Jump to content

TXSooner518

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    2295
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by TXSooner518

  1. 1 hour ago, Lurch said:

    We didn’t get into it, but presumably he’d have me bet smaller (maybe $200 into $300?) and somehow get away on river?

    Ah yes, the reverse engineering where they want to base your turn strategy on what specific card actually came on the river this time. 

  2. Boink on the 76 hand! On the JT I like the turn jam given your read of CO. If he’s definitely calling off with a flush draw or top pair+ and maybe calling off with a straight draw then jamming prints money. If he has draw he folds when he misses river and we always pay when he hits. If he has top pair he may fold bad rivers (or we may check back what we think are bad rivers but he would have paid).

    What did the regs say they thought you should do?

  3. 3 minutes ago, hopkinsnhorns said:

    Don't forget that in the time immediately following the deadly gun shots, she spent more time texting Sex Cop and repeatedly proclaiming her tiredness to the 911 operator instead of actually rendering the first aid she would be expected to do if she arrived at the scene of any other shooting.  I don't think Botham Jean had to die that day if she had actually made attempts to stop the bleeding until further medical assistance could arrive.

    I think he was going to be dead following the shot based on the ME testimony, but of course she didn't know the extent of internal injuries while she was busy proclaiming her innocence and texting instead of providing aid. 

  4. 3 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

    so, let's just entertain she zombies her way to the door with the bright red floormat and she put her keys in the door, presumably looking down to do so, and still not seeing the bright red mat, and pushes open the door. the tv is on and a guy looks over from the couch.  the guy starts to rise.

    BANG BANG.

    that is some shit, in my opinion. that's the murder. hell, anyone can make a mistake. it was her going from 0 to dying guy in 2 seconds that makes it a murder, in my opinion.

    But, when you think about it, her only other options would be:

    1) Retreat into the hallway through the open door directly behind you and make lots of noise banging on other doors, alerting the dozens of other people who live in the building, and using your police radio to immediately summon LE

    2) Announce "Dallas Police Freeze" and then ask what they are doing there, possibly brandishing your gun and/or using your police radio to immediately summon LE

    3) If necessary, use your mace and/or Taser to disable the "suspect", then using your police radio to immediately summon LE

    Clearly, none of those are reasonable, gotta be BANG BANG. After all, she's already dressed in black.

    • Like 1
  5. I think Lurch’s post is a great jump-off point for sure. Mine would be very similar. Of course we are gonna increase value cbets when playing against known callstations and decrease bluff cbets. Also increase bluff cbets against known overfolders.

    I do think we can bet misses against 3+ callers but need really good boards that we can both rep and also don’t hit many people. K44r would be an example. I dislike bluff cbetting low boards like 754 multi-way bc people don’t believe us and also stay in with smaller pieces.

  6. 11 minutes ago, hopkinsnhorns said:

    Her keys were in the door.  When you insert a non-coded key into that digital lock, it beeps and flashes red to show that the key has been denied.  Even before she pushed open that unlatched door, you can add those indicators as another piece of evidence she was oblivious too before she pushed that door open and killed the lawfully residing occupant, in addition to the bright red door mat that she was necessarily standing on that was not hers.

    The keys in the door go to this point, and also to the fact that the door wasn't obviously open. I think if the door was obviously open, her actions are even more unreasonable in the apartment, as you have time to think and prepare a bit, rather than being completely surprised.

  7. Those 34 and Q8 hands are right out of my playbook.

    I would not c-bet Q83 with a flush draw into 4 players when we flop absolutely nothing. I like the cbet of AK on J52. But Q83 with a flush draw just hits too many hands. And no one in poker history is calling 15x pre with KJs to fold a flopped flush draw. Def agree as played, jam turn.

  8. 2 minutes ago, Gene Parmesan said:

    Does not the mere presences of an intruder in your home constitute reasonable fear of bodily harm.  Does the intruder have to actually make a move towards you?

    Deadly force is authorized if you know or have reason to believe they entered your house illegally and with force. The exact circumstances would dictate if you "had reason to believe" that. For example, if someone walks in your unlocked front door, you wouldn't immediately have the right to use deadly force. But you would have the right to immediately use force.

  9. 4 minutes ago, po elvis said:

    Imagine you are awakened at night and see a guy in your house that you believe to be a burglar. You don't know if he has a gun or not. You assume he is dangerous because he broke into your house. You want to protect your family. You shoot him. Turns out your daughter snuck in her boyfriend. Your fear and adrenaline made you shoot him. Was it reckless?

    Yes, on those facts. I don't verbalize any commands, there is no threat of SBI/death, no menacing behavior. I don't have grounds to kill. 

    Could also be murder, and under 4th and 5's argument, would have to be murder unless valid self-defense exists.

