Dallas officer kills man after mistaking apartment for her own, police say

[Deej 76546]

1 hour ago, BurntEyes said:

It does happen and a good friend of mine got killed for it. 

Ironically, he was a liberal who was largely anti-gun and almost hippy like in his non-violence.

That shooter also walked.

Was your friend in his own home and someone walked in and shot him, or did he accidentally walk into someone else's house and get shot? Pretty big difference between those two scenarios.

[Guest Lobo]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

I'm not talking about law, I'm talking about potential market effects of everyone suddenly realizing people can get away with murdering you just by using a simple excuse as long as you're in an apartment, hotel, or other structure where units look similar.

That's a good point.  Can you imagine the case precedent this sets for people that live in KB Homes or David Weekly developments?  

[Deej 76546]

17 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Did you read the post I was responding to?

[4th and 5 4914]

11 hours ago, Pam Cummings said:

I've literally never seen this before.

 

Home owner mistakes a neighbor for an intruder and shoots and kills them, sure.

 

But to mistake someone else's home for yours, barge in, and shoot the person who lives there? I've never heard of that.

 

Even if it was a legitimate mistake, which i just don't believe at all, the level of stupid required to do such a thing deserves the most severe charges, imo. Get this moron off the street.

You may not have seen it. I have and it is not all that uncommon.

9 hours ago, 'stache said:

Those defenses fall apart on the reasonableness standard too. It's not reasonable to (a) "accidentally" enter the wrong apartment, and (b) start blasting your gun before you even see whose inside. 

Seriously, there's no legalese necessary to understand how badly she fucked up and why she deserves to spend time in jail. The facts are she shot a guy without any "reasonable" reason. Open and shut.

There are a lot of assumptions here. There are many reasons why it may have been reasonable, or not. It will depend on the evidence admitted at trial. Did she even enter the apartment? Could she see? if so, what?

There are so many intricacies to this case it is like a study in culpable mental states, homicide, use of force, vision and perception, reaction time, and so on....

It's fascinating.

7 hours ago, TXSooner518 said:

Also, the ability to not retreat before using deadly force in self-defense only applies if you have a right to be where you are. She didn't have a right to be in his apartment, thus must retreat rather than using deadly force if possible. It was possible.

Correct. Also if she enters she is committing a criminal trespass, and would be violating the law, which loses the no duty to retreat jury charge instruction

6 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Any other result should scare the shit out of apartment complexes. Why in the hell would I rent an apartment when a tired person could easily confuse it for their own? Wrong building, wrong floor, etc.

Hell, hotels would immediately have a problem as well.

Bro, I've been so shithoused I was in the wrong fucking tower of the Nugget in Las Vegas trying to get in "my" room. It happens. The apartments in question are as cookie cutter as a hotel room..... 

 

5 hours ago, 'stache said:

Occam's razor tells me nobody is stupid enough to enter the wrong apartment. It's just not believable. We haven't seen any evidence of a prior relationship or altercation or any political motivation (my speculation was that it was a hit based on his family's political connections in his home country). Its looking more and more like it was truly random, but that in no way exonerates her. She is guilty of a crime even if the rosiest of circumstances are true. 

Wrong. That's exactly what happened. Whether it was a reasonable belief will be the issue at trial. And you'd have to know all the facts before drawing a conclusion

5 hours ago, Gene Parmesan said:

People are absolutely stupid enough to enter the wrong apartment.  That's not even top 1000 of the stupidest things people are capable of.

Yep.

4 hours ago, BurntEyes said:

It does happen and a good friend of mine got killed for it. 

Ironically, he was a liberal who was largely anti-gun and almost hippy like in his non-violence.

That shooter also walked.

Sorry about your friend. It happens more than you would think.

4 hours ago, pops said:

Has anyone figured out how she got in?  Was his door open?  Do they have shitty keys there and hers actually opened his door through some computer glitch?  Was it possible his door was unlocked, she swiped her key and the door opened therefore she thought "my place"?

All important issues. Was she fucking with the lock and he heard it and answered? Who knows. Reserve your opinion until you do know.

 

4 hours ago, C-Man said:

Where have I said I support her (or defendants in DWI death situations for that matter)? Not in the slightest. She fucked up and there's a price to pay, probably prison. What I'm saying is I don't believe she was on the 4th floor that night to shoot Botham Jean dead. It's far more likely she was there because she was drunk or tired and mistakenly got into his apartment -- we don't definitively know -- and killed an innocent man. That said, it doesn't excuse what she did. Should she have backed out and de-escalated before going to the gun? Absofuckinglutely. What I guess I'm saying is this wasn't a straight-up murder or execution. I think it was extremely poor decision making by a substandard cop and resulted in an innocent man's death.

Maybe. I'm sure she wishes she did. What if he answered the door because she was fucking with the lock. He's close. Real close. She knows distance is not her friend here...21 feet and he can get to her before she can draw and fire. She ran high risk warrant apprehensions. Major city, dealing with minorities, and often not in a good way. I'll bet never without backup. Always on alert because of her job. And then she sees a large black male in "her" apartment. What do you think she's going to do?

