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

[TwiceHorn 31495]

1 minute ago, Chewbacca said:

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

But what justice?  You're just talking in empty phrases.

Here's an even better hypothetical.

Legally armed visitor in a home hears an intruder fumblng with the front door.  The "intruder" comes in and gets blasted by the visitor. The intruder is the homeowner.  Guy is innocent, and DEAD IN HIS OWN HOME!

Jail or no jail?

[TwiceHorn 31495]

14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

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.

Stop interrupting my socratic dialog with the facts of the case, dammit.  I'm having fun playing Robert Hamilton.

 

[Chewbacca 7780]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

But what justice?  You're just talking in empty phrases.

Here's an even better hypothetical.

Legally armed visitor in a home hears an intruder fumblng with the front door.  The "intruder" comes in and gets blasted by the visitor. The intruder is the homeowner.  Guy is innocent, and DEAD IN HIS OWN HOME!

Jail or no jail?

Instead of hypotheticals, how about we look at what actually happened?  In this particular case, she needs to go to jail.  Period.

[TwiceHorn 31495]

Just now, Chewbacca said:

Instead of hypotheticals, how about we look at what actually happened?  In this particular case, she needs to go to jail.  Period.

Because I am trying to get people to think a little harder about what justice is and what our criminal system does and why.

[Brisketexan 105154]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Because I am trying to get people to think a little harder about what justice is and what our criminal system does and why.

In summary form, justice is what puts black guys in prison or graves, and lets white girls and cops go free.  Some exceptions apply....but not many.

Sure, it's hyperbole.....that will end up being true in this case, and that's the takeaway that we the people will be left with.  Again.  

If you're a black man, do you feel like the rule of law protects you in this country?  Yeah, I didn't think so.

['stache 21819]

Because I am trying to get people to think a little harder about what justice is and what our criminal system does and why.

No your not. People have explained and you just accuse them of “bloodlust.” There will be at least one of you on the jury and she’ll walk. “Just asking questions” lol.

[TwiceHorn 31495]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

In summary form, justice is what puts black guys in prison or graves, and lets white girls and cops go free.  Some exceptions apply....but not many.

Sure, it's hyperbole.....that will end up being true in this case, and that's the takeaway that we the people will be left with.  Again.  

If you're a black man, do you feel like the rule of law protects you in this country?  Yeah, I didn't think so.

You won't find me disagreeing with any of these broad points.  I think it is deeply unfortunate that this case is being perceived that way.  I am fairly sure that the civil system is going to give this black family ample "justice."

I think our criminal justice system is severely out of whack, both racially and substantively, because no one gives it any real thought.  It's "they're bad," "this is bad,"  they need "justice," and to be punished, hard.

Edited May 2, 2019 by TwiceHorn

['stache 21819]

Because I am trying to get people to think a little harder about what justice is and what our criminal system does and why.

No your not. People have explained and you just accuse them of “bloodlust.” There will be at least one of you on the jury and she’ll walk. “Just asking questions” lol.

[TwiceHorn 31495]

15 minutes ago, 'stache said:

No your not. People have explained and you just accuse them of “bloodlust.” There will be at least one of you on the jury and she’ll walk. “Just asking questions” lol.

Whatever.  I find your explanations inadequate, facile, and in some cases stupid, leaving the only plausible explanation to be bloodlust.

I have never once said she SHOULD walk.  Not one single time.  But other than to serve the political narrative of white cop/black victim, I'm not convinced any kind of jail time serves any real purpose here.

You just seem incapable of backing away from the particular facts of this case and seeing it more objectively.

The facts of this particular case, insofar as they are known, have been beaten to fucking death on the previous 42 pages of this thread.

If I were a juror in this case, one thing I would not do is excuse her because she's an itty bitty white girl scared of a drug-crazed black man.  I think the state has a pretty easy burden, initially, of proving murder.  What I am unsure of, is whether Texas' self defense laws can be met.  And I am even more unsure what is a proper sentence should she be convicted.

 

Edited May 2, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Huckleberry 32997]

But what justice?  You're just talking in empty phrases.
Here's an even better hypothetical.
Legally armed visitor in a home hears an intruder fumblng with the front door.  The "intruder" comes in and gets blasted by the visitor. The intruder is the homeowner.  Guy is innocent, and DEAD IN HIS OWN HOME!
Jail or no jail?