  10. 3 minutes ago, po elvis said:

    1) it is reasonable that she made a mistake. when you see a stranger in what you believe to be your apartment, your whole attention probably goes to him and not the surroundings.

    2) i think that the fact she is a cop will hurt her on this point. if she was a random person that had a gun, you could understand them acting on that initial fear and adrenaline. there will be some questions why a cop couldn't handle it better.

    1 is open for debate on reasonableness of mistake. Agree somewhat on 2, however even a random person can't just blast someone dead even in your own home without reasonably fearing serious bodily injury or death. She should be held to a higher standard due to experience and training though, agreed.

  11. 1 minute ago, hookem17 said:

    I think what these legal experts (and Texas law) are saying is that the act of intentionally firing a weapon at another person cannot, by definition, be reckless, regardless of the circumstances or who you believed you were shooting. Seems counterintuitive to the definition of reckless. 

    Are you saying their argument is counterintuitive to the definition of reckless, or mine?  Because the statute doesn't go so far as to say that. And in fact, the statute expressly says that proving someone did something intentionally counts as proving they did it recklessly if that's what the offense requires.

  12. To wit, entering another person's residence and discharging a firearm immediately without ascertaining the nature of the target.

    To wit, texting your fuckbuddy instead of providing CPR in accordance with your training.

    Also, interested in how 6.02 and 21.15 would interact. I also disagree that intentionally discharging a firearm can never be reckless. I think this is an example of a possible situation. You rely on self-defense, but that reliance isn't reasonable given all factors. You had a good faith, but unreasonable, belief that you had the cover of self-defense. It seems perfectly within the language of the statute for that conduct to be "recklessly causing the death of an individual." 

    Another example, gun located on a movie set. I assume but do not verify that it is loaded with blanks, aim at a person and intentionally pull the trigger. Instead, real bullets, and they die. My act was intentional, yet the circumstances can make my action reckless.

    • Like 1
  13. Just now, hookem17 said:

    Is this now the 5th or 6th resident talking about hearing gunshots but nothing else prior to the shooting? At what point is marching out all these residents unnecessarily duplicative and cumulative? 

    Pretty important, esp since the defense has said Guyger yelled "Hands!" when she entered. Although even if true, randomly just screaming HANDS to someone who had no idea you existed one second ago doesn't seem at all effective. 

    • Like 3
  14. 7 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

    Proof of the greater Culpable mental state is proof of the letter. But that doesn’t mean you get a jury charge when there is no evidence to support the chart. There has to be some evidence.

    The reason you don’t see the caselaw that you speak of is because that would necessarily involve an acquittal for the greater offense, murder, which The state cannot appeal by statute. And obviously a defendant wouldn’t appeal a murder acquittal where he was convicted of a lesser offense unless there was no evidence of that lesser offense as well. And that issue wouldn’t be in the appeal

    What about someone not charged with murder at all, solely charged with and convicted of manslaughter, overturned on appeal because the defendant shows the act was intentional, not reckless?

    Or is there caselaw that indicates the overall circumstances can't be considered in the mental state? The definition of manslaughter is recklessly taking the life of another. That seems to fit pretty well, all things considered. In other words, the fact that she took this intentional act, was reckless?

    Also, I'm hung up here, maybe help me see where I'm wrong:

    Say the state did not charge with murder, only manslaughter. Evidence is as it is. Under 6.02, there's no way she gets a directed verdict of acquittal, right? Evidence on all elements of the offense. Under 6.02, her conviction of manslaughter would hold up, as the state established all elements. Agree/disagree?

    If this is true, I fail to see how including manslaughter as a lesser included can possibly be error. And I can't see how the above is possibly not true.

  15. 1 minute ago, royiv said:

    I don't care whether or not she thought she was at her apartment or not. The fact that I get stuck on is the fact that her split second decision is to draw her gun and start blasting before she assesses the threat. She had ample opportunity to back out of the apartment. There was no clear and present threat to her life. I'm assuming she also had a Taser on her. Instead of drawing that and issuing a command, she pulls her handgun and goes straight for deadly force. As a citizen, that's terrifying.

    I would be pretty shocked if she had a Taser on her, doubt cops take Tasers home when they get off work generally. She did have a police radio though.

  16. I guess I'm still missing it. You're saying the CCA is affirming murder convictions by saying no evidence that the shooting is unintentional. Sure! Any case law of CCA overruling a manslaughter conviction by saying "nope it was intentional, not reckless"? 

    Under Texas law, proof of intent = proof of reckless. The elements of manslaughter are prima facie met under the Penal Code. So unless there is case law of a manslaughter or CNH conviction overturned because the act was intentional not reckless, I'm still missing it.

    EDIT: I'm not saying failing to give lesser included would invalidate a murder conviction, but I also don't see how a manslaughter conviction could be overturned as a matter of law. 

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...