What if she entered a dark apartment and he walked out of the bedroom and startled her in the entry way?

We don't know the answers to these questions.

 

3 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

I did it once in the dorms in college.  I was hammered.  The elevator stopped on the floor below mine.  I got off and walked four doors down like I always did, and opened the door.  I walked in, and there were three girls sitting on the floor watching TV.  They looked at me and squealed, and immediately began ripping my clothes off.  I spent the next six hours fulfilling the insatiable, repressed desires of passion that young nubile women have.  When I was done, I walked back to the elevator and realized that I was on the 4th floor, not the 5th. 

(*) Parts of this story have been embellished by the author.

You had me there for a second

[Your Mom 4794]

 There with this guy I was in the Marine Corps with who would get so fucked up he’d get up in the middle of the night and piss into his wall locker.  It’s like a freestanding wardrobe where you hang all your clothes.  He thought it was the bathroom and he would just stand there and piss all over his clothes and shoes. This happened several times. Drunk people do stupid shit.  It’s not inconceivable to me at all that somebody stupid and drunk could barge into the wrong apartment thinking that it’s theirs. 

['stache 21763]

13 hours ago, 4th and 5 said:

All important issues. Was she fucking with the lock and he heard it and answered? Who knows. Reserve your opinion until you do know.

 

Maybe. I'm sure she wishes she did. What if he answered the door because she was fucking with the lock. He's close. Real close. She knows distance is not her friend here...21 feet and he can get to her before she can draw and fire. She ran high risk warrant apprehensions. Major city, dealing with minorities, and often not in a good way. I'll bet never without backup. Always on alert because of her job. And then she sees a large black male in "her" apartment. What do you think she's going to do?

What if she entered a dark apartment and he walked out of the bedroom and startled her in the entry way?

We don't know the answers to these questions.

Wow. Just....wow. All she needs is one juror to think like this and she walks, which is absolutely what will happen. Lets go ahead and play the "what if" game. What if this was the exact scenario? What if the facts are as rosy for her as possible? She is stone cold sober, exhausted and on edge, gets off on the wrong floor, everything is identical, she starts messing with the lock wondering why it doesn't work, a big black guy opens the door, she is scared because she thinks someone else is in "her" apartment, her mental state as a police officer causes her to start shooting in her perception of self defense or protection of "her" home, and lets throw in that the big black guy was high as shit from all that dope smoking, since the cops have made damn sure that fact was released immediately. Yes, we don't know all the facts, but lets assume all that these are the facts, it's the best available circumstance for her defenses. Would you as a juror vote to acquit? If so, why? Yes, there are definitely some complicated facts to sort through, but at the end of the day she killed a man in his own apartment after admitting that she made a mistake and was at the wrong door. You don't think we as a society should punish something so reckless or at a minimum negligent? I'm just at a loss what circumstance could possibly make this scenario not criminal.

[TwiceHorn 31264]

8 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Wow. Just....wow. All she needs is one juror to think like this and she walks, which is absolutely what will happen. Lets go ahead and play the "what if" game. What if this was the exact scenario? What if the facts are as rosy for her as possible? She is stone cold sober, exhausted and on edge, gets off on the wrong floor, everything is identical, she starts messing with the lock wondering why it doesn't work, a big black guy opens the door, she is scared because she thinks someone else is in "her" apartment, her mental state as a police officer causes her to start shooting in her perception of self defense or protection of "her" home, and lets throw in that the big black guy was high as shit from all that dope smoking, since the cops have made damn sure that fact was released immediately. Yes, we don't know all the facts, but lets assume all that these are the facts, it's the best available circumstance for her defenses. Would you as a juror vote to acquit? If so, why? Yes, there are definitely some complicated facts to sort through, but at the end of the day she killed a man in his own apartment after admitting that she made a mistake and was at the wrong door. You don't think we as a society should punish something so reckless or at a minimum negligent? I'm just at a loss what circumstance could possibly make this scenario not criminal.

Why does everything have to be a crime and deserve punishment?   This is an abstract question not necessarily pertaining to this case.

There will be civil liability here.  Probably resulting in a judgment sufficiently large that she may be subject to losing most of her earnings for the rest of her life.

She has to live with herself and with society's judgment for the rest of her life.

The thirst for vengeance and retribution just amazes me sometimes.

['stache 21763]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Why does everything have to be a crime and deserve punishment?   This is an abstract question not necessarily pertaining to this case.

There will be civil liability here.  Probably resulting in a judgment sufficiently large that she may be subject to losing most of her earnings for the rest of her life.

She has to live with herself and with society's judgment for the rest of her life.

The thirst for vengeance and retribution just amazes me sometimes.

It's not about "vengeance," and "retribution" has always been one of the fundamental bases for criminal law, so I don't see how that is problematic. But for me, it's about punishing egregiously reckless or at minimum negligent conduct that cost a man his life. We punish things far less egregious every day. Why does it bother you to punish this lady for what she did?

