double aught said:If you believe mistake of fact (which I think most people do), then isn't she supported by the castle doctrine?Enviroag02 said:
The other criteria the self defense strategy requires is the defendant to not be the aggressor. I thought the prosecution did a good job hammering that home as well.
Bob Loblaws Law Blog said:Bocephus said:Chubster said:
She testified she heard noise inside what she though was her apartment. Instead of calling for backup and waiting outside she proceeded in. I thought the prosecution did a good job of driving that home in closing statements. For that reason alone I don't think there's any way she is found not guilty.
This is the problem. She wasn't on a police call. The police are not trained in how to search their own home. She did not violate a single general order or policy by going into the apartment to see what was causing the noise. The state keeps trying to imply that she went against her training when that could not be further from the truth. She was off duty, and a civilian so she was not required to follow training. On top of that as I already stated, there is no training to search your own home. If you want to argue that she should have treated it like an officer going to a burglary call, you don't find cover and call for backup unless you have established that the burglar has a weapon. You cannot do that until you go in and investigate. The prosecutors were wrong in multiple areas on this.
Do you shoot to kill without establishing the "burglar" has a weapon?
Chubster said:
Throughout the trial they kept making mention of reasonable person standard. A reasonable person would stay outside and call for help whether they were a cop or private citizen. Especially a women who is like 5'6" 140 pounds or however big she is.
Absolutely shoot to stop the threat. If I walk into my home and someone is in there that shouldn't be, I'm aiming center mass.Bob Loblaws Law Blog said:Bocephus said:Chubster said:
She testified she heard noise inside what she though was her apartment. Instead of calling for backup and waiting outside she proceeded in. I thought the prosecution did a good job of driving that home in closing statements. For that reason alone I don't think there's any way she is found not guilty.
This is the problem. She wasn't on a police call. The police are not trained in how to search their own home. She did not violate a single general order or policy by going into the apartment to see what was causing the noise. The state keeps trying to imply that she went against her training when that could not be further from the truth. She was off duty, and a civilian so she was not required to follow training. On top of that as I already stated, there is no training to search your own home. If you want to argue that she should have treated it like an officer going to a burglary call, you don't find cover and call for backup unless you have established that the burglar has a weapon. You cannot do that until you go in and investigate. The prosecutors were wrong in multiple areas on this.
Do you shoot to kill without establishing the "burglar" has a weapon?
If I come from work and see the front door open and a noise inside, I'm going to assume its not my apartment especially considering how confusing the signage and layout of the complex.Bocephus said:Chubster said:
Throughout the trial they kept making mention of reasonable person standard. A reasonable person would stay outside and call for help whether they were a cop or private citizen. Especially a women who is like 5'6" 140 pounds or however big she is.
So when you come home from work and you hear a noise in your house, you're not gonna peak in and see what it is? I think I'm reasonable and I know I'm gonna go in there and see what the noise is, and if it is a burglar to prevent him from taking my stuff.
Every cop I know would go in so I do not think your reasonableness standard applies to them.
Disagree. She intentionally fired a gun at a person, that is not manslaughter.Goose said:
I don't know if she'll be convicted or not, but this is manslaughter. She was reckless in going to the wrong apartment and it resulted in that dude dying. The fact that they were able to find a bunch of other people in that complex who have been similarly reckless in the past and went to the wrong apartment doesn't mean a thing. It's tantamount to a person accidentally running a stop sign and killing someone, then bringing in witnesses to testify that they too had accidentally run that stop sign in the past. It's russian roulette of recklessness, and while the majority of the time it doesn't end up with a dead person, this time it did, and she should be punished for it.
A bit worse, actually - 5'-3" and MAYBE 110.Chubster said:
Throughout the trial they kept making mention of reasonable person standard. A reasonable person would stay outside and call for help whether they were a cop or private citizen. Especially a women who is like 5'6" 140 pounds or however big she is.
