Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Admittedly, intent sounds pretty ludicrous without any provable backstory to support it. I’ve seen nothing yet indicating that they knew each other. Without that, I don’t buy the intent to murder.
This sounds to me like a complicated case of gross negligence. Nothing more.
That's what I think so far, a complicated and tragic case of gross negligence, and am surprised you see it that way so far too.
The question is does the fact that she did intentionally pull the trigger mean she should or has to be charged with murder according to the statute in Texas as someone else claimed, or if she was only guilty of acting negligently she could and should be charged and convicted of criminally negligent homicide. I think the latter. Someone else said in Texas you don't need intent to murder only intentionally or knowingly cause the action (pulling the trigger) that caused the death and self defense is only a separate defense issue. That doesn't make much sense to me.
That's what I think so far, a complicated and tragic case of gross negligence, and am surprised you see it that way so far too.
The question is does the fact that she did intentionally pull the trigger mean she should or has to be charged with murder according to the statute in Texas as someone else claimed, or if she was only guilty of acting negligently she could and should be charged and convicted of criminally negligent homicide. I think the latter. Someone else said in Texas you don't need intent to murder only intentionally or knowingly cause the action (pulling the trigger) that caused the death and self defense is only a separate defense issue. That doesn't make much sense to me.
It does no one any good to charge her with murder 1. That comes off as vengeful to me.
Criminally negligent homicide sounds about right. She should be looking at about 3 to 5 years in the can at best. I’d lean more towards 3 than 5 if she admits her guilt and shows contrition.
That's what I think so far, a complicated and tragic case of gross negligence, and am surprised you see it that way so far too.
The question is does the fact that she did intentionally pull the trigger mean she should or has to be charged with murder according to the statute in Texas as someone else claimed, or if she was only guilty of acting negligently she could and should be charged and convicted of criminally negligent homicide. I think the latter. Someone else said in Texas you don't need intent to murder only intentionally or knowingly cause the action (pulling the trigger) that caused the death and self defense is only a separate defense issue. That doesn't make much sense to me.
I interpret your comment to mean 1--if she pulled the trigger intending to kill vs wound then that is an important distinction and 2--if she fired by accident then that is negligent homicide
Which doesn't really make sense to me-
So likely I don't understand your explanation...
I don't see how a police office can UN-intentionally pull the trigger
That has to be the grossest mistake that a LEO can commit--
To MISTAKENLY pull the trigger when s/he didn't mean to do so...
Everything in that training is about using the weapon appropriately and with consciousness of intent
It does no one any good to charge her with murder 1. That comes off as vengeful to me.
Criminally negligent homicide sounds about right. She should be looking at about 3 to 5 years in the can at best. I’d lean more towards 3 than 5 if she admits her guilt and shows contrition.
I don't understand YOUR decision that a Murder 1 charge is "vengeful"
The Justice system itself is not about VENGENCE
It is about appropriate response to criminal activity against victims
IF her actions and her explanation fit the definition for a Murder 1 indictment then that is what she deserves
The decision about what charge to use is not about making his family feel better or African-Americans believe in the justice system again or being an object lesson to other LEOs
It is about the parameters of her actions/thoughts and the end result--a dead man...
What were her actions and thoughts afterward
What -- if anything--did the victim do/say that could influenced her actions and throught prior to her pulling the trigger...
The information from others who were with her prior to arriving at the apartment complex, from the neighbors who perhaps saw/heard something prior to the shooting and afterward, any tactical behavior she has exhibited that could shed light on her composure in pressure situations, and prior connections between the LEO and the victim
Those all require UNBIASED and thorough investigation
I have my doubts from what I have read that the investigation will be either unbiased or thorough...
I interpret your comment to mean 1--if she pulled the trigger intending to kill vs wound then that is an important distinction and 2--if she fired by accident then that is negligent homicide
I don't see how a police office can UN-intentionally pull the trigger
That has to be the grosses mistake that a LEO can commit--
To MISTAKENLY pull the trigger when s/he didn't mean to do so...
Everything in that training is about using the weapon appropriately and with consciousness of intent
No not meaning the intended result of intentionally shooting someone. I mean the earlier debate was about do you have to only intentionally or knowingly commit the act, shoot someone causing death, to be guilty of murder as the Texas murder statue suggests, or do you have to intentionally or knowingly shoot someone and your intent or knowledge was not self-defense.
My argument was that since self-defense is a defense to murder, that the murder statute presumes it only applies to those whose reasonable belief or mental state was not of self defense.
So even though the act (shooting) itself was intentional and not unintentional, the reasonable mindset was self defense, and not guilty of murder. But the circumstances and conduct might have been reckless or negligent so the unintentional homicide charges of manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide respectfully are appropriate instead.
Actually it is correct that you didn't make the decision to kill until you pulled the trigger. Drawing your weapon is not attempted killing. But we have no idea of when she drew her side arm in the first place.
I dunno if you've ever drawn a weapon or faced a drawn weapon, but you don't draw until you decided killing someone will probably be necessary, and have know what the kill stimulus will be. When someone has gun out, he's no longer in an intellectual mode, he's in a reactionary mode.
Not necessarily, the mat looks small and thin and she could've stepped around it or not noticed it under foot.
So if she was aware it was not her apartment, then why did she proceed the way she did? A plausible reason hasn't been proffered yet.
Why would she step around a doormat in front of the door? Nobody does that. And, yes, she should have felt it underfoot. Only people who trip over sidewalk cracks can't feel a difference between concrete and a mat underfoot. You can, and you know you can.
I think some people assume shooting a gun is like John Wick.
Unfortunately, most people think like that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
? All we really have of her story is the arrest warrant when she was interviewed.