[Nice Guy Eddie 13410]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Why does everything have to be a crime and deserve punishment?   This is an abstract question not necessarily pertaining to this case.

There will be civil liability here.  Probably resulting in a judgment sufficiently large that she may be subject to losing most of her earnings for the rest of her life.

She has to live with herself and with society's judgment for the rest of her life.

The thirst for vengeance and retribution just amazes me sometimes.

Pulling a trigger to harm someone raises the stakes.  If she had picked up a rock to throw at the guy, I would agree that criminal prosecution would be overkill. 

[PilotsError 2281]

If you read any of her social media posts, she was borderline retarded.  She could have been one of FB posts that Vic posts daily on the FB thread.  

She was also ready to kill, according to all her pinterest shit.  She walked around 24/7 looking for an excuse.  That shit can't be overlooked either.

['stache 21763]

1 minute ago, PilotsError said:

If you read any of her social media posts, she was borderline retarded.  She could have been one of FB posts that Vic posts daily on the FB thread.  

She was also ready to kill, according to all her pinterest shit.  She walked around 24/7 looking for an excuse.  That shit can't be overlooked either.

I'm sure that will be excluded as unduly "prejudicial." It'll distract from the real facts of the case, like did you hear he had pot in his apartment? 

[TwiceHorn 31264]

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

It's not about "vengeance," and "retribution" has always been one of the fundamental bases for criminal law, so I don't see how that is problematic. But for me, it's about punishing egregiously reckless or at minimum negligent conduct that cost a man his life. We punish things far less egregious every day. Why does it bother you to punish this lady for what she did?

Retribution pretty much is vengeance, and just because it's a longstanding feature of criminal law doesn't make it a particularly valid one.  I don't find saying we punish other things of lesser (or greater) culpability a convincing rationale for punishing a specific instance.

Ultimately, this was an horrible accident, not an intended outcome.  Most negligent events, even fatal ones, are not criminal (although we're certainly doing our damndest as a society to criminalize every bad outcome, which is what I am bitching about).

Those are generalized ideas, not specific to this or any other case.

On this case, I am pretty much willing to accept what the justice system metes out, provided it isn't overtly skewed by racial or pro-cop factors.  I'm not terribly wound up about whether she is convicted or acquitted, but am very interested in the process.

[TwiceHorn 31264]

14 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Pulling a trigger to harm someone raises the stakes.  If she had picked up a rock to throw at the guy, I would agree that criminal prosecution would be overkill. 

That's fair. But it begs the question, if she were a civilian, would criminal prosecution be more or less appropriate?

But she is most likely going to have to sit through a criminal trial and at least some civil proceedings and she is being thoroughly excoriated in just about every public forum that exists.  She will have to live with this the rest of her life, and the 911 tape indicates that that she isn't a socio- or psychopath to whom that makes no difference.  And, although it isn't criminal, don't discount that huge civil judgment to remind her daily of her errors.  Odds are good that she won't enjoy another day of even minimal financial security until she collects social security, if then.

[TwiceHorn 31264]

38 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Retribution pretty much is vengeance, and just because it's a longstanding feature of criminal law doesn't make it a particularly valid one.  I don't find saying we punish other things of lesser (or greater) culpability a convincing rationale for punishing a specific instance.

Ultimately, this was an horrible accident, not an intended outcome.  Most negligent events, even fatal ones, are not criminal (although we're certainly doing our damndest as a society to criminalize every bad outcome, which is what I am bitching about).

Those are generalized ideas, not specific to this or any other case.

On this case, I am pretty much willing to accept what the justice system metes out, provided it isn't overtly skewed by racial or pro-cop factors.  I'm not terribly wound up about whether she is convicted or acquitted, but am very interested in the process.

Also, let me say that my last sentence isn't a vote of particular confidence in our justice system.  My faith in it is deeply shaken.  However, this is a really thorny factual scenario and the application of law to it, so my deference to the system is kind of a punt.

Also, I am not saying that prosecution is overkill.  I think it's appropriate.  But the thirst for a guilty verdict, and jail time, and the certainty that anything less is a travesty of justice is not something I am quite on board with.

Edited May 2, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[TornACL 7675]

Quote

Ultimately, this was an horrible accident, not an intended outcome.  Most negligent events, even fatal ones, are not criminal

I don't understand this sentence at all. Are you suggesting that the law says this, or is this your belief?

Negligence or recklessness that results in a death is absofuckinglutely something that the criminal courts have and should continue to punish. I mean, it's literally the way the law is written. 

Edit: Saw your additional comments, the reason for the thirst for guilty is most likely because this is a police officer. A lot of people are (justifiably, imo) sick and tired of cops hiding behind the badge and getting disproportionately lenient sentences for crimes that would put a normal person behind bars. Plus, I would assume that the absolute stupidity and senselessness of the situation also raises some dander. 

Edited May 2, 2019 by TornACL

[RPM 26215]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Why does everything have to be a crime and deserve punishment?   This is an abstract question not necessarily pertaining to this case.