Yes.

That was easy.

[Huckleberry 32997]

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?

No.

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

Exactly.

This is really easy. I feel like Captain America, I could do this all day.

[Huckleberry 32997]

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?

 

Jail. No need to burn.

 

This is simpler than defending a Greg Davis offense.

 

[TwiceHorn 31495]

Thanks for playing.

In the first and second hypos, you find it satisfactory that the "castle doctrine" would apparently shield the homeowner/shooter in almost identical circumstances?  I can certainly see the theoretical distinction, that you are allowed to be less responsible in your own home, but I find the different outcomes fairly unsatisfactory.  In real world terms, the dissatisfaction I feel could be compensated by a light sentence for the visitor/defender.

Similarly, I find the initial mistake of entering the wrong home to be kind of a flimsy, or unsatisfactory basis for absolutely saying jail in one instance and not in the other.  Granted, it's a colossal mistake and compounded by the "free-shooting" aspect, but if it is sincerely believed, I don't find it a "jailworthy" distinction in and of itself.

I find the "free-shooting," meaning without retreat or reflection, to be the most troubling aspect of any of these scenarios or crimes.  Doesn't matter whether it's from police training, general fearfulness, racially motivated fearfulness, or aggro cowboyness.   I find it somewhat curious and logically inconsistent that it is excused in some situations and sort of "doubled-down" on in others, based primarily on one's location.

Pretty sure I agree with "no need to burn" in any of the circumstances.  Five years tops?

Edited May 3, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[4th and 5 4914]

Interesting how many people here know the facts.

Imma tell you guys something that will stand the test of time. This case won't be won or lost on he was black, had drugs, she was white and a cop, etc.

What will matter is the reasonableness of her belief and factors like similarity or dissimilarity of apartments; if she entered the apartment, and if so, how; lighting; distance between the parties, words or actions by both parties, visibility, perception and reaction time 

I bet the weed is excluded by the trial court as irrelevant. Now a toxicology report showing active THC or other substance in his system might be. I said might. And anything in hers would be for sure.

 

[Brisketexan 105154]

Interesting how many people here know the facts.
Imma tell you guys something that will stand the test of time. This case won't be won or lost on he was black, had drugs, she was white and a cop, etc.
What will matter is the reasonableness of her belief and factors like similarity or dissimilarity of apartments; if she entered the apartment, and if so, how; lighting; distance between the parties, words or actions by both parties, visibility, perception and reaction time 
I bet the weed is excluded by the trial court as irrelevant. Now a toxicology report showing active THC or other substance in his system might be. I said might. And anything in hers would be for sure.
 

The weed will be admitted. You know that.

And nobody has answered my unpleasant question...of she had encountered the geeky white guy I posted above, would she have been so quick on the trigger? We know that the answer is “almost certainly not.”

Jean is dead because he was a scary black guy, not a harmless white guy. Like it or not, that’s important.

[Chewbacca 7780]

The weed will be admitted. You know that.

And nobody has answered my unpleasant question...of she had encountered the geeky white guy I posted above, would she have been so quick on the trigger? We know that the answer is “almost certainly not.”

Jean is dead because he was a scary black guy, not a harmless white guy. Like it or not, that’s important.

Weed will 100% be part of the defense.

[TwiceHorn 31495]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The weed will be admitted. You know that.

And nobody has answered my unpleasant question...of she had encountered the geeky white guy I posted above, would she have been so quick on the trigger? We know that the answer is “almost certainly not.”

Jean is dead because he was a scary black guy, not a harmless white guy. Like it or not, that’s important.

I dunno.  What if it's discovered she had a bunch of Blacks on Blondes DVDs back at home?

[TwiceHorn 31495]

I had never looked, but the presiding judge is a black woman. https://judgetammykemp.com/

[Huckleberry 32997]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Thanks for playing.

In the first and second hypos, you find it satisfactory that the "castle doctrine" would apparently shield the homeowner/shooter in almost identical circumstances?  I can certainly see the theoretical distinction, that you are allowed to be less responsible in your own home, but I find the different outcomes fairly unsatisfactory.  In real world terms, the dissatisfaction I feel could be compensated by a light sentence for the visitor/defender.

