Her attorneys have have a really easy appeal win and she can't be tried again on acquitted murder in that case.AgBQ-00 said:
Sounds like they are trying to work to a compromise to me. Read in a thread here on Texags that while manslaughter may seem like the most reasonable finding it is actually the worst outcome according to the law.
Chubster said:
And I guess it depends on what cop's training says to do in that situation. If they are told to go ahead and enter and confront the bad guy I stand corrected. I though they were supposed to wait outside and call for backup.
I won't get bad. All the badasses on twitter and facebook will just stay at home and *****.ElephantRider said: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....
Honestly I would stay away, just to be safe. I could see it getting bad.
Goose said: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 the stop sign analogy I mentioned before, the equivalent would be running a stop sign on Preston when you thought you were on Hillcrest.and there's no stop sign at that cross street on Hillcrest.
I would hope the jury would recognize that the spirit of that law is to protect the guy who in this instance, got killed.ElephantRider said: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.
Judge allowed it
"Reverend" Jeff Hood is calling for a protest already.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....
I could be mixing up allegations from what I've read versus actual testimony but I seem to recall she pushed the door open and heard a noise before entering which prompted her to take her gun out of the holster as she crossed through the foyer and into the kitchen. I guess that isn't technically considered drawn. Again I'm just going off (obviously flawed) memory and not transcript.AgBQ-00 said:
Im not sure she walked in with gun drawn. From what i understand she stuck the key in the door with left hand while carrying her duty bag etc. As she entered she heard noise and saw a person moving her way dropped her stuff and drew her gun simultaneously. Obviously we will never know exactly what happened bit that seems plausible to me.
tysker said: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.
It weird that there's a claim she acted reasonable for a police officer entering the premises and yet claim she still acted reasonably as a police officer before entering. It seems she is either a civilian throughout the events or she's not.
Mistake of Fact is also at play right now.lda6339 said:I would hope the jury would recognize that the spirit of that law is to protect the guy who in this instance, got killed.ElephantRider said: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.
Judge allowed it
If she walks in there and he blows her head off, he's protecting himself from an invader and he can use lethal force with the shield of the castle doctrine.
She kills him, in his home, so it shouldn't be castle doctrine. (opinion, one I hope the jury agrees with)
AgBQ-00 said:
But the recklessness that creates manslaughter has nothing to do with previous things and everything to do with intent of the action that causes the death. As the prosecutor said...if the shot that missed went through the wall and killed someone else that is manslaughter because she had no intent to kill that person.
My recollection was that as she put in the key, the door opened because it was ajar. So she opened it up as she heard the noise and saw Jean standing and walking towards her. She pulled, two shots, and over all within a couple seconds.tysker said:I could be mixing up allegations from what I've read versus actual testimony but I seem to recall she pushed the door open and heard a noise before entering which prompted her to take her gun out of the holster as she crossed through the foyer and into the kitchen. I guess that isn't technically considered drawn. Again I'm just going off (obviously flawed) memory and not transcript.AgBQ-00 said:
Im not sure she walked in with gun drawn. From what i understand she stuck the key in the door with left hand while carrying her duty bag etc. As she entered she heard noise and saw a person moving her way dropped her stuff and drew her gun simultaneously. Obviously we will never know exactly what happened bit that seems plausible to me.
schwack schwack said:
I feel for the jury. Tons of community pressure to convict. Not sure if there is enough to convict on Mistake of Fact though.
I was recently on a murder jury. It's really very stressful, even if you feel like you have the facts straight, are going by the letter of the law set out by the jury instructions, etc.
edit to add: Then you find out stuff after the trial is over that you weren't allowed to hear. Nothing I read after the fact changed my mind, but I think we should have had the information. I wonder how this jury will feel about all of the defense expert testimony being ruled out.
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.
I think the DA screwed the pooch on the charges and handed the prosecutors a **** sandwich. They have done a decent job with what they had.ElephantRider said:
Sounds like prosecution really **** the bed. She deserves to go to jail, but the way the case has progressed and been presented, I don't know that the jury can/will convict her
schwack schwack said:
Definitely not going to Dallas this week.