A human life was taken violently and without cause. At least in this case. 

[Asithappens 974]

1 minute ago, RPM said:

A human life was taken violently and without cause. At least in this case. 

Let me respond to that statement by running it through the GOP/Conservative Automated Response Bot:

"The guy who was shot by the cop was black. What part of that don't you understand? Murica."

[High Plains Drifter 10970]

3 hours ago, PilotsError said:

If you read any of her social media posts, she was borderline retarded.  She could have been one of FB posts that Vic posts daily on the FB thread.  

She was also ready to kill, according to all her pinterest shit.  She walked around 24/7 looking for an excuse.  That shit can't be overlooked either.

 

That kind of stupid shit should have gotten her fired from being a cop long before this ever happened.

 

 

[gecko 1104]

1 minute ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

That kind of stupid shit should have gotten her fired from being a cop long before this ever happened.

 

 

Let me respond to that statement by running it through the Democrat/Progressively woke Automated Response Bot:

Why does the  DPD hate women?

[High Plains Drifter 10970]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Retribution pretty much is vengeance, and just because it's a longstanding feature of criminal law doesn't make it a particularly valid one.  I don't find saying we punish other things of lesser (or greater) culpability a convincing rationale for punishing a specific instance.

Ultimately, this was an horrible accident, not an intended outcome.  Most negligent events, even fatal ones, are not criminal (although we're certainly doing our damndest as a society to criminalize every bad outcome, which is what I am bitching about).

Those are generalized ideas, not specific to this or any other case.

On this case, I am pretty much willing to accept what the justice system metes out, provided it isn't overtly skewed by racial or pro-cop factors.  I'm not terribly wound up about whether she is convicted or acquitted, but am very interested in the process.

 

No. I'm sorry, this was not an accident.

[TwiceHorn 31264]

3 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

No. I'm sorry, this was not an accident.

What was it then?

 

 

[Brisketexan 104560]

6 hours ago, 'stache said:

It'll distract from the real facts of the case, like did you hear he had pot in his apartment? 

This guy gets it.

The defense presentation will be, with near 100% certainty, the most sympathetic version of the narrative repeated above ("she was tired, it was a mistake, she feels TERRIBLE ABOUT IT!"), coupled with "and of course, this wouldn't have happened if the drug-crazed criminal [just look at him] had simply obeyed the officer's lawful commands.  Ultimately, it was his choice to do illegal drugs, and then disobey an officer of the law, sworn to serve and protect all of us, that led to his tragic death."

6 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

On this case, I am pretty much willing to accept what the justice system metes out, provided it isn't overtly skewed by racial or pro-cop factors.  I'm not terribly wound up about whether she is convicted or acquitted, but am very interested in the process.

You and I both know it will be.  Read my comment above.  You know that's the defense theory.

3 hours ago, BurntEyes said:

I'll flip the script on you. If the situation were reversed and he (a black man) had pulled a gun out and shot a cop (white female) entering his home illegally I assure you the criminal process would have been FAR FAR less friendly. Want evidence of that look no further than what happened in Houston. 

Bingo.  Cop lives are sacred, and anything and everything is acceptable in order to protect them.  Officers act to protect the public -- they put their lives on the line for you and me, every day.  And Botham Jean's death, while tragic, saved lives.

[Brisketexan 104560]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

What was it then?

 

 

A predisposition.

Followed by a mistake.

Followed by a decision.

Decisions create culpability.

[TwiceHorn 31264]

3 hours ago, TornACL said:

I don't understand this sentence at all. Are you suggesting that the law says this, or is this your belief?

Negligence or recklessness that results in a death is absofuckinglutely something that the criminal courts have and should continue to punish. I mean, it's literally the way the law is written. 

Edit: Saw your additional comments, the reason for the thirst for guilty is most likely because this is a police officer. A lot of people are (justifiably, imo) sick and tired of cops hiding behind the badge and getting disproportionately lenient sentences for crimes that would put a normal person behind bars. Plus, I would assume that the absolute stupidity and senselessness of the situation also raises some dander. 

There are fatal incidents, where someone is civilly liable for negligence, on a nearly daily basis.  They rarely involve criminal prosecution.

All of my rhetorical questions are provoked by, but in no way specific to this particular case.

I'm just trying to get people to question their assumptions about criminal justice.  Because you can see that there are a lot of assumptions, and strongly held, but never questioned, beliefs driving a lot of the discussion here.

[TwiceHorn 31264]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

A predisposition.

Followed by a mistake.

Followed by a decision.

Decisions create culpability.

Accidents create culpability, too.  I'm not talking about the mythic "unavoidable accident," I'm talking about the unintended outcome accident, even if aided along the way by negligence or recklessness.  And I am quite sure that there will be lots of civil culpability. The civil case is easy.

By "overtly skewed," I mean unindicted or sandbagged by the prosecution, which seemingly has already been avoided.  Unless the jury turns out to be 12 white senior citizens, which seems unlikely, I'm not going to call it "overtly skewed."  The last Dallas County jury that considered a cop fuckup found him guilty, although it was a clearer case than this, and the racial dynamics were exactly the same.

