Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dallas cop shoots man in own apartment

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post

    Yeah, she's screwed. Dunno why she stated that she intended to kill the man. I mean Geez, I educate the general public all the time on the proper words to say if they're forced to shoot an intruder into their home. Because they're not maliciously intending to kill them, they're intending to stop their actions. There is a very real, and not just semantical, difference between the two. In the first, the only desired result is death. In the second, the desired result is surrender, though surrender through death is a possibility.

    I don't see it as racially motivated either. She was a dumbass, made a host of dumbass mistakes. Comes down to the "knew or reasonably should have known that she was not defending her domicile from an intruder". Plus, she was committing a misdemeanor breaking and entering through being a dumbass. I'm good with murder, 2nd degree as I don't see malice aforethought but if she in fact said on the stand that she intended to kill the man then there was malice afoot.

    Which is ultimately the difference between your three generic grades of murder. Malice Before the Murder, aka premedidation. Malice in action, aka crime of passion without premeditation. No Malice, aka manslaughter.
    Ah, thanks for the education.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post

      Bias in juries towards cop testimony, as compared to a truly random person, exists and has some relevance. That being that the Cop/Investigator is a more neutral party to the case at hand, that they aren't personally involved in the case. Also that the cop is to varying degrees, either above average or an actual expert in the matters to which they are testifying. A private citizen saying that someone appeared nervous might not hold as much weight as a 10 year cop saying that the subject showed xyz nervous signs that in his training and experience are indicators of criminal activity afoot.

      As to Dumbass, if she did get any special credence given to her testimony, she certainly helped convict herself. Typically a jury doesn't give that bias towards a cop who is literally a party to the case as a suspect.
      Well, if someone can read back the posts on page 11 of this thread, he can see supposedly "experts" trying to argue that the only thing that it mattered was her perception at the time she pulled the trigger. So, because of "castle laws" it did not matter that she admitted that she intended to kill the man when she pulled the trigger since at that time she thought that she was entering her own apartment.

      Apparently, she thought the same thing but did not play out well...
      My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

      Comment


      • Originally posted by pamak View Post

        Well, if someone can read back the posts on page 11 of this thread, he can see supposedly "experts" trying to argue that the only thing that it mattered was her perception at the time she pulled the trigger. So, because of "castle laws" it did not matter that she admitted that she intended to kill the man when she pulled the trigger since at that time she thought that she was entering her own apartment.

        Apparently, she thought the same thing but did not play out well...
        And that's kind of where my opinion on this has differed. She knew, or reasonably should have known, that she was in fact not defending her domicile.

        Also, though castle doctrine loosens up a lot of things, and rightfully so as you don't want to hold a homeowner in the middle of the night to some extremely tight standard on defending their own home which the suspect very obviously is not in for any lawful purpose. The purpose of castle doctrine is to remove the onus of proving that the burglar is a threat from the victim/homeowner and place the burden that the burglar was indeed surrendered upon the burglar. It does two things. 1) It saves victims from having to be victimized twice in shelling out money to pay for criminal defense counsel in a case where the burglar is obviously in the wrong. 2) It gives victims an affirmative defense in civil court that if the shooting is ruled justified then it's relatively easy to have the civil suit for wrongful death thrown out, aka Summary Judgement. And when I say victim I'm referring to the homeowner, you burglarize a house and the homeowner cuts you in half with buckshot, you're a deceased perpetrator, not a victim.

        In point of fact, with castle doctrine in mind, if the actual homeowner, the decedent in this case, had shot and killed the cop, the shooting would have been justified. There was no warrant, arrest or search, and the cop was unlawfully on his premises whether on or off duty.
        Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

        Comment


        • I get the feeling that it's due to EEO laws and regs we see someone whom otherwise might not have qualified to be a "cop"/LEO hired and placed as such.

          Thank you "Social Justice".
          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

          Comment


          • Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post

            And that's kind of where my opinion on this has differed. She knew, or reasonably should have known, that she was in fact not defending her domicile.

