Jump to content

TXSooner518

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    2295
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by TXSooner518

  1. 3 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

    i'm just thinking back 25 years to my mock trial days. this defense just sacrificed their queen piece for no gain. shock and surprise is her only real defense as a trained police officer. she has to have been shocked and scared so much that shooting was her only option. 

    her testifying to hearing movement inside her apartment, and her STILL choosing to go in takes that advantage away. 

    i simply do not get it. the second she hears movement inside her* apartment, she needs to take a step back and have a bit of a think about things. i have to think that's department policy, not shoving open the door. her keys were also in the door, so that would support the shocked and surprise narrative. i have to think if i think someone is in my apartment, i would notice if my key triggers the green admittance light instead of the red no admittance light, regardless of the door not latching. 

    if i suspect someone is in my home, i'm taking very deliberate and careful actions. they fucked up with this testimony.

    Yeah, I think they were trying to show why she had fear, but totally agree that it would be MUCH more effective to show sudden startling movement.

    2 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

    None. Jury to decide.

    Not sure if clear, I meant did the state offer her any plea bargain deals that she declined.

    Just now, Reagan1k said:

    Rely on training / resort to training - coming back to that..........You bet the prosecutor will. 

    Yeppppppp, those police protocols will be very relevant.

  2. 5 minutes ago, hopkinsnhorns said:

    Defense experts will put to bed any idea that she was supposed to use the knife or mace to subdue the perceived burglar.  Taser or pistol were her only offensive weapons viable to her at the time, and my guess is the defense would argue that access to her taser was limited by the bundle of shit she was carrying in her left arm.  Fact of the matter is, she could have easily called for help on 911 and posted up outside the door.  If there was a burglar, there was no one in danger in her apartment as it was previously unoccupied, and the burglar has only one means of egress and that's through that apartment door, unless he's going to rapel off the 3rd/4th floor balcony like Batman.

    The argument against mace was can't use in the apartment - she chose to enter the apartment.

    If your taser is unavailable b/c of bundle of shit, that argument works if your first inclination of intruder is seeing him. Works less good if you noticed the cracked door and heard noises. Hmm, here's an idea, PUT YOUR SHIT DOWN before entering the occupied apartment. 

    Definitely, calling 911 or police radio is the clear option, with the available option of announcing her police presence if desired.

  3. Just now, TwiceHorn said:

    It definitely gives her a clearer chance to avoid the deadly confrontation than other scenarios.

    Especially, again, given she wasn't a random CHL holder carrying, but that she also had mace, knife, taser, and the biggest one, police radio. Also neighbors in close proximity. Isn't like seeing your front door cracked in your house where the nearest other person is maybe 50 yards away or something, and couldn't hear yelling.

  4. Just now, hopkinsnhorns said:

    But that is countered by the physical evidence and testimony of the Chemistry teacher/football coach who returned after her.  He entered the parking garage minutes after her, but had time to park and gather his things before she came hauling ass around the corner and backed into her spot.  Why would she lie about that?  There's something there that we don't know about, and it must be damning for her to lie about it.

    Especially weird since she was sitting there when that testimony occurred, not like she was excluded under The Rule.

     

    Question for 4th and 5 and the other lawdogs - any chance they could look for a "sudden passion" reduction to 2nd degree? Looking at the plain language, it says it only applies if there was provocation from victim or someone with victim. Can that include "perceived" provocation?

  5. 8 minutes ago, mdmost said:

    I wonder how much they would've been if we had beaten LSU? The days of paying face through UT's ticket office seem over. We had a nice run of 3-4 years when that was the case. I will say, we're getting better tickets than previous years at least. We've been in the upper level endzones since 2008. This is at least goalline. 

    Yeah if I was just dropped into this market with no knowledge of the Texas-LSU game I would definitely bet mid-4 figures that Texas had won the game, just based on the prices.

  6. 12 minutes ago, mdmost said:

    Since this seems to be a good going market rate for tickets. We bought 4 in Section 125 for $345 each. I don't think we've paid that much since 2008. Face is $150 now. It was $140 last year. 

    Yeah market is filthy, and doesn't really seem to be cooling any. Will be interesting to see what it will be like come game time. Got 3 in 131 for $300 ea and was very happy with that. 

    2008 was comparable as a multiple of face value, but nowhere close on actual dollar cost. In every year past, I rolled my eyes and scrolled right past any $300+ listing, and now the market has me conditioned to "goddamn $300! Lock em up!!"

  7. 5 minutes ago, hullabelew said:

    He had her stand up and act like she was carrying her equipment into the apartment.  She blubbered something and they called a break.

     

    She started crying before that though, there was an objection to a question, before that she seemed fine, after the objection discussion which wasn't picked up on audio, she was in tears, then it went full on blubbering when she had to stand up and put on the equipment.

  8. Just now, 4th and 5 said:

    why'd she start crying? I'm trying to read police reports and talk shit to the sooner and listen to sidebar conferences and I lost my place

    It seemed really kind of out of nowhere, but did seem pretty genuine IMO. I dunno if the reality of getting right to the moment of truth came all of a sudden or what. It sounded like the prosecution objected to her putting on the equipment, and she was crying saying just let me do it, but I couldn't hear that part well. 

  9. Hmm so she worked "more than 40 hours" while also going to school, but was never so fatigued from that schedule that she wandered into the wrong apartment and immediately ventilated someone?

    And yeah, I guess there were two possible strategies for them in her physical presentation, either "hey look at the cute sweet white girl don't ruin her life" or "look how devastated she has been over this awful unavoidable accident" and they went door #2.

  10. 10 minutes ago, Gene Parmesan said:

    I'm not sure.  I think it was a couple hours after the incident.  Maybe enough time for alcohol to cycle out.  Not exactly sure how long it would take to go from intoxicated to zero BAC for someone her size.  The state isn't taking that angle anyways, so it doesn't really matter.

    Timeline really doesn't work for her to be drinking unless she was theoretically Lehmberging it up with an open bottle of Ciroc in the car. Barely time for it to kick in. Obliviousness, stupidity, distraction, and then an absurd hairtrigger reaction, but no booze or drugs seem possible.

    • Like 1
  11. 6 minutes ago, Gene Parmesan said:

    How do the laws work in situations where you are correctly in your own home and kill a spouse who came home early from a business trip, or some other scenario where there is enough reasonableness to be in fear, but you are ultimately killing a non intruder?

    You can only use deadly force if you have fear of imminent serious bodily injury or death. You are presumed to have a reasonable fear of those if you know or have reason to believe that the person unlawfully entered your house with force (in other words, not through an open door). 

    It would be a fact question as to whether the person had a reasonable fear of those/reason to believe they unlawfully entered with force.

×
×
  • Create New...