[Brisketexan 104560]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Accidents create culpability, too.  I'm not talking about the mythic "unavoidable accident," I'm talking about the unintended outcome accident, even if aided along the way by negligence or recklessness.  And I am quite sure that there will be lots of civil culpability. The civil case is easy.

By "overtly skewed," I mean unindicted or sandbagged by the prosecution, which seemingly has already been avoided.  Unless the jury turns out to be 12 white senior citizens, which seems unlikely, I'm not going to call it "overtly skewed."  The last Dallas County jury that considered a cop fuckup found him guilty, although it was a clearer case than this, and the racial dynamics were exactly the same.

But the ultimate act was a DECISION.  She had a "go/no-go" moment....and she selected "GO."  Fatal "GO."  Because she is predisposed to choose "GO."  Not pause to figure out what's actually happening.  Not retreat to a safe distance and call for support.  Nope.  She chose "KILL."  When you CHOOSE "KILL," there should be criminal culpability for that.

And the racial dynamics are NOT the same, because of the presence of marijuana.  He's not an innocent black man.  He's a "drug-crazed giant black man who refused to follow a lawful order."  The presence of the marijuana meant that this case was over before it started.  She walks.  For that reason.

[immortal13 4059]

This was more than just a simple fuck up. Opening the wrong door was a fuck up.  Her actions AFTER she opened the wrong door are what she should have to pay for. 

[TwiceHorn 31264]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

But the ultimate act was a DECISION.  She had a "go/no-go" moment....and she selected "GO."  Fatal "GO."  Because she is predisposed to choose "GO."  Not pause to figure out what's actually happening.  Not retreat to a safe distance and call for support.  Nope.  She chose "KILL."  When you CHOOSE "KILL," there should be criminal culpability for that.

And the racial dynamics are NOT the same, because of the presence of marijuana.  He's not an innocent black man.  He's a "drug-crazed giant black man who refused to follow a lawful order."  The presence of the marijuana meant that this case was over before it started.  She walks.  For that reason.

It was a black kid at a scary black kid party, no doubt filled with reefer and malt liquor, in the grove.  No real difference.

Edited May 2, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Brisketexan 104560]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

It was a black kid at a scary black kid party in the grove.  No real difference.

Yeah, I disagree.  In the first case, the only scary factor is "black."  Here, it's "black on drugs."  And "on drugs" has an amazing mathematical property when applied to "black" -- it's like an exponent.  When it comes to frightening, 'black" is one thing, but "black on drugs" is "black to the 10th power."

It will be the narrative.  

It will work.

She will walk.

You and I both know it.

[TwiceHorn 31264]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Yeah, I disagree.  In the first case, the only scary factor is "black."  Here, it's "black on drugs."  And "on drugs" has an amazing mathematical property when applied to "black" -- it's like an exponent.  When it comes to frightening, 'black" is one thing, but "black on drugs" is "black to the 10th power."

It will be the narrative.  

It will work.

She will walk.

You and I both know it.

Will it work if the jury is all black?  Or a combination of black and hispanic?  Henry Wade is not the Dallas County DA anymore.

In any event, I have been dragged off my more general points into the specifics of this case.

[Brisketexan 104560]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Will it work if the jury is all black?  Or a combination of black and hispanic?  Henry Wade is not the Dallas County DA anymore.

In any event, I have been dragged off my more general points into the specifics of this case.

Al it takes is a couple of scared white folks to hang the jury.  Think you can find any of those in Dallas?

And we want to see a guilty verdict because JUSTICE matters.  If people feel like they can be victimized by a particular class/order - here, the cops and the dominant power structure (which necessarily involves race - with no ordered justice, then they will 1) not believe in the system of laws and justice, and at times 2) seek to impose justice on their own.

For a system of justice to work, it must actually dispense some measure of justice.  And in a world of criminal acts/not criminal acts, the decision that this does not fall on the "criminal acts" side of things will not be justice.

A black man can be sitting in his apartment, mellowing out and playing video games....and a white cop can bust in, kill him, and say "oh my god, what a mistake, I'm sorry," AND WALK.  There is no way that statement I just typed = justice.  And that's exactly what's going to happen.

[TornACL 7675]

33 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

There are fatal incidents, where someone is civilly liable for negligence, on a nearly daily basis.  They rarely involve criminal prosecution.

All of my rhetorical questions are provoked by, but in no way specific to this particular case.

I'm just trying to get people to question their assumptions about criminal justice.  Because you can see that there are a lot of assumptions, and strongly held, but never questioned, beliefs driving a lot of the discussion here.

I just don't understand the argument here. Are you trying to say that negligence kills people all the time, so why are people so thirsty for justice in this case? That's a disingenuous argument. 

I have no idea if there are more civil negligence cases than criminal negligence cases. Sounds reasonable though so I'll take your word for it. But they're two different things altogether, so why are we lumping them in with one another?  I have a really hard time with the suggestion that pointing a gun at someone in their own apartment and shooting them fatally is equivalent to say, haphazardly chopping down a tree branch that falls the wrong way and kills a pedestrian.  

