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.
In Texas law, "intent" is what distinguishes a murder charge from a manslaughter charge. That distinction in a shooting is based on whether the trigger was pulled intentionally or the gun went off accidentally.
In Texas, if the gun went off accidentally, the criminal charge can be manslaughter. A grand jury is going to determine whether the gun was fired accidentally or if the trigger was pulled intentionally.
If the trigger was pulled intentionally, the criminal charge, if there is one, must be murder. That is the only criminal charge available in Texas if the trigger was pulled intentionally. The trial will determine whether the murder charge is upheld or whether the intentional killing was justified in some way.
Self-defense is naturally a defense, but Texas law also considers not only the actual facts of the circumstance but also what the shooter thought were the facts at the moment.
No, I'm thinking intent, but I could be confused. From this website:
In most states, first-degree murder is defined as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated, meaning that it was committed after planning or "lying in wait" for the victim.
But I will note that juries almost always give the police all possible benefit of doubt.
That's why I said earlier that she is likely to walk on a self- or castle defense...because Texas does consider what the shooter thought were the facts.
Some quick research suggests you can't use "mistake of fact" to establish another defense (like self-defense). The mistake must directly negate an element of the crime.
“[M]istake of fact which would establish an affirmative defense to an offense, rather than negating an element of the offense, does not raise a mistake of fact defense.” Bryan v. State, 814 S.W.2d 482, 483 (Tex. App.–Waco 1991, pet. ref’d).
"Intent" means the same thing everywhere more or less, but a lot of states require more than "intent" for what they call "murder". Texas doesn't.
Texas used to balance that out by giving the jury the power to sentence a convicted murderer to probation, but about 10 years ago the law was changed to require at least five years' imprisonment for murder.
BTW, that officer and the captain have since been fully exonerated by the Navy. Supposedly the key evidence has been the discovery of photographs showing the freighter had been running the wrong lights, making it appear at night to be a much smaller vessel.
But I also suspect there is a great deal of evidence indicating that the ship and its crew was undertrained, undermanned, not prepared for duty, and higher brass knew that.
I think you're mistaken. Regardless of whether the crew had an excuse for not knowing the other ship was there, the officer at the helm has no excuse for not stopping the Fitzgerald to keep it out of the other ship's path after it was spotted. If jacked into reverse, that ship could stop in 200 yards.
Ship travel is governed by the “rules of the road,” a set of guidelines regarding speed, lookouts and other best practices to avoid collisions, but Fort’s report casts doubt on whether watchstanders on board the Fitz and sister warships in the 7th Fleet had sufficient knowledge of them to safely navigate at sea.
About three weeks after the ACX Crystal disaster, Fort’s investigators sprang a rules of the road pop quiz on Fitz’s officers.
It didn’t go well. The 22 who took the test averaged a score of 59 percent, Fort wrote.
“Only 3 of 22 Officers achieved a score over 80%,” he added, with seven officers scoring below 50 percent.
The same exam was administered to the wardroom of another unnamed destroyer as a control group, and those officers scored similarly dismal marks.
The XO Babbitt, Coppock and two other officers refused to take the test, according to the report.
I think you're mistaken. Regardless of whether the crew had an excuse for not knowing the other ship was there, the officer at the helm has no excuse for not stopping the Fitzgerald to keep it out of the other ship's path after it was spotted. If jacked into reverse, that