Jump to content

TXSooner518

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    2,295
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by TXSooner518

  1. 4 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

    Looks like the guy he killed was driving drunk. Obviously he still should have suffered legal consequences for being involved in an accident going 84 in a 40, but I can't imagine that grand juries are going to indict a trooper for getting in an accident with a drunk driver very often. They probably should have in his case but it's obviously not surprising that they didn't.

    Doesn't look like it was presented to the grand jury.

  2. Just now, Brisketexan said:

    Agree.  But the defense better keep him on a tight damned leash, because if he wanders afield into opinion about reasonableness and following procedure and whatnot....

    Yeah, if that opinion testimony about whether or not she should have been charged with a crime had come in, I would have pushing REAL hard to bring this up. Sure, you think going 40 over while driving outside of safety regulation timeframes and killing an innocent person isn't criminal either, as long as a cop did the killing, right Ranger?

  3. 1 minute ago, Red Six said:

    The jury is not going to care what the experts say.

    Yeah, expecting them to swallow, "hey even though we put 3500 hours of training into this person, when they came upon a situation they were trained for, they are incapable of making even basic rational decisions" is a hell of a lot.

    Was she still having tunnel vision when she was texting instead of applying life-saving measures? If that's the case, fuck, why even give them a first aid kit, they can't possibly be expected to use it if an actual stressful situation arises? 

    • Like 1
  4. 1 minute ago, HRSchenker said:

    How many mistakes does someone need to make before their mistake of fact becomes unreasonable? Imagine a surgeon who goes to the wrong floor, enters the wrong surgical room, garbs up with the wrong nurses, and successfully cuts off the patient's leg. Who in the world would suggest that this person acted reasonable?

    Did you miss that she texted she was "sweepy"????

  5. Just now, Surly Bevo said:

    So question. Let’s say that was her house/apartment and this fact pattern came out. IE she recognized somebody was in her apartment BEFORE she walked in.

    Would she have been legally justified in what she did in that circumstance?

    Personally I would say fuck no but I know that gets squishy so just curious where the line is.

    I was talking to a couple of other coworkers (attorneys) and we were discussing that. We think, all told, if this was actually her apartment and Botham had been the maintenance man that she killed, I would still say she should be convicted.

    The fact that she knew maintenance was occurring this week, and also her testimony about the finickiness of the locks would IMO defeat the reasonableness of her presumption that the person entered her habitation unlawfully and with force. So she would need something other than "he was in my habitation" to be justified to use deadly force.

    And her actions after the gunshots are absolutely indefensible. Failing to use the tools at your disposal, failing to provide CPR, all the while making sure to text your side dick and try to get yourself help, just indefensible, and absolutely could contribute to the death and should be held against her.

     

    On a side note, I would like to see the prosecutor refer to her statement that Botham yelled HEY HEY. Is it common experience for police that people committing crimes in building occupied by hundreds of people scream out while committing crimes or nah?

  6. Just now, sachick said:

    I haven't been following as closely but has anyone mentioned she lives in an apartment complex with maintenance people that can come in to your place at any time. Wouldn't she at least have questioned if maybe maintenance had to get in to fix something? And I totally agree that if you notice the door is cracked open, your first instinct is to start examining everything.

    Ha yeah, just literally came up. They had sent an email out that maintenance would be occurring "all day" that week.

    Goddammit, no MLK day parade testimony coming in. Can't do NUTTING!

  7. I think the prosecutor's tone has been about right, given the inconsistencies of the story. It is a fine line, you don't want to make them overcome with sympathy, but I think he's been pretty good thus far.

    As to the hindsight bias, I think it's one thing to say "oh in retrospect you could have done something else" vs. "if you had just done the specific things that you have been trained on over and over" 

×
×
  • Create New...