Texas Cop Who Fatally Shot Man After Entering Wrong Apartment Identified

Well if that's true I think there really would have to be a bombshell for there to be a conviction. Her story may be total BS, but the scenario is not only plausible as of what we currently know but would be a valid defense against manslaughter and murder and the only thing suggesting otherwise as of now is unreliable witnesses who say that they heard something outside of their apartments but didn't see anything. I can't imagine those witnesses being enough to convict.

If there was some kind of relationship between the female and the deceased perhaps that could change things.

 

All it takes is a motion to move the case out of that "part of town" to another jurisdiction, just like the cops in the Rodney King beating. Their case was taken to Simi Valley.

 

It would have to be a super weird coincidence for him to be living over her, them having a relationship where the neighbors never saw them together, and her deciding to bump him off using such a strange alibi.

I differ on the manslaughter charge as I haven't heard a valid excuse to pull the trigger under the circumstances we know about.

 

Moaning about it after the fact doesn't make this situation better either....

 

Well the reason why her story would be a valid defense against manslaughter is that her deadly force would be justified if she believed the man broke into her apartment and was looking to prevent the imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. It's reasonable to think that a person that broke into your apartment and was lurking in the dark would be about to commit one of those crimes.

In this situation, reality doesn't matter, what matters is her reasonable belief so the fact that she wasn't actually in her apartment doesn't change things if we believe that she truly thought she was in her apartment.

Now this is just for criminal liability, a civil case has different standards.

 

One other thing to consider here. The Dallas PD brought in the Texas Rangers (no, not Rougned Odor and friends) to investigate this case as to not appear as a biased investigation. That said, I know some of you won’t be happy until you have a Ben Crump lead investigation.

 

What you wish would happen doesn’t make it true.

She’s looking st a minimum of manslaughter.

 

Her belief isn't reasonable

 

WTF is reasonable belief? I could Reasonably Believe anything, but it doesn’t make it true.

Yes.... intent matters. That’s why it will be manslaughter vs murder after an investigation happens or doesn’t really happen.

There’s also the self defense claim... there’s nothing here to suspect that’s even a consideration.

Someone dies with your finger on the trigger, hands on the wheel, etc. you are liable. If this cop was on duty and this was in the line of duty, that’s different. Even then, there are still liabilities even if they aren’t enforced the way they should.

The fact is either way, she has liability for either manslaughter or murder. What she believed or not has nothing to do with anything. The idiot who brought up “reasonable belief” is conflating “reasonable doubt” which has nothing to do with this notion. That is about a jury decision in a trial.

 

Wait, she claims she thought she was in her own apartment shooting an intruder but had to go outside to check the address? Okay, I won't be surprised when comes out that she was a scorned ex lover out for revenge

 

I've honestly wondered that.

 

Saw an interview with family and they state there was no relationship and they didn't know each other.

 

Well, feel free to believe that if you like, but without more evidence disproving her story, she's got a solid legal justification.

Well that's what the prosecution will attempt to prove. If they can prove that she didn't really make a mistake and believe that the apartment she was entering was hers then they'll get an easy conviction.

That's just the point, it doesn't have to be true.

You can be responsible for someone's death without being criminally liable if this woman's story stands up, she won't be criminally liable for the death....but she's clearly responsible for it and could be liable in a civil situation.

I do find it adorable that you inaccurately thought that I was conflating "reasonable belief" with "reasonable doubt", do yourself a favor and look up the Texas statutes when it comes to justification of deadly force and see if they go on about "reasonable belief" or if they talk about "reasonable doubt", it'll help you not embarrass yourself like this in the future.

 

What kind of person thinks there is legal justification for shooting somebody in their own home, minding their own damn business? Even in her own account, there was no imminent threat to her.

 

Again, her defense is that she believed the apartment to be hers, apparently it was in the same place as hers just on a different floor. If we accept that then her belief was that there was someone who broke into her apartment lurking in the dark, in Texas that's automatic justification for deadly force.

Now that said, the entire thing hinges on if the prosecution can debunk the notion that she just got off on the wrong floor and that she believed the apartment to be hers. If they can do that, she's guilty of murder, if they can't do that she's not guilty of anything. IMO I'm not sure there's a case for manslaughter.

 

I would put it this way. Its not reasonable to believe that a dark shadow in an unlit apartment is such a threat that it justifies shooting at it. Even if you believe you are in your own apartment. A reasonable person identifies the target and uses their brain to assess the threat level before shooting.

 

I'm more interested in the results of her blood test.

 

Please find me the statute that says if you think you are in your home, but are not that you can legally shoot someone. She is at the door, he is inside the apartment apparently not close enough to even see and is magically burglarizing the house in the dark with no flashlight or anything.

Take this blurb:

Stand Your Ground Law in Texas

In Texas, individuals have no duty to retreat when they have a reasonable belief they are in danger of bodily harm or death if they’re threatened in their home, in their vehicle, or at their job. To raise the Texas stand your ground law defense, the person must be able to show that they didn’t provoke the person who attacked them. They must also be able to show that they weren’t breaking any laws at the time of the incident.

https://www.brodenmickelsen.com/blog/texas-stand-ground-law-explained/

#1 - It doesn't say where you think you are (not that it is the official statute or statutes)
#2 - She was breaking the law by entering his apartment and not her own, accidental or not.

 

Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 9.32. Deadly Force in Defense of Person


(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31 ;  and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force;  or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.


If you notice, it talks about what the actor reasonably believes, not what is truth or reality and this has nothing to do with stand your ground laws other than the fact that if you reasonably believe that force is necessary you have no duty to retreat. If the woman believed that she was walking up to her apartment that had signs of a break in and then found someone lurking in the dark, she'd be well within her rights to shoot that person....you have to prove that her thought process was different and that she wasn't mistaken as to where she was.

You could also prove that she did something to alter her perception such as get drunk or take drugs, then she would be criminally liable for her actions, but if her state of mind was caused by natural circumstances, you've got nothing.

 

Keep reading:

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;  or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used;  and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

Wasn't occupied (other than by the victim, and they have yet to mention her living with somebody else, so there would be no expectation of it being occupied).

She was committing a crime.