Jump to content

TXSooner518

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    2441
  • 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" 

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

×
×
  • Create New...