They were helped tremendously by the Judge refusing to allow testimony from at least 5 expert witnesses for the defense.ElephantRider said:
Sounds like prosecution really **** the bed. She deserves to go to jail, but the way the case has progressed and been presented, I don't know that the jury can/will convict her
In my opinion, mistake of fact doesn't matter because the state has proven he was getting up off the couch, in a non threatening position, thus lethal force isn't justified.Guitarsoup said:Mistake of Fact is also at play right now.lda6339 said:I would hope the jury would recognize that the spirit of that law is to protect the guy who in this instance, got killed.ElephantRider said: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.
Judge allowed it
If she walks in there and he blows her head off, he's protecting himself from an invader and he can use lethal force with the shield of the castle doctrine.
She kills him, in his home, so it shouldn't be castle doctrine. (opinion, one I hope the jury agrees with)
She could reasonably believe that was her apartment. If she had a true and reasonable belief she was in her apartment (and by her actions at the time and her exclamations on the phone, I believe she did) then it comes into play.
It does when her defense is that she thought she was in her own apartment.AgBQ-00 said:
But the recklessness that creates manslaughter has nothing to do with previous things and everything to do with intent of the action that causes the death. As the prosecutor said...if the shot that missed went through the wall and killed someone else that is manslaughter because she had no intent to kill that person.
That doesn't matter if she thought he was in her home. If you are in my home in Texas against my will I can use lethal force. It doesn't matter if you are in a "threatening" position.lda6339 said:In my opinion, mistake of fact doesn't matter because the state has proven he was getting up off the couch, in a non threatening position, thus lethal force isn't justified.Guitarsoup said:Mistake of Fact is also at play right now.lda6339 said:I would hope the jury would recognize that the spirit of that law is to protect the guy who in this instance, got killed.ElephantRider said: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.
Judge allowed it
If she walks in there and he blows her head off, he's protecting himself from an invader and he can use lethal force with the shield of the castle doctrine.
She kills him, in his home, so it shouldn't be castle doctrine. (opinion, one I hope the jury agrees with)
She could reasonably believe that was her apartment. If she had a true and reasonable belief she was in her apartment (and by her actions at the time and her exclamations on the phone, I believe she did) then it comes into play.
lda6339 said:In my opinion, mistake of fact doesn't matter because the state has proven he was getting up off the couch, in a non threatening position, thus lethal force isn't justified.Guitarsoup said:Mistake of Fact is also at play right now.lda6339 said:I would hope the jury would recognize that the spirit of that law is to protect the guy who in this instance, got killed.ElephantRider said: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.
Judge allowed it
If she walks in there and he blows her head off, he's protecting himself from an invader and he can use lethal force with the shield of the castle doctrine.
She kills him, in his home, so it shouldn't be castle doctrine. (opinion, one I hope the jury agrees with)
She could reasonably believe that was her apartment. If she had a true and reasonable belief she was in her apartment (and by her actions at the time and her exclamations on the phone, I believe she did) then it comes into play.
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 unwarranted.
But in my mind she was the aggressor, which does matter.powerbelly said:That doesn't matter if she thought he was in her home. If you are in my home in Texas against my will I can use lethal force. It doesn't matter if you are in a "threatening" position.lda6339 said:In my opinion, mistake of fact doesn't matter because the state has proven he was getting up off the couch, in a non threatening position, thus lethal force isn't justified.Guitarsoup said:Mistake of Fact is also at play right now.lda6339 said:I would hope the jury would recognize that the spirit of that law is to protect the guy who in this instance, got killed.ElephantRider said: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.
Judge allowed it
If she walks in there and he blows her head off, he's protecting himself from an invader and he can use lethal force with the shield of the castle doctrine.
She kills him, in his home, so it shouldn't be castle doctrine. (opinion, one I hope the jury agrees with)
She could reasonably believe that was her apartment. If she had a true and reasonable belief she was in her apartment (and by her actions at the time and her exclamations on the phone, I believe she did) then it comes into play.
schwack schwack said:
What if the all circumstances where the same, but she wasn't a cop?
But that doesn't matter legally.ElephantRider said:But in my mind she was the aggressor, which does matter.powerbelly said:That doesn't matter if she thought he was in her home. If you are in my home in Texas against my will I can use lethal force. It doesn't matter if you are in a "threatening" position.lda6339 said:In my opinion, mistake of fact doesn't matter because the state has proven he was getting up off the couch, in a non threatening position, thus lethal force isn't justified.Guitarsoup said:Mistake of Fact is also at play right now.lda6339 said:I would hope the jury would recognize that the spirit of that law is to protect the guy who in this instance, got killed.ElephantRider said: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.