Similarly, I find the initial mistake of entering the wrong home to be kind of a flimsy, or unsatisfactory basis for absolutely saying jail in one instance and not in the other.  Granted, it's a colossal mistake and compounded by the "free-shooting" aspect, but if it is sincerely believed, I don't find it a "jailworthy" distinction in and of itself.

I find the "free-shooting," meaning without retreat or reflection, to be the most troubling aspect of any of these scenarios or crimes.  Doesn't matter whether it's from police training, general fearfulness, racially motivated fearfulness, or aggro cowboyness.   I find it somewhat curious and logically inconsistent that it is excused in some situations and sort of "doubled-down" on in others, based primarily on one's location.

Pretty sure I agree with "no need to burn" in any of the circumstances.  Five years tops?

It's not about being allowed to be less responsible in your own home as much as it's about being secure in your own home when you're the one who gets shot. I'm not only looking at it from the shooter's perspective but from the one who is shot. Who did something "wrong"? The one who fired the shot, the one who got shot, neither, or both?

In the case that started this thread, the shooter did. Innocent person minding their own business is shot to death in their home.

In your first hypothetical the shooter did. It's not his home, he needs to be extra fucking sure he can shoot the person fumbling with the door especially because presumably he knows the homeowner isn't home. The homeowner entering his own home is doing nothing wrong.

In the second I addressed the shooter did nothing wrong. The person who got shot did, they criminally trespassed (accidentally) into someone else's home.

In the third the shooter did something wrong. The dead person did nothing wrong.

If you use deadly force you need to be really sure you are in the right.

[TwiceHorn 31495]

35 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

It's not about being allowed to be less responsible in your own home as much as it's about being secure in your own home when you're the one who gets shot. I'm not only looking at it from the shooter's perspective but from the one who is shot. Who did something "wrong"? The one who fired the shot, the one who got shot, neither, or both?

In the case that started this thread, the shooter did. Innocent person minding their own business is shot to death in their home.

In your first hypothetical the shooter did. It's not his home, he needs to be extra fucking sure he can shoot the person fumbling with the door especially because presumably he knows the homeowner isn't home. The homeowner entering his own home is doing nothing wrong.

In the second I addressed the shooter did nothing wrong. The person who got shot did, they criminally trespassed (accidentally) into someone else's home.

In the third the shooter did something wrong. The dead person did nothing wrong.

If you use deadly force you need to be really sure you are in the right.

Fair analysis.  I guess, legally, the focus tends to be on the conduct and state of mind of the defendant, but that's certainly not a hard and fast rule, as many modern crimes take into account the "status' of the victim, if not their blameworthy conduct.

 

Also, it's worth noting that I think "castle doctrine" codification is fairly disgusting pandering by criminal law to certain interest groups.  Regular self-defense was adequate for most legitimate home-defense shootings, it didn't really need to be supplemented or further codified and we'll probably see some pretty anomalous and disgusting results from it before it's all over.

Edited May 3, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Huckleberry 32997]

Right, I admit it might not be the legal precedent to consider that, but if both parties were doing something wrong I'd be more likely to understand no jail time. Or if somehow neither one were doing anything wrong (like a wife shoots her husband when he's stumbling in late because she thought he was gone for the weekend).

And in the Guyger case I also have stated and still believe that the fact she was a police officer should result in more severe consequences than if she had been a regular citizen. She should be better trained and if she is going to do something like this then she needs it on her record in a manner which never allows her to work as a peace officer again.

[TwiceHorn 31495]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

Right, I admit it might not be the legal precedent to consider that, but if both parties were doing something wrong I'd be more likely to understand no jail time. Or if somehow neither one were doing anything wrong (like a wife shoots her husband when he's stumbling in late because she thought he was gone for the weekend).

And in the Guyger case I also have stated and still believe that the fact she was a police officer should result in more severe consequences than if she had been a regular citizen. She should be better trained and if she is going to do something like this then she needs it on her record in a manner which never allows her to work as a peace officer again.

I was just thinking that she could even play that to her benefit.  I was poorly trained by DPD to shoot first, ask questions later.  I'm a victim!!

If it were any job other than policing, she'd be PNG already, but it's cops, so you never really know unless it's something that revokes their eligibility for a license.

[TornACL 7705]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

You won't find me disagreeing with any of these broad points.  I think it is deeply unfortunate that this case is being perceived that way.  I am fairly sure that the civil system is going to give this black family ample "justice."