She intentionally fired the gun at him with the intention of killing him. by definition, not manslaughter.Goose said:
I don't know if she'll be convicted or not, but this is manslaughter. She was reckless in going to the wrong apartment and it resulted in that dude dying. The fact that they were able to find a bunch of other people in that complex who have been similarly reckless in the past and went to the wrong apartment doesn't mean a thing. It's tantamount to a person accidentally running a stop sign and killing someone, then bringing in witnesses to testify that they too had accidentally run that stop sign in the past. It's russian roulette of recklessness, and while the majority of the time it doesn't end up with a dead person, this time it did, and she should be punished for it.
She walked into the apartment with her gun drawn. And she wasnt a cop in this scenario, she was off duty.wbt5845 said:A bit worse, actually - 5'-3" and MAYBE 110.Chubster said:
Throughout the trial they kept making mention of reasonable person standard. A reasonable person would stay outside and call for help whether they were a cop or private citizen. Especially a women who is like 5'6" 140 pounds or however big she is.
Seeing all the anger from the black community, I really tried to put myself in their shoes.
A white cop walked into the home of an innocent black man and blew him away. Frankly, I'm sympathetic to outrage over that. We all get hung up on technicalities of the law and dispassionately pick those apart - they see innocent black dude being killed in cold blood by white cop.
A secondary take is she opened door, saw black dude advancing and as a cop, immediately feared black boogy man and blew him away. Anger over this tack is also understandable in my view.
While I can't condone violence if a not guilty verdict comes down, I'd have to be willfully ignorant of fairly legitimate outrage to claim it outrageous.
I've seen people say it would have been pled as manslaughter and shed get jail time of like 5-7 yrs with chance at parole.schwack schwack said:
What if the all circumstances where the same, but she wasn't a cop?
Quote:
Early on in their deliberations on Tuesday, the jury asked for clear definitions of manslaughter and of the Castle Doctrine.
Quote:
The Democrat Politburo If she's "not guilty", the people of Dallas will need "room to destroy", and rage. Let's not direct that rage and destruction on the poor black communities, when we have other options. #BLM4Justice
If her state of mind at the time of the trigger pull was that she was in her own apartment and that she thought she was defending herself, then that was a direct result of her recklessly entering the wrong apartment. To argue that she wasn't reckless is absurd. If her entire defense is that she "thought she was in her own apartment" then the fact that she wasn't falls clearly and squarely in the category of "recklessness".powerbelly said:Disagree. She intentionally fired a gun at a person, that is not manslaughter.Goose said:
I don't know if she'll be convicted or not, but this is manslaughter. She was reckless in going to the wrong apartment and it resulted in that dude dying. The fact that they were able to find a bunch of other people in that complex who have been similarly reckless in the past and went to the wrong apartment doesn't mean a thing. It's tantamount to a person accidentally running a stop sign and killing someone, then bringing in witnesses to testify that they too had accidentally run that stop sign in the past. It's russian roulette of recklessness, and while the majority of the time it doesn't end up with a dead person, this time it did, and she should be punished for it.
In a home that isn't hers?double aught said:If you believe mistake of fact (which I think most people do), then isn't she supported by the castle doctrine?Enviroag02 said:
The other criteria the self defense strategy requires is the defendant to not be the aggressor. I thought the prosecution did a good job hammering that home as well.
lda6339 said:In a home that isn't hers?double aught said:If you believe mistake of fact (which I think most people do), then isn't she supported by the castle doctrine?Enviroag02 said:
The other criteria the self defense strategy requires is the defendant to not be the aggressor. I thought the prosecution did a good job hammering that home as well.
JDCAG (NOT Colin) said:
Stepping aside from the case itself - family and friends are planning to go to the fair tonight....
is the fear of unrest/upheaval overstated or would you folks really suggest staying away....obviously if no verdict is reached, it wouldn't be impacted but we'll probably have to be on our way before they call it a day....