Judge allowed it
If she walks in there and he blows her head off, he's protecting himself from an invader and he can use lethal force with the shield of the castle doctrine.
She kills him, in his home, so it shouldn't be castle doctrine. (opinion, one I hope the jury agrees with)
She could reasonably believe that was her apartment. If she had a true and reasonable belief she was in her apartment (and by her actions at the time and her exclamations on the phone, I believe she did) then it comes into play.
tysker said: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?
I'm more curious to know judgement if roles were reversed.
The state didn't prove that. That is their theory. But they had no evidence presented at trial to support that theory.lda6339 said:In my opinion, mistake of fact doesn't matter because the state has proven he was getting up off the couch, in a non threatening position, thus lethal force isn't justified.Guitarsoup said:Mistake of Fact is also at play right now.lda6339 said:I would hope the jury would recognize that the spirit of that law is to protect the guy who in this instance, got killed.ElephantRider said: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.
Judge allowed it
If she walks in there and he blows her head off, he's protecting himself from an invader and he can use lethal force with the shield of the castle doctrine.
She kills him, in his home, so it shouldn't be castle doctrine. (opinion, one I hope the jury agrees with)
She could reasonably believe that was her apartment. If she had a true and reasonable belief she was in her apartment (and by her actions at the time and her exclamations on the phone, I believe she did) then it comes into play.
lda6339 said:In my opinion, mistake of fact doesn't matter because the state has proven he was getting up off the couch, in a non threatening position, thus lethal force isn't justified.Guitarsoup said:Mistake of Fact is also at play right now.lda6339 said:I would hope the jury would recognize that the spirit of that law is to protect the guy who in this instance, got killed.ElephantRider said: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.
Judge allowed it
If she walks in there and he blows her head off, he's protecting himself from an invader and he can use lethal force with the shield of the castle doctrine.
She kills him, in his home, so it shouldn't be castle doctrine. (opinion, one I hope the jury agrees with)
She could reasonably believe that was her apartment. If she had a true and reasonable belief she was in her apartment (and by her actions at the time and her exclamations on the phone, I believe she did) then it comes into play.
It seems against the spirit of the Castle Doctrine to extend it to places you 'think' are your home.powerbelly said:That doesn't matter if she thought he was in her home. If you are in my home in Texas against my will I can use lethal force. It doesn't matter if you are in a "threatening" position.lda6339 said:In my opinion, mistake of fact doesn't matter because the state has proven he was getting up off the couch, in a non threatening position, thus lethal force isn't justified.Guitarsoup said:Mistake of Fact is also at play right now.lda6339 said:I would hope the jury would recognize that the spirit of that law is to protect the guy who in this instance, got killed.ElephantRider said: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.
Judge allowed it
If she walks in there and he blows her head off, he's protecting himself from an invader and he can use lethal force with the shield of the castle doctrine.
She kills him, in his home, so it shouldn't be castle doctrine. (opinion, one I hope the jury agrees with)
She could reasonably believe that was her apartment. If she had a true and reasonable belief she was in her apartment (and by her actions at the time and her exclamations on the phone, I believe she did) then it comes into play.
That is precisely where Mistake of Fact comes in.tysker said:It seems against the spirit of the Castle Doctrine to extend it to places you 'think' are your home.powerbelly said:That doesn't matter if she thought he was in her home. If you are in my home in Texas against my will I can use lethal force. It doesn't matter if you are in a "threatening" position.lda6339 said:In my opinion, mistake of fact doesn't matter because the state has proven he was getting up off the couch, in a non threatening position, thus lethal force isn't justified.Guitarsoup said:Mistake of Fact is also at play right now.lda6339 said:I would hope the jury would recognize that the spirit of that law is to protect the guy who in this instance, got killed.ElephantRider said: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.
Judge allowed it
If she walks in there and he blows her head off, he's protecting himself from an invader and he can use lethal force with the shield of the castle doctrine.
She kills him, in his home, so it shouldn't be castle doctrine. (opinion, one I hope the jury agrees with)
She could reasonably believe that was her apartment. If she had a true and reasonable belief she was in her apartment (and by her actions at the time and her exclamations on the phone, I believe she did) then it comes into play.