            Also, though castle doctrine loosens up a lot of things, and rightfully so as you don't want to hold a homeowner in the middle of the night to some extremely tight standard on defending their own home which the suspect very obviously is not in for any lawful purpose. The purpose of castle doctrine is to remove the onus of proving that the burglar is a threat from the victim/homeowner and place the burden that the burglar was indeed surrendered upon the burglar. It does two things. 1) It saves victims from having to be victimized twice in shelling out money to pay for criminal defense counsel in a case where the burglar is obviously in the wrong. 2) It gives victims an affirmative defense in civil court that if the shooting is ruled justified then it's relatively easy to have the civil suit for wrongful death thrown out, aka Summary Judgement. And when I say victim I'm referring to the homeowner, you burglarize a house and the homeowner cuts you in half with buckshot, you're a deceased perpetrator, not a victim.

            In point of fact, with castle doctrine in mind, if the actual homeowner, the decedent in this case, had shot and killed the cop, the shooting would have been justified. There was no warrant, arrest or search, and the cop was unlawfully on his premises whether on or off duty.
            To tell you the truth, I am not sure if in the opposite case things would be that simple. I mean if it was the victim the person using lethal force and claiming "castle laws" I understand what you say. In that case, I agree that there should not have been any consequence, but call me a skeptic in that I am not sure if this is how it would have played . Recall that some LEO agency there (I think the Rangers, but feel free to correct me) felt the necessity to provide (or leak) a list of things that were found in the victim's place during the initial stages of the investigation, and one thing among those was weed or something like that.

            Then there is the other scenario. Imagine the black guy going to the wrong apartment downstairs and killing a police officer there. Most probably, he would have been convicted, but do you think that he would get the same sentence that this cop will get? I am not sure about that either. I am not even sure that they would have accepted his story that he indeed thought that this was his apartment when he opened the door.
            Last edited by pamak; 01 Oct 19, 20:00.
            My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

            Comment


            • Originally posted by johns624 View Post
              I'm not blaming her for society's troubles. I'm blaming her for shooting an unarmed man in his own apartment because she had a severe case of cranial rectosis.
              Got proof of that? I've seen much greater mistakes made by ordinary people under similar circumstances. I've seen intelligent people pull into "their driveway", enter "their home" and find themselves in the wrong home entirely.

              We live in a world of cookie cutter homes and apartments, and a tired person could easily make a mistake.

              tragic? Yes. Criminal? No without proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, the existing legal standard. She's a cop, and cops sometimes have to shoot people. Unless you have positive proof that she does this as a pattern, you're merely gossiping.

              Criminals in America get the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, so does this officer.
              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

              Comment


              • How does the Castle Law apply when,
                A. The man defending his Castle was shot by the intruder AKA an off duty officer and
                B. It wasn't her Castle!

                That's the problem with this case, she wasn't defending her home, she was the intruder. Turn the story around, If she had been sitting in her apartment eating ice cream and the guy mistakenly walked into her apartment THEN she would have a legitimate claim.
                IMO she was too stupid to be armed and given a badge. Sorry if this upsets our LEOs on the forum. 99% of the time I come down on the side of the cop, but having a badge is a great responsibility and not a license to kill anytime anywhere without question.

                I can assure you, if she had responded to a situation where a citizen walked into the wrong apartment and blew two holes through the resident, she would have arrested the shooter.
                Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
                Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                  Got proof of that? I've seen much greater mistakes made by ordinary people under similar circumstances. I've seen intelligent people pull into "their driveway", enter "their home" and find themselves in the wrong home entirely.

                  We live in a world of cookie cutter homes and apartments, and a tired person could easily make a mistake.

                  tragic? Yes. Criminal? No without proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, the existing legal standard. She's a cop, and cops sometimes have to shoot people. Unless you have positive proof that she does this as a pattern, you're merely gossiping.

                  Criminals in America get the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, so does this officer.
                  In principle, I do not agree that there should not be consequences when somebody makes un unreasonable mistake. In other states, there are laws about involuntary and voluntary manslaughter which deal with such cases. From what I recall TX does not have such distinctions, but ti does not really make sense to believe that the TX laws and their interpretations permit unreasonable mistakes without legal consequences.


