Texas Cop Who Fatally Shot Man After Entering Wrong Apartment Identified

What you proved is that you don't know how to interpret what you're reading.

 

You showed part of the statute...

 

Ah yes, the words don't mean what the words say, they mean the opposite of what the words say so that it can seem like you know what you are talking about. Brilliant take.

 

you playin the race card again?

 

Not only are you interpreting it incorrectly, but you are also seeing things that aren't there.

This will be my last post to you because it's not worth the energy for such an asinine take, but lets live in a fantasy world where you are correct.

If your interpretation were correct, anyone could walk into someone's house, kill the person there and get off completely free because they "thought it was their residence".
Run that back through your head and at some point hopefully it starts to sound as ridiculous to you as it does to me.

Again, MANSLAUGHTER is the minimum in this case.

 

Trump card.

 

Anyone could do that and make that claim, but again it's about "REASONABLE BELIEF", there aren't many scenarios where that claim would be seen as a reasonable belief. As we all know, the belief and intent of the defendant is the sole focus of a self defense claim meaning the fact that she was mistaken as to several important factors is irrelevant.

You keep saying "MANSLAUGHTER is the minimum in this case" but there is literally no case for manslaughter. It's either justifiable use of deadly force if her story holds up, or it's murder if her story doesn't hold up.

Try to keep up.

 

http://www.fox4news.com/news/search...-botham-jeans-apartment-after-deadly-shooting

Here comes the smear campaign. Setting up the “big black high beast attacks (tries to rape) poor defenseless white woman” defense. In coded language of course. She’s gonna get a slap on the wrist or just walk.

 

I don't think that's a smear campaign and if it is it will be incredibly ineffective. I am almost as pessimistic about the outcome as you considering she is a female cop that was given ample time and resources to prepare for her defense.

Her previous incident in shooting citizens is not getting much coverage so I will be very interested to know if this will be allowed to be part of a possible trial.

 

John Cena has some splainin to do then

 

Oh man “the black man was on drugs” is coming? This country is becoming a caricature of itself at this point.

 

Where are you getting this from , the latest green mile rerun?

Having 10.8 grams of mar1juana isnt going to alter the ruling one bit, and that's the only negative they found. Is that a lot, more than normal personal use? I've never been into pot.

 

It's from a search warrant. He could be right, it could be a pathetic attempt by the government to smear the man they murdered in his residence.

 

Optimist?

 

I think folks saying it should be a slam dunk either way are wrong.

It is a fact question as to whether she could possibly have reasonably believed she was in her apartment if her key didn't work (I know there is conflicting evidence about door being ajar), she didn't notice the red carpet

I also think she will have a tough time showing she didn't provoke the victim which is another necessary element to get the presumption that she believed deadly force "was IMMEDIATELY NECESSARY"


Finally, is it a rebuttable presumption or does meeting those three elements suffice to get one off? There is a difference.


Folks saying there is no way this is manslaughter or no way it isn't murder are wrong.

 

? Is that a dealer amount or personal amount?

 

I agree with you that if what happened is per her statement, then it still isn't a slam dunk either way.

I'm not comfortable reading the language of the "Self Defense" statute (wrt the stand your ground lingo) that it was written with a case such as this in mind. This is a very unique case. The "reasonably believed" language in the statute actually has nothing to do with her believing she was in her house. I think it is reasonable to read the entire statute as assuming that the person is indeed in their house, place of employment, property, etc.

All the "reasonably believe" language is about things that are happening or going to happen....not about where she thinks she is. There is no "if actor reasonably believes s/he is on her property, in her house, etc." Since it doesn't actually say that, it's reasonable to conclude that the statute wasn't written to handle confusion about where you are.

That's why I don't think it's a slam dunk either way, because the statute is on uncharted territory wrt to this case. It's too unique.

 

That is a large amount of marijuanas for personal use - he was likely a small time drug dealer.

 

It's about 1/3 of an ounce...a bit more than a quarterbag. C'mon now. I think I'm getting trolled the more I think about it.