I think our criminal justice system is severely out of whack, both racially and substantively, because no one gives it any real thought.  It's "they're bad," "this is bad,"  they need "justice," and to be punished, hard.

Why are you equating message board fodder with the rule of law? You seem to be trying very hard to make a grand point, but you're all over the place in your attempt to do so. 

[TwiceHorn 31495]

21 minutes ago, TornACL said:

Why are you equating message board fodder with the rule of law? You seem to be trying very hard to make a grand point, but you're all over the place in your attempt to do so. 

Im trying to get people to look at this a little harder than just the aggravating facts.

Brisket is bound and determined to make it a social justice issue only.

This was an accident.  There are several things that differentiate it from a more common accident and may form a basis for (severe) criminal sanctions.  Or not.  Huckleberry, so far, is the only person that has played along to examine those differentiating factors.

Like it or not, emotional, semi- or irrational reactions, even on message boards (because it reflects the id of the people), partially explain why our justice system is FUBAR.  These kinds of attitudes mean that politicians can pander to people with new criminal laws or punishments (mandatory minimums!! crack sentencing!!!  death penalty for fentanyl!!!)  by focusing on the most emotional or horrible crimes, while the law itself has application to a broad range of defendants.  Takes a couple of decades and a couple hundred thousand incarcerated before we figure out maybe we were a little overboard on that, if we ever do.

Edited May 3, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[TornACL 7705]

Mandatory drug sentencing is a totally different tangent. 

I do find it interesting that the grand jury came back and trumped up the charge to murder. Maybe it's wanton bloodlust, or maybe we don't know all the facts yet. 

Speaking of facts, I really can't grasp your idea that we should look beyond the facts of this case. The facts are everything, and why this case is interesting to people. To think bigger and to start talking about the justice system is to change the subject entirely. 

If you want to argue that the justice system has run amok, fine, I probably agree, but this seems a bizarre case on which to hitch your wagon. There are literally thousands of better choices. 

Your grander arguments here are as much noise as anyone talking social injustice or evil cops. 

Regardless, "Oops I accidentally killed someone" does not feel, to me, like a defense that should let someone off when they pointed a loaded firearm at someone and fired twice. Even if they feel really, really bad about it. 

Edited May 3, 2019 by TornACL

[Deej 76830]

How is wanting to see her serve some time for her actions "bloodlust"? She wrongly killed an innocent man. She should suffer some consequences. Has anyone here claimed she should be up for the death penalty?

[TwiceHorn 31495]

Just now, TornACL said:

Mandatory drug sentencing is a totally different tangent. 

I do find it interesting that the grand jury came back and trumped up the charge to murder. Maybe it's wanton bloodlust, or maybe we don't know all the facts yet. 

Speaking of facts, I really can't grasp your idea that we should look beyond the facts of this case. The facts are everything, and why this case is interesting to people. To think bigger and to start talking about the justice system is to change the subject entirely. 

If you want to argue that the justice system has run amok, fine, I probably agree, but this seems a bizarre case on which to hitch your wagon. There are literally thousands of better choices. 

Your grander arguments here are as much noise as anyone talking social injustice or evil cops. 

Regardless, "Oops I accidentally killed someone" does not feel, to me, like a defense that should let someone off. Even if they feel really, really bad about it. 

Mandatory minimums do not apply solely to drug crimes.  Regardless, the point stands that getting all twisted up about bad crimes with horrific outcomes is frequently what leads to various bad criminal legislation.

The grand jury didn't trump it up to murder, it's the only crime in the Texas Penal Code that can be proven under these facts.  That in and of itself may pose a bit of a problem, but nothing that can't be resolved by "just" sentencing, whatever that is.

It's a bizarre case, yes.  People are trying to oversimplify it in various ways to make it easier to throw the book at her.  It can be simplified in other ways that make it harder, too.

I'm not saying the accidental nature of it should absolve her entirely, by any stretch.

As to Burnt's screed, the outcome was not intended, despite some clearly volitional acts in the chain of events.  As I have said, the "free-shooting" aspect of it is by far the most troublesome issue, but there are circumstances under which "free-shooting" is not murder and doesn't result in criminal prosecution, as the hypotheticals I posed demonstrate.

As 4th and 5 notes, a proper application of the law could result in acquittal and no punishment at all.  There are various non-legal reasons, proposed by Burnt and Brisket, among others, that she might walk.  And then there is what seems to be the Surly consensus that she should be "punished, hard," but no real articulation as to why.  A guilty verdict does not inevitably lead to "punished, hard."  In considering what the punishment should be, we have to look hard at the crime, and what culpable acts occurred.  Not just "an innocent black guy is dead in his own home!!!111!!!"  That is, admittedly, a very bad thing, but that alone cannot serve as the basis of a lengthy sentence.

[SDG 3319]

I have a feeling that the she was “tired” narrative may come back to haunt the city of Dallas when the civil case moves forward. 

[TwiceHorn 31495]

15 minutes ago, Deej said:

How is wanting to see her serve some time for her actions "bloodlust"? She wrongly killed an innocent man. She should suffer some consequences. Has anyone here claimed she should be up for the death penalty?

I have yet to say she shouln't serve some time.  I have objected to the notion that she be "punished, hard" whatever that means.

[Brisketexan 105154]

Im trying to get people to look at this a little harder than just the aggravating facts. Brisket is bound and determined to make it a social justice issue only.

This was an accident. 

 

1 - fucking bullshit, I have in no way made this a “social justice issue only.” The only thing dumber than doing that would be to deny the fucking obvious: the victim’s race played a role in her decision to shoot, and shoot right away - yes or no?

 

 

2 - it. Was. Not. An accident. Read the excellent post below. Then read it again.

 

She committed a PURPOSEFUL ACT. She did not HAVE to shoot him. She had lots of options. Shit, waiting a few more seconds would have been an easy one. It would have given her time to figure out what was actually happening. She could have taken a lot more seriously the choice to use a firearm to take a life.

 

There was a shoot/don’t shoot (with myriad paths for that option) Fork in the road. She made a conscious choice to SHOOT, instead of “don’t shoot.” She could have chosen the other path.

 

She didn’t. She made a choice. A choice to kill a man, with no hesitation.

 

That’s a fucking crime.

 

These things are interconnected. She made a choice. Her choice was almost certainly influenced by the fact that he was a black man. You want to run away from that. But you can’t. It’s one of the facts of the case.

 

 

You keep saying it was an accident. Drawing a gun, that was loaded, aiming at someone, pulling the trigger, resetting your sights, and pulling the trigger again is not an accident.

It's a choice.

Rules of gun safety.

1) All guns are always loaded

2) Never point a gun at something you are not willing to destroy or kill

3) Confirm your target

4) never put your finger on on trigger until your gun is pointed in a safe direction

Choice.

Shooting a gun at a human on purpose is intent.

You intended to, at best, STOP the threat.

She intended to shoot him twice.

An accident is "I was an idiot and I was cleaning my gun and dropped the hammer and a round came out and hit the person across the room."

Negligent discharge is an accident.

I have no idea why you keep calling a choice to draw a loaded weapon and fire it at another human an accident.

That is, no matter the legal status, never an accident. It is a choice.

And as for your emotional bullshit at the end.

I have been against the War on Drugs for over 20 years.

I have been a competitive pistol shooter for over 20 years.

I worked for the state.

I have family in law enforcement.

You are sweeping a wide brushing to make a point that simply isn't relevant to this case. I don't know why.

But I'm going to close with this.

You are wrong factually and literally for using the word accident for what occurred in this situation by definition.

 

 

 

 

Again, fantastic post.

 

 

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31495]

12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

1 - fucking bullshit, I have in no way made this a “social justice issue only.” The only thing dumber than doing that would be to deny the fucking obvious: the victim’s race played a role in her decision to shoot, and shoot thorn away - yes or no?


2 - it. Was. Not. An accident. Read the excellent post below. Then read it again.

She committed a PURPOSEFUL ACT. She did not HAVE to shoot him. She had lots of options. Shit, waiting a few more seconds would have been an easy one. It would have given her time to figure out what was actually happening. She could have taken a lot more seriously the choice to use a firearm to take a life.

She didn’t. She made a choice. A choice to kill a man, with no hesitation.

That’s a fucking crime.

These things are interconnected. She made a choice. Her choice was almost certainly influenced by the fact that he was a black man. You want to run away from that. But you can’t. It’s one of the facts of the case.



Again, fantastic post.

 

In fairness, your last 3-4 posts have been all about how she's going to walk because the system is racist.  I don't deny that the system is racist and pro-cop, but I think at times, it can overcome it.  Change is actually afoot, I think, and this may be one of those cases.  That's what I mean by the social justice issue.

I don't know whether his race played a role.  I would guess that it did, but that's actually unknowable.

Ultimately, it appears that her actions are going to be judged under a reasonableness standard (assuming the defense can properly raise the mistake of fact/self defense issues), just like any negligence case, to wit, an accident.

Yes, her shooting him was an intentional act and the result of a choice.  Negligence cases and other accidents (except maybe the "unavoidable accident") involve intentional acts and omissions and choices that result in harm.  Whether those acts were reasonable or otherwise justified is what determines liability.

 

Edited May 3, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Deej 76830]

Guyger is TwiceHorn! TwiceHorn is Guyger!

[TornACL 7705]

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Mandatory minimums do not apply solely to drug crimes.  Regardless, the point stands that getting all twisted up about bad crimes with horrific outcomes is frequently what leads to various bad criminal legislation.

The grand jury didn't trump it up to murder, it's the only crime in the Texas Penal Code that can be proven under these facts.  That in and of itself may pose a bit of a problem, but nothing that can't be resolved by "just" sentencing, whatever that is.

It's a bizarre case, yes.  People are trying to oversimplify it in various ways to make it easier to throw the book at her.  It can be simplified in other ways that make it harder, too.

I'm not saying the accidental nature of it should absolve her entirely, by any stretch.

As to Burnt's screed, the outcome was not intended, despite some clearly volitional acts in the chain of events.  As I have said, the "free-shooting" aspect of it is by far the most troublesome issue, but there are circumstances under which "free-shooting" is not murder and doesn't result in criminal prosecution, as the hypotheticals I posed demonstrate.

As 4th and 5 notes, a proper application of the law could result in acquittal and no punishment at all.  There are various non-legal reasons, proposed by Burnt and Brisket, among others, that she might walk.  And then there is what seems to be the Surly consensus that she should be "punished, hard," but no real articulation as to why.  A guilty verdict does not inevitably lead to "punished, hard."  In considering what the punishment should be, we have to look hard at the crime, and what culpable acts occurred.  Not just "an innocent black guy is dead in his own home!!!111!!!"  That is, admittedly, a very bad thing, but that alone cannot serve as the basis of a lengthy sentence.

Your meandering arguments against various straw men are getting mighty tiresome. 

She was originally charged with manslaughter. The Grand Jury indicted her on a murder charge. You're confusing criminal homicide with murder. 

[TornACL 7705]

Also, I have a giant problem with the idea that "the outcome wasn't intended" when the defendant pointed a loaded weapon at another human and fired twice. 

When you point a gun at someone and fire twice, there is no doubt the intention. To argue otherwise is completely asinine. 

[Brisketexan 105154]

In fairness, your last 3-4 posts have been all about how she's going to walk because the system is racist.  I don't deny that the system is racist and pro-cop, but I think at times, it can overcome it.  That's what I mean by the social justice issue.
 

Yep. It’s a layer. An undeniable one.

She made a choice. Shoot/don’t shoot wasn’t an accident.

That choice was almost certainly influenced by the race of the victim. Again, imagine if the resident was a white guy. You KNOW the outcome would have been different, but you sure as hell have studiously avoided even touching the question.

His possession of MJ is going to be used by the defense. To show that the victim was even scarier.

The system has a built-in bias against a black man facing a white cop.

Every one of those is a factor.

You discuss this repeatedly as “an accident,” and decry people being out for blood. But you skip over damned near every point I typed above. You’re the one missing every relevant point here.

[TwiceHorn 31495]

Forget it.

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep. It’s a layer. An undeniable one.

She made a choice. Shoot/don’t shoot wasn’t an accident.

That choice was almost certainly influenced by the race of the victim. Again, imagine if the resident was a white guy. You KNOW the outcome would have been different, but you sure as hell have studiously avoided even touching the question.

His possession of MJ is going to be used by the defense. To show that the victim was even scarier.

The system has a built-in bias against a black man facing a white cop.

Every one of those is a factor.

You discuss this repeatedly as “an accident,” and decry people being out for blood. But you skip over damned near every point I typed above. You’re the one missing every relevant point here.

I'm not trying to address the specifics of this case.  I'm trying to generalize a case to which we can add the aggravating factors.

Race of the victim and the MJ have no relevance to her legal culpability or how she should be punished.

Edited May 3, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31495]

21 minutes ago, TornACL said:

Your meandering arguments against various straw men are getting mighty tiresome. 

She was originally charged with manslaughter. The Grand Jury indicted her on a murder charge. You're confusing criminal homicide with murder. 

No, really I'm not.  She was "charged" (arrested by a capias warrant) by DPD, which didn't know what it was doing, with something other than murder, manslaughter sounds right, but I disremember.  The only indictment in the case, which is the only thing that matters, has been for murder.

My meandering arguments were a point for point response to your post, pretty much.

[Brisketexan 105154]

Race of the victim and the MJ have no relevance to her legal culpability or how she should be punished.

Actually, both could.

Let’s imagine that the victim really was fried on PCP, and as a result, he immediately charged her yelling with rage. That would be a relevant fact as to her state of mind (you know, the thing that is essential to a “culpable mental state”).

And let’s look into her mental state when she opens the door and sees 1) generic white guy, compared to 2) scary black guy. Is her mental state - as it relates to her lean towards whether to shoot - different in those two situations? If so, relevant.

[TwiceHorn 31495]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Actually, both could.

Let’s imagine that the victim really was fried on PCP, and as a result, he immediately charged her yelling with rage. That would be a relevant fact as to her state of mind (you know, the thing that is essential to a “culpable mental state”).

And let’s look into her mental state when she opens the door and sees 1) generic white guy, compared to 2) scary black guy. Is her mental state - as it relates to her lean towards whether to shoot - different in those two situations? If so, relevant.

I'd call those factual issues, not legal ones.  And race could if they charge it as a hate crime, but they haven't and I don't suppose they will.

Edited May 3, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Gene Parmesan 4008]

The defense strenuously objects

[TornACL 7705]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

No, really I'm not.  She was "charged" (arrested by a capias warrant) by DPD, which didn't know what it was doing, with something other than murder, manslaughter sounds right, but I disremember.  The only indictment in the case, which is the only thing that matters, has been for murder.

My meandering arguments were a point for point response to your post, pretty much.

I told you that your other points weren't relevant, so you doubled down by trying again, and again failing, to make them relevant. 

The Texas Rangers charged her with manslaughter, and the grand jury heard the facts and made the determination to indict on murder. 

This matters, only because you incorrectly stated that murder was the only charge she could possibly be indicted for in this case. That's entirely incorrect. 

I would suggest that work on your accuracy, focus your points, and spend less time trying to tie this case into your grand arguments against the overzealous justice system. 

[4th and 5 4914]

34 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep. It’s a layer. An undeniable one.

She made a choice. Shoot/don’t shoot wasn’t an accident.

That choice was almost certainly influenced by the race of the victim. Again, imagine if the resident was a white guy. You KNOW the outcome would have been different, but you sure as hell have studiously avoided even touching the question.

His possession of MJ is going to be used by the defense. To show that the victim was even scarier.

The system has a built-in bias against a black man facing a white cop.

Every one of those is a factor.

You discuss this repeatedly as “an accident,” and decry people being out for blood. But you skip over damned near every point I typed above. You’re the one missing every relevant point here.

As a lawyer you should be deathly allergic to assumptions

Has it been proven she was aware of his race? Could she determine that based on the nature of the lighting? Was there sufficient lighting? Was there positive or negative contrast created by any available lighting?

Proof of possession of marijuana is not proof of being under the influence at the time. Possession without evidence of recent consumption is routinely excluded in criminal cases. It serves no purpose other than to unduly influence the jury. It is not relevant evidence under TREs or only of such limited relevance as to be subject to exclusion under TRE 403.

If you think the defense is going to play the “he was a big scary black guy with marijuana” card I think you are dead wrong. It is an offensive position to take and I think a jury would greatly resent it. 

Determine the facts. Argue the facts. A reasonable but mistaken belief. The state has to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Edited May 3, 2019 by 4th and 5

[Brisketexan 105154]

I'd call those factual issues, not legal ones.  And race could if they charge it as a hate crime, but they haven't and I don't suppose they will.

Is culpable mental state a legal element? Yes, it is. I’m puzzled as to why you’re so dismissive of that. Why?