                  My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                  Comment


                  • Also, there is this concept of "mistake of fact," which from what I read echoes my views

                    https://www.justia.com/criminal/defenses/mistake/
                    .

                    Mistakes of Fact


                    Mistakes of fact arise when a criminal defendant misunderstood some fact that negates an element of the crime. For instance, if an individual is charged with larceny but believed that the property he took was rightfully his, this misunderstanding negates any intent to deprive another of the property. One important qualification, however, is that this mistake of fact must be honest and reasonable. Thus, a defendant cannot later claim that he or she was mistaken when he or she actually knew the situation. Likewise, the mistake must be one that would appear reasonable to a judge or jury.


                    That is why you have jurors.

                    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by pamak View Post
                      Also, there is this concept of "mistake of fact," which from what I read echoes my views

                      https://www.justia.com/criminal/defenses/mistake/
                      .

                      Mistakes of Fact


                      Mistakes of fact arise when a criminal defendant misunderstood some fact that negates an element of the crime. For instance, if an individual is charged with larceny but believed that the property he took was rightfully his, this misunderstanding negates any intent to deprive another of the property. One important qualification, however, is that this mistake of fact must be honest and reasonable. Thus, a defendant cannot later claim that he or she was mistaken when he or she actually knew the situation. Likewise, the mistake must be one that would appear reasonable to a judge or jury.


                      That is why you have jurors.
                      That doesn't apply when the shooter is trained in the use of lethal force and supposedly knows the laws.
                      It's easy to second guess, but had she retreated and called 911 she wouldn't be going to prison and the victim would be alive.
                      Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
                      Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

                        That doesn't apply when the shooter is trained in the use of lethal force and supposedly knows the laws.
                        It's easy to second guess, but had she retreated and called 911 she wouldn't be going to prison and the victim would be alive.
                        You make things up since you do not cite anything. I back up my words with links which show that claiming a mistake of fact will not save the defense if it does not appear as a reasonable mistake

                        Plus, her conduct shows that she was clueless in general in executing her duties, either in the use of lethal force and in providing CPR.

                        One thing the prosecutor mentioned was that her "training" was to actually first seek cover and call for back up. She did none of them

                        Another thing the prosecutor mentioned was that she did not provide CPR to the victim even though she had training to do so.Texting her boyfriend about what happened became a bigger priority than giving CPR.

                        Then you have her claim that the victim was coming towards her while the forensics showed a trajectory angle that does not corroborate that the victim was standing. So, it seems that the victim was still sitting on the couch when she fired her weapon.

                        Yes, this was not a premeditated murder but the moment she said that she pulled the trigger with intend to kill, it was certainly what we call in CA second degree murder.

                        The idea that a cop can claim any excuse to get away with any type of mistake (even a veryyyyy stupid one) is not convincing. As I said in a much older post in this thread, imagine if a cop on duty kills people by acting like a dork and getting away by saying that he was confused and tired because of a long shift. Even jurors in TX with pro-gun mentality and "castle laws" understand that such precedent is dangerous.
                        Last edited by pamak; 02 Oct 19, 00:19.
                        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                          A good deal of the problem is a result of high crime rates brutalizing society. That said the answer is not normalizing violence to decrease crime. The solution is also not to blame individuals such as this police officer for societies troubles. People do not become police officers to be heroes for most it's a career choice. Until the community respects that career choice the toxic environment on the streets will produce officers that are not committed to minimal force and it's associated risks.
                          https://prospect.org/justice/violent-crime-increasing/
                          "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                          Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                          you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                            Got proof of that? I've seen much greater mistakes made by ordinary people under similar circumstances. I've seen intelligent people pull into "their driveway", enter "their home" and find themselves in the wrong home entirely.

                            We live in a world of cookie cutter homes and apartments, and a tired person could easily make a mistake.

                            tragic? Yes. Criminal? No without proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, the existing legal standard. She's a cop, and cops sometimes have to shoot people. Unless you have positive proof that she does this as a pattern, you're merely gossiping.