Edited May 2, 2019 by TornACL

[TwiceHorn 31264]

6 minutes ago, TornACL said:

I just don't understand the argument here. Are you trying to say that negligence kills people all the time, so why are people so thirsty for justice in this case? That's a disingenuous argument. 

I have no idea if there are more civil negligence cases than criminal negligence cases. Sounds reasonable though so I'll take your word for it. But they're two different things altogether, so why are we lumping them in with one another?  I have a really hard time with the suggestion that pointing a gun at someone in their own apartment and shooting them fatally is equivalent to say, haphazardly chopping down a tree branch that falls the wrong way and kills a pedestrian.  Fortunately, so does the legal system. 

I have never said IN THIS CASE.  On this page, except where brisket dragged me into specifics, I am speaking in generalities.  This board, over and over and over again, is downright bloodthirsty.  And it's not just this board, it's 'murica.  People just really like to assess blame.

I fully understand why people want the cop to burn.  And in most cases, they want the defendant, whoever it is, to burn, too.

Edited May 2, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[TornACL 7675]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

I have never said IN THIS CASE.  On this page, except where brisket dragged me into specifics, I am speaking in generalities.  This board, over and over and over again, is downright bloodthirsty.  And it's not just this board, it's 'murica.

I fully understand why people want the cop to burn.  And in most cases, they want the defendant, whoever it is, to burn, too.

But you're arguing what exactly? That there are lots of other cases that don't go to criminal court that are bad, too?

I mean, there's a reason things become national news stories. There's also a reason why some cases go down the path of civil charges vs. criminal. I don't get the equivalency argument, and I definitely don't agree that if you're mad about this one thing, you're a hypocrite if you weren't also mad about these other 100 things. Every individual story moves people differently, sometimes for personal reasons.

We've been a bloodthirsty society forever. Fortunately, you know, we're at least more civil today. And we don't form pitchfork and torch mobs to hunt down suspected criminals, anymore. At least not usually. Now we just type about it on the internet. 

[Brisketexan 104560]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I have never said IN THIS CASE.  On this page, except where brisket dragged me into specifics, I am speaking in generalities.  This board, over and over and over again, is downright bloodthirsty.  And it's not just this board, it's 'murica.  People just really like to assess blame.

I fully understand why people want the cop to burn.  And in most cases, they want the defendant, whoever it is, to burn, too.

I'm not bloodthirsty -- you've seen my responses on other threads, where the death penalty is discussed, etc.

I'm a fan of the rule of law.  People need to believe in it for it to be effective, and to provide any real social order.  Reinforcing the fact that when 1) the victim is a black man (crazed on drugs!) and/or 2) the killer is a cop, the rule of law isn't really a thing.....that leads to BAD outcomes.  If folks don't see the ump calling balls and strikes the same way for both teams, fuck the ump.  They'll just quit playing this bullshit game called "a society governed by laws."

['stache 21763]

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I have never said IN THIS CASE.  On this page, except where brisket dragged me into specifics, I am speaking in generalities.  This board, over and over and over again, is downright bloodthirsty.  And it's not just this board, it's 'murica.  People just really like to assess blame.

I fully understand why people want the cop to burn.  And in most cases, they want the defendant, whoever it is, to burn, too.

Did I miss the Surly thread of bloodthirst concerning negligence homicide by auto? I still can't figure out why you think this situation bears any resemblance to any other story discussed on this board.

[TwiceHorn 31264]

12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I'm not bloodthirsty -- you've seen my responses on other threads, where the death penalty is discussed, etc.

I'm a fan of the rule of law.  People need to believe in it for it to be effective, and to provide any real social order.  Reinforcing the fact that when 1) the victim is a black man (crazed on drugs!) and/or 2) the killer is a cop, the rule of law isn't really a thing.....that leads to BAD outcomes.  If folks don't see the ump calling balls and strikes the same way for both teams, fuck the ump.  They'll just quit playing this bullshit game called "a society governed by laws."

No, you're not generally, and you raise valid points about a need for justice here. You aren't really the target of my points.  Unfortunately, for the cop vs. POC debate, this just isn't a real good "test case;" it's too far from the factual norm until you start simplifying it in ways that may be unfair:  cop vs. civilian, or better yet white cop vs. black civilian.  Yes, cops shoot too fast and too often, but this isn't a great test case of that, either.  The Oliver case was, though, and it came out as it should.

Setting aside, for a moment, the prejudices and peccadilloes of juries (which I am willing to live with if the jury is a reasonable cross section), there's an appropriate charge here under Texas law, and that's murder, and there may be some self-defense defenses applicable.  How that shakes out, for guilty or not-guilty, is a tough, tough call that I'm willing to let a jury make.

Edited May 2, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31264]

23 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Did I miss the Surly thread of bloodthirst concerning negligence homicide by auto? I still can't figure out why you think this situation bears any resemblance to any other story discussed on this board.

