Jump to content

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

'stache

By 'stache
in Daily Texan

 Share

Recommended Posts

rantanamo

rantanamo 143

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, msudawg said:

It was a horrible accident. How much more profile has it been though due to her being a cop. and then there's the other component...the major driving one. 

Yes, she accidently decided to leave her training and police protocol at the door.  She accidently pulled the trigger.  Accidently forgot how to do cpr.  Accidently texted her married love during 911 call. Accidently erased texts.  The accidently part ended  the moment she claimed to have heard Jean before deciding to go in.  

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Constant
Constant

First off I’d like to say that I’m heartbroken for the Jean family. As a parent myself, I hope Mr. Jean’s father and mother find some peace in the outcome. They appear to be a wonderful family that ra

SubliminalHorn
SubliminalHorn

Just relax the throat and stay in rhythm 

4th&Five
4th&Five

Posted Images

TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31297

Posted
Posted
Just now, msudawg said:

I fully believe it's manslaughter now that was put back as an option. the public pressure caused the overcharge. 

 

It wasn't an overcharge.  I'd call it one if it was one, because it's the biggest problem in the CJ system today.

Manslaughter, in this case, will be jury nullification.  Not sure exactly of what, but it won't be strictly following the law.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31297

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, rantanamo said:

Yes, she accidently decided to leave her training and police protocol at the door.  She accidently pulled the trigger.  Accidently forgot how to do cpr.  Accidently texted her married love during 911 call. Accidently erased texts.  The accidently part ended  the moment she claimed to have heard Jean before deciding to go in.  

She appears to have a horrible temperament/psychology for a peace officer, despite an admitted 3500 hours of training.

*Accidentally.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TXSooner518

TXSooner518 2432

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, msudawg said:

Well i jumped in late. i intend to go back and read the last 15-20 pages this afternoon unless someone wants to point to a certain post on that subject. 

Murder is intentionally causing the death of another. It doesn't require motive, premeditation, or anything else. When she pointed the gun at Jean and pulled the trigger, she explicitly testified her intent was to kill him. That's murder unless it is justified or excused by a defense.

I think manslaughter is the result as a compromise. The state did prove all of the elements of manslaughter so I don't think it is nullification, and I do think saying making an unreasonable intentional decision is reckless is legally defensible as a result. I also think most laypeople picture "murder" as something more than Texas law does.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
msudawg

msudawg 371

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

Murder is intentionally causing the death of another. It doesn't require motive, premeditation, or anything else. When she pointed the gun at Jean and pulled the trigger, she explicitly testified her intent was to kill him. That's murder unless it is justified or excused by a defense.

I think manslaughter is the result as a compromise. The state did prove all of the elements of manslaughter so I don't think it is nullification, and I do think saying making an unreasonable intentional decision is reckless is legally defensible as a result. I also think most laypeople picture "murder" as something more than Texas law does.

Thanks. I understand what you are saying. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
C-Man

C-Man 27065

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

A guilty verdict on manslaughter would keep her from ever being a law enforcement officer again, right?

I would like to think killing an innocent man in his own home because you're too reckless -- or too stupid -- to know better should keep her from working in law enforcement ever again. I know that's naive, wishful thinking.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11360

Posted
Posted

i actually think that now that manslaughter is on the table, that's what the jury will find. it's an easy jury room compromise, i would reckon.

i honestly don't think anyone could argue that she was within any sort of right to do what she did. but some might find 1st degree murder difficult to countenance, given the situation.

once she admitted she heard jean moving around inside, though, and decided to enter, she lost any sort of sympathy from me. that's stone cold murder. she wanted to catch the person in her home, and shoot that person. maybe for department cred, or to be a hero cop, but she opened that door gun drawn, imo.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gene Parmesan

Gene Parmesan 3993

Posted
Posted
Just now, DallasHorn26 said:

I've never followed a murder trial this close, but it seems like they usually take longer or is a week normal? Also, how much attention would this be getting if she had been a teacher, nurse, etc instead of a cop?