                            Criminals in America get the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, so does this officer.
                            If she was so tired, why did she delete text messages to and from her married boyfriend that she wanted to "meet" him that evening. Obviously, she wasn't that tired.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by pamak View Post

                              You make things up since you do not cite anything. I back up my words with links which show that claiming a mistake of fact will not save the defense if it does not appear as a reasonable mistake

                              Plus, her conduct shows that she was clueless in general in executing her duties, either in the use of lethal force and in providing CPR.

                              Unfortunately, something that you will see more and more of. The current generation of rookies is vastly less competent than the previous generation. They've been living in insulated bubbles their whole lives and the sheer exposure to the real world is a shock to most of them. The biggest issues we have are with confidence, the ability to decide when talking is no longer effective (they're horrible about getting into 'loop snarls' where they will enter into a repetitive cycle of basically begging for compliance because they're unable/unwilling to take early decisive action), and the ability to actually engage with someone physically. Watch old episodes of cops and new episodes of Live PD. You'll notice that they're deploying about 10 grand in less lethal equipment to handle something that could be done easily with a tackle and a couple of knee spears. Yes, the less lethal equipment is a nice asset. But it's relied on so much and there's so little training or confidence in the ability to actually fight someone that for this new generation of cops you don't go: Verbal, Empty Hands, Less Lethal devices, deadly force.....you go: Verbal, Less Lethal Devices, Deadly Force.

                              Case in point, had an incident with a suicidal subject. Dad was actively fighting to keep him from shooting himself in the head with a revolver. Four of us went in, tackled him and his dad, fought the gun hand into a safe direction, and carotid neck hold (aka rear naked choke) put him out and let us gain control and get him to the hospital. I was carrying a less lethal shotgun.....dropped it and went hands because hands were required. All of us involved were 'old school' cops. I don't see that situation resolving itself well with this new crop.


                              One thing the prosecutor mentioned was that her "training" was to actually first seek cover and call for back up. She did none of them

                              Eh, a bit of sophistry there on the prosecutor's part. The training is immediate action, seek cover, backup. You don't stand in the open in a firefight, but you don't run for cover before laying down fire either.

                              Another thing the prosecutor mentioned was that she did not provide CPR to the victim even though she had training to do so.Texting her boyfriend about what happened became a bigger priority than giving CPR.

                              Not unexpected, unfortunately. The 'war on cops' waged to some unknown end by the parties waging it, has resulted in recruitment being a cluster****. Once you would have 4-5 applicants for every opening. Now you have 4-5 openings for every applicant. Since no one wants to be a cop, you have no ability to weed out those that are subjectively less qualified, because there's no one subjectively more qualified to select. If they pass background and the academy, they're in, no matter how worthless they might be. And Field Training Officers are under increasing pressure from Administrators to sign off on a lower standard of performance.

                              Then you have her claim that the victim was coming towards her while the forensics showed a trajectory angle that does not corroborate that the victim was standing. So, it seems that the victim was still sitting on the couch when she fired her weapon.

                              Yes, this was not a premeditated murder but the moment she said that she pulled the trigger with intend to kill, it was certainly what we call in CA second degree murder.

                              That is correct. Generally 2nd Degree Murder across all the states, though some might have a fancier name for it. Murder with no premeditation, but malice afoot.

                              The idea that a cop can claim any excuse to get away with any type of mistake (even a veryyyyy stupid one) is not convincing. As I said in a much older post in this thread, imagine if a cop on duty kills people by acting like a dork and getting away by saying that he was confused and tired because of a long shift. Even jurors in TX with pro-gun mentality and "castle laws" understand that such precedent is dangerous.
                              I haven't heard any accounts of cops claiming fatigue as a valid excuse in any court case. And I just got done with a 2 week course where I was writing briefs on Supreme Court cases involving cops and search/seizure (and deadly force is always considered a seizure).
                              Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                                tragic? Yes. Criminal? No without proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, the existing legal standard. She's a cop, and cops sometimes have to shoot people. Unless you have positive proof that she does this as a pattern, you're merely gossiping.
                                Just to note, it's "Proof beyond a Reasonable Doubt". Shadow of a doubt is an unrealistic standard as it would include arguments to unreasonable scenarios.
                                Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X