Lets simplify this case in a different way.  A legally armed civilian fucks up and staggers into someone else's apartment, thinks they are an intruder, and shoots them.  They die.

Would we all be screaming for that armed civilian to burn?  Or might we be a little more willing to call it a horrible fucking accident and consider that while a criminal prosecution might be appropriate, a lengthy jail sentence or even jail at all, might not be?

I'm not saying a jail sentence is or is not appropriate here.  As I have said, if the prosecution does a solid job, and the defense threads the self-defense needle and doesn't just play the race card, and the jury is a cross-section resulting from vigorous voir dire befitting a murder case, then I'll  live with what the jury decides.

Edited May 2, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[gyroprotagonist 2591]

She entered a room, pulled a gun, aimed and shot/killed a guy.  Those are facts.  She was not in her apartment, but in his.  also fact. 

Does it matter what she thought?  Where he was in the room?  how dark it was?  how tired she was?  How sorry she is about it?  How much she feared for her life?

Does the law permit any of the questions above to mitigate the facts?

[TwiceHorn 31264]

1 minute ago, gyroprotagonist said:

She entered a room, pulled a gun, aimed and shot/killed a guy.  Those are facts.  She was not in her apartment, but in his.  also fact. 

Does it matter what she thought?  Where he was in the room?  how dark it was?  how tired she was?  How sorry she is about it?  How much she feared for her life?

Does the law permit any of the questions above to mitigate the facts?

See the lengthy discussion of the defenses on the prior page.  And earlier on the thread.

[Shaggy3.0 1695]

If you read any of her social media posts, she was borderline retarded.  She could have been one of FB posts that Vic posts daily on the FB thread.  
She was also ready to kill, according to all her pinterest shit.  She walked around 24/7 looking for an excuse.  That shit can't be overlooked either.

...but is she hot? Looks are important. If she was a solid 8, it would be light punishment. She’s 5.5-6.5. Punishment can go either way.

[TwiceHorn 31264]

1 minute ago, Shaggy3.0 said:

 

 

...but is she hot? Looks are important. If she was a solid 8, it would be light punishment. She’s 5.5-6.5. Punishment can go either way.

Lmao no, she's not.

Instagram version:

Mugshot version:

Realistic daily version:

She's a two-face facerack.

[Brisketexan 104560]

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Lets simplify this case in a different way.  A legally armed civilian fucks up and staggers into someone else's apartment, thinks they are an intruder, and shoots them.  They die.

Would we all be screaming for that armed civilian to burn?  Or might we be a little more willing to call it a horrible fucking accident and consider that while a criminal prosecution might be appropriate, a lengthy jail sentence or even jail at all, might not be?

I would be expecting a criminal conviction.  Because all mistakes conceded, she still reached a decision point: when she opened her door and saw someone unexpected inside, instead of giving him ample chance to safely respond, or instead of backing away and choosing not to take a human life, she QUICKLY chose "kill him."  That choice is a choice for which there should be criminal culpability.  Uniform or not.  And actually, in my mind, yes, the uniform makes her even MORE culpable.

And maybe ask yourself this....had she opened the door, and seen (for example) this guy, would she have immediately shot him, or would she have taken more time to act/backed away?

['stache 21763]

24 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Lets simplify this case in a different way.  A legally armed civilian fucks up and staggers into someone else's apartment, thinks they are an intruder, and shoots them.  They die.

Would we all be screaming for that armed civilian to burn?  Or might we be a little more willing to call it a horrible fucking accident and consider that while a criminal prosecution might be appropriate, a lengthy jail sentence or even jail at all, might not be?

I'm not saying a jail sentence is or is not appropriate here.  As I have said, if the prosecution does a solid job, and the defense threads the self-defense needle and doesn't just play the race card, and the jury is a cross-section resulting from vigorous voir dire befitting a murder case, then I'll  live with what the jury decides.

So you think that her being a cop is why we are calling for jail time? That's an interesting take. Sure, it makes us more surly than normal, but I can assure you I would feel the same about your described situation as I do about this one. Don't be so fucking stupid to enter someone's house, and sure as fuck don't be so confident in yourself that you start blasting your pistol at anyone you think might deserve it, especially when the facts are clear that it was entirely a fuck up on you. Yeah, I want people like that punished, hard, because the level of negligence is so beyond the norm. An "oopsie-poopsie" defense doesn't fly for me in any such situation.

[TwiceHorn 31264]

10 minutes ago, 'stache said:

So you think that her being a cop is why we are calling for jail time? That's an interesting take. Sure, it makes us more surly than normal, but I can assure you I would feel the same about your described situation as I do about this one. Don't be so fucking stupid to enter someone's house, and sure as fuck don't be so confident in yourself that you start blasting your pistol at anyone you think might deserve it, especially when the facts are clear that it was entirely a fuck up on you. Yeah, I want people like that punished, hard, because the level of negligence is so beyond the norm. An "oopsie-poopsie" defense doesn't fly for me in any such situation.