[TwiceHorn 31495]

45 minutes ago, TornACL said:

I told you that your other points weren't relevant, so you doubled down by trying again, and again failing, to make them relevant. 

The Texas Rangers charged her with manslaughter, and the grand jury heard the facts and made the determination to indict on murder. 

This matters, only because you incorrectly stated that murder was the only charge she could possibly be indicted for in this case. That's entirely incorrect. 

I would suggest that work on your accuracy, focus your points, and spend less time trying to tie this case into your grand arguments against the overzealous justice system. 

I was mistaken about DPD vs. Texas Ranger.  I stand by the rest of what I said about the indictment.

I have grand general arguments that the "system" is overzealous, at times, as to who it charges and with what, and what is made criminal. I acknowledge that the system is racist and biased in favor of cops, the white, and the wealthy.  I also think, as a separate, but related issue, that sentencing is overly harsh.  In this case, I am trying to find a sort of neutral version of the facts to establish a baseline for punishment, jail, no jail, how much jail.  Then we can add in the aggravating factors, cop, race, drugs, reasonableness etc. to try and come up with a just sentence.

Huckleberry got it, but never came back to address what he thought was a just sentence on the neutral hypos.

The only thing I have actually objected to in this case was "stache's suggestion that she be "punished, hard."

[TornACL 7705]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

I was mistaken about DPD vs. Texas Ranger.  I stand by the rest of what I said about the indictment.

So it'd be impossible to indict her on manslaughter charges. It was murder or nothing. That's what you're going with? 

[TwiceHorn 31495]

8 minutes ago, TornACL said:

So it'd be impossible to indict her on manslaughter charges. It was murder or nothing. That's what you're going with? 

You could indict her for aggravated assault, or any goddamn thing you can get the grand jury to true bill.  If you have an interest in trying a case to a guilty verdict on a homicide charge, you're pretty much going to have to go with murder here.

As has been endlessly belabored, the conduct that caused the death was intentional, not reckless, and not negligent, and it would be extremely risky to try her on those charges, as the jury would be instructed.

Only when the self-defense issues are raised, is there the consideration of reasonableness and its opposites, negligence and recklessness.

Edited May 3, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[TornACL 7705]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You could indict her for aggravated assault.  If you have an interest in trying a case to a guilty verdict on a homicide charge, you're pretty much going to have to go with murder here.

Lol

[Bama Chick 28596]

Did someone really just ask if she was sure the victim was black???

The lighting in the apartment was good enough for her to shoot him twice in the chest without missing so I’m going to assume the lighting was good enough to determine this man was indeed, black.



Also, this is sickening and doesn’t make me feel any more charitable to her like it did for some of y’all.

Most disturbingly, instead of immediately expressing remorse for her actions and what had just occurred, she repeatedly laments the fact that she’s “going to lose her job”—something she mentions 19 times over the course of the call before eventually apologizing to Jean.

“I didn’t mean to. I didn’t mean to,” she says at one point. “I didn’t mean to. I’m sorry.”

“Holy shit. I thought it was my apartment. I thought it was my apartment,” she says later in the call. “Holy shit. I thought it was my apartment. Oh my god.”

Jean can also be heard moaning in agony throughout the call.

She frets about her job NINETEEN TIMES in a six minute call while the man she shot is laying on the floor dying and moaning in agony.

And seriously, stop calling this an accident.

The only accident she made was going in the wrong apartment.

Everything that followed were deliberate choices and decisions she made.

She had a multitude of options available to her -

-pull the gun and order him to stay back
-back out of the apartment and ask who he is
-retreat and run away
-retreat and scream bloody murder to draw attention

Bottom line - she did what a lot of cops do. She saw a black man and assumed the worst and shot first without any attempt to assess the circumstances or attempt to
de-escalate the situation.

She murdered that man. Period.

[PilotsError 2294]

One thing few are mentioning that could acquit her is that she fired twice and hit her intended target twice. No sober, alert, well rested cop could pull that off. It backs up her defense that she was exhausted and in a non alert frame of mind. Only explanation for her pinpoint accuracy.

[WhatTheBuck 28788]

5 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

His possession of MJ is going to be used by the defense. To show that the victim was even scarier.

Which is bullshit because smoking pot makes one more passive, not more dangerous. The only threat he likely posed was to order out for a pizza.