This one was quick because it's not a who did it case.  Who killed the victim was already established.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hopkinsnhorns

hopkinsnhorns 533

Posted
Posted
46 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i actually think that now that manslaughter is on the table, that's what the jury will find. it's an easy jury room compromise, i would reckon.

i honestly don't think anyone could argue that she was within any sort of right to do what she did. but some might find 1st degree murder difficult to countenance, given the situation.

once she admitted she heard jean moving around inside, though, and decided to enter, she lost any sort of sympathy from me. that's stone cold murder. she wanted to catch the person in her home, and shoot that person. maybe for department cred, or to be a hero cop, but she opened that door gun drawn, imo.

I'm right there with you.  This is not the ticker-tape parade she envisioned in her head before she decided to barge in and kill her "burglar".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ellellelle

Ellellelle 308

Posted
Posted

I know she probably thought she would be a hero in the moment, but I really can't wrap my head around the reasoning. I think if I were a cop I would take so much pleasure in watching an intruder in my home squirm in a courtroom before being found guilty. Capturing a criminal dumb enough to break into a cops home would bring her a lot of acclaim. Not to mention, she risked getting blood all over everything she owns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Red Six

Red Six 131

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

I'm starting to wonder if she really did know that wasn't her apartment 

I've wondered that myself.

My bizarre theory of late has been that Rivera was about to dump her, and she did it to win back his affection.

Like the firefighters who spark forest fires.

Or pervy tow truck drivers who throw rocks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 21777

Posted
  • Author
Posted

She was looking to fuck someones world up when she thought someone was messing with her shit. If it was really her apartment and if he really was a burglar, she'd definitely get away with it, though it would still be a crime in my opinion. I truly think that if she walks its because of one or more racists on the jury who just don't give a shit about the victim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hopkinsnhorns

hopkinsnhorns 533

Posted
Posted

It could have just as easily been the maintenance man doing an emergency repair in her apartment and she still probably would have gotten off the hook.  Her mentality ensured that someone was leaving in a body bag, even if it wasn't her apartment to defend.  If she walks, then we need to go back and re-visit the Castle Doctrine and ensure that this sort of defense can never be used in these situations ever again.  It gives carte blanche to would-be murderers looking for the opportunity to put someone in a grave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TXSooner518

TXSooner518 2432

Posted
Posted

I dunno, even if it really was her apartment, since the "intruder" entered while it was unoccupied, she needs some reasonable belief that deadly force is needed to stop a murder, agg assault, sex assault, or robbery. His mere presence isn't enough to trigger that (as it would be if an intruder entered with force while it was occupied). Given he had no weapon, and there was no other evidence, I think castle doctrine would have been very shaky even in her own apartment. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hopkinsnhorns

hopkinsnhorns 533

Posted
Posted

I missed the live trial action this morning, but can one of our law dogs explain why the Judge instructed the jury that they could consider the Castle Doctrine defense?  It doesn't appear to be applicable given the actual circumstances of this murder.  Does this make it more likely for the verdict to stand on appeal?  There's got to be a good reason.  I just can't figure out what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TXSooner518

TXSooner518 2432

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, hopkinsnhorns said:

I missed the live trial action this morning, but can one of our law dogs explain why the Judge instructed the jury that they could consider the Castle Doctrine defense?  It doesn't appear to be applicable given the actual circumstances of this murder.  Does this make it more likely for the verdict to stand on appeal?  There's got to be a good reason.  I just can't figure out what it is.

My assumption is that they are saying that if her mistake of fact was that she was in her own residence, that that defense would then be available. Whether the facts of this case result in its application is up to the finder of fact (the jury). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
El Diablo

El Diablo 4232

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

I dunno, even if it really was her apartment, since the "intruder" entered while it was unoccupied, she needs some reasonable belief that deadly force is needed to stop a murder, agg assault, sex assault, or robbery. His mere presence isn't enough to trigger that (as it would be if an intruder entered with force while it was occupied). Given he had no weapon, and there was no other evidence, I think castle doctrine would have been very shaky even in her own apartment. 

Ice cream spoon and dark skin. ARMED TO THE TEETH.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...