No, it's complicated.  Part of it is just blood lust.  Part of it is she's a cop.  Part of it is she's a she.  Part of it is he's black and she's white.

What purpose does it serve to punish people like that, hard?  Do you think it stops others from making similar mistakes?  Do you think it will prevent her from making a similar mistake? 

How do you feel about her having a multi-hundred thousand dollar judgment hanging over her head for the rest of her life (if the plaintiff is diligent it will be forever and she will never accumulate property).  That's good for most negligence cases.

Edited May 2, 2019 by TwiceHorn

['stache 21763]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

No, it's complicated.  Part of it is just blood lust.  Part of it is she's a cop.  Part of it is she's a she.  Part of it is he's black and she's white.

What purpose does it serve to punish people like that, hard?  Do you think it stops others from making similar mistakes?  Do you think it will prevent her from making a similar mistake? 

Yes, and yes.

And it's not that complicated. She killed an innocent man in his own house. The burden is on her to justify it, and I'm just not seeing any application of law that makes it okay.

[TwiceHorn 31264]

22 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Yes, and yes.

And it's not that complicated. She killed an innocent man in his own house. The burden is on her to justify it, and I'm just not seeing any application of law that makes it okay.

Lmao.  No.  She's a criminal defendant in the United States.  The burden is not on her to justify it.

And other than while she's incarcerated, I think you are completely full of shit on your "deterrence" arguments.  The facts are too bizarre to have any deterrent effect, if that were even a thing (hint, it's not).

The bloodlust runs strong in this one. 

Lets back the hypothetical up one more step.

Someone mistakenly enters someone else's home.  The homeowner is armed and blasts them as they walk through the door after fumbling with the lock/doorknob.

Jail or no jail?

The homeowner meets all your criteria for punishment, hard, except that he didn't fuck up and enter the wrong person's house.

Edited May 2, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Brisketexan 104560]

16 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

No, it's complicated.  Part of it is just blood lust.  Part of it is she's a cop.  Part of it is she's a she.  Part of it is he's black and she's white.

What purpose does it serve to punish people like that, hard?  Do you think it stops others from making similar mistakes?  Do you think it will prevent her from making a similar mistake? 

Part of it is that she's a cop.  You bet.  She should know better than immediately default to "kill the shit outta that guy."  Although in reality, that IS the cop default.  And it should be discouraged, and punished.

Damned right part of it is that he's black and she's white.  Because I will ask again -- if she opened the door and saw the geeky white guy above, would she have been as quick on the trigger? I think it's quite likely that the Botham Jean's blackness was a significant contributing factor to her decision to kill the shit out of him.  She would have been LESS likely to do so if he'd have been a safe looking white guy instead of a scary looking black guy.....even though the only real difference between the two guys is color.

What purpose does it serve?  It serves the purpose of telling black people that their lives aren't fucking expendable.  It serves the purpose of telling civilians that cops can't just kill them, say "sorry," and walk away.  It serves the purpose of telling people that they are and should always be safe in their own homes, and the law has their back.  It serves the purpose of telling people 'hey, don't immediately opt for option 'SHOOT! KILL!' when confronted with a potential danger."  Lots of purposes.  People need to believe in the rule of law, and that the rule of law protects them.  Black people ESPECIALLY need to believe that.

It's okay, though -- none of those reasons will be satisfied.  Because she will walk.  Because you CAN shoot a black guy in his own home.  You CAN opt for "KILL!" as your first option.  You CAN get away with anything when you're a cop.  That's the message that will be sent loud and clear.  No worries, it's not a new message.

[Chewbacca 7729]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Lmao.  No.  She's a criminal defendant in the United States.  The burden is not on her to justify it.

And other than while she's incarcerated, I think you are completely full of shit on your "deterrence" arguments.  The facts are too bizarre to have any deterrent effect, if that were even a thing (hint, it's not).

The bloodlust runs strong in this one. 

Lets back the hypothetical up one more step.

Someone mistakenly enters someone else's home.  The homeowner is armed and blasts them as they walk through the door after fumbling with the lock/doorknob.

Jail or no jail?

The homeowner meets all your criteria for punishment, hard, except that he didn't fuck up and enter the wrong person's house.

It's not bloodlust to want justice to be served.  

[Royalfan5 2348]

11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Lmao.  No.  She's a criminal defendant in the United States.  The burden is not on her to justify it.

And other than while she's incarcerated, I think you are completely full of shit on your "deterrence" arguments.

The bloodlust runs strong in this one.

Lets back the hypothetical up one more step.

Someone mistakenly enters someone else's home.  The homeowner is armed and blasts them as they walk through the door after fumbling with the lock/doorknob.

Jail or no jail?

The homeowner meets all your criteria for punishment, hard, except that he didn't fuck up and enter the wrong person's house.

I’m pretty sure a few folks have been sent to jail for unloading on someone through their door. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Renisha_McBride

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/detroit-man-found-guilty-after-shooting-at-black-teen-who-knocked-on-his-door/

Edited May 2, 2019 by Royalfan5