her rotting.

    Sorry, edgelord.

  22. #747
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Post Count
    10,341
    Judge also ruled that the jury could consider manslaughter

  23. #748
    Veteran DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    71,462
    Oh, it could go either way. I'm just more fine with her rotting.

    Sorry, edgelord.
    Don't feed the creeper...

  24. #749
    Veteran DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    71,462
    Judge also ruled that the jury could consider manslaughter
    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.

  25. #750
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    126,234
    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.
    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.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •