Dallas police officer who shot man in his own apartment indicted on murder charge

(I hav

She never put her case to the GJ. No accused person does. We all know that, except you, it seems.

The GJ is irrelevant in determining guilt or innocence. It simply decides if there is probable cause for an arrest/charge. Can you tell me if 'mistake of fact' is a recognised defence in the US?

As for the red rug. Oh dear. I have the perfect response to that. Basically it boils down to this.....one gets used to seeing what you need to see by way of established habit, or confirmation bias. I know of one pilot of a small amphibious plane who landed on water with his wheels still extended for a landing on land. Tragically, wiped out a Family and he survived. Inquest....he swore he saw three green lights for wheels up. No charge resulted.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/kidding-ourselves/201404/we-see-what-we-want-see

There I was at the petrol (gas) bowser only two days ago......out I get after having opened the external access port. Unscrew the internal lid, grab the hose, insert the nozzle and get to almost $10.00 worth in when I see an A4 size sign on the front of the bowser and at the side of the three nozzles. "CASH ONLY," in big bold letters. I immediately stop putting the fuel in until I established I was carrying the cash to carry on.

There it was....a BIG BOLD SIGN...yet my eyes were not looking for BIG BOLD SIGNS. Habit.

 

Of course not, but the prosecution most certainly filed that information in its report. That's what led the GJ to make the indictment decision that it did. Now it's up to her convincing a jury of her peers, but given the evidence I highly doubt she/her team will able to persuade the jury.

Again, I didn't say anything about seeing. You FEEL the rug underneath your feet for god sakes. And if there's a rug there, and you *know* you didn't buy one, SOMETHING is off. You want to make excuses for the murderer, but they fall on deaf ears. If I were on the jury, I'm voting murder one.

 

Do you know if she had a moroon rug at her entrance?

Let's have a Trial before you get the neck tie party together hey? I have no idea what the full brief of evidence is and neither do you. My comments are based on the meagre stuff (which could all be bullshit) in the media, but I can see where the Defence is heading here.

 

The evidence we've been permitted to see is the same. And I think I have a far more convincing argument if I were a prosecutor. There's no record of intoxication, and there's a physical discrepency between her apartment and the victim's that cannot be explained away.

She's a murderer, that's what the evidence suggests and that is what I would pursue as a prosecutor.

 

Can you link me to all that evidence we have been permitted to see?

 

To be fair the evidence we have been permitted to see is that which the govt has allowed

 

You are talking about a trained observer, so that is not a belief.

 

There is nothing wrong with having that opinion about her guilt. Do you really want to live in a society where cops can murder people without having to pay the price for their crimes? If she had killed your father in the same situation would you still be making excuses for her? She is a cold-blooded killer and she needs to pay the full price for her crime.

The best law anyone can pass will be one that treats thug cops exactly the same as regular thugs. So in a case where the cop does a questionable killing, such as we read about every day, he is immediately suspended from the force without pay and booked in jail. And all of his background is posted in the news. That is the way regular suspects are treated.

 

You can bet that if the roles were reversed they would be blasting the guy*s info within five minutes of his arrest. It would include everything he had done since he was a fetus in his mother*s womb.

 

Why are you pointing out the obvious?

 

So you believe that she is lying in saying that she thought she was at her apartment?

 

Depends on the incident. What premeditation to kill someone is shown by the evidence? What was the motive? If I'm on the jury, and I have been, those are two key factors I want to know.

 

If I honestly believe that that wall is going to stop my bullet but when I fire the shot and it goes through and kills someone on the other side I can be charged with a homicide as a manslaugther.

 

I dont know you are going to show she entered the apartment with the intent to kill anyone who might be in it. It started as a gross negligence, that would be manslaughter.

 

If that belief was a result of your gross negligence it can be manslaughter.

 

You don’t have to show she enter the apt with that intent, just that when she fired she had the intent.

 

As a result of her gross negligence. She can mount two defenses, both affirmative defenses.
One, it was self defense to try and get off. Doubtful that will work.
Two, it was a result of my gross negligence thinking I was entering my apartment. That could result in a conviction on the lower charge of manslaugther.
The prosecutor is going to have to show premeditation and motive. I haven't seen that I the evidence we know of have you?

 

Because of her gross negligence she fired in a believed self defense.
I'm just saying that is what her defense is most likely to be. The prosecutor has to show she did not have that belief that she had premeditation and motive to commit the homicide which would make it a murder.

 

I certainly think her attorneys will be arguing that, and maybe she gets voluntary manslaughter.

 

What's the prosecutions case against her affirmative defense, meaning they have to prove her wrong? She came home and went looking for a door ajar so she could go in and kill someone?

 

An affirmative defense means she has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt she had the reasonable mistaken belief and that defense was reasonable. There case is she simply went into his apartment, her mistake was unreaobele, and she shot him. You can infer her intent to kill by using a deadly weapon

 

She just asserts it, the prosecution has to disprove it. What is there evidence to disprove it?

 

No, she has to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, that’s what an affirmative defense requires.

 

Clearly obvious.

 

It doesn't have to be premeditated to be murder and she unlawfully shot him. What part of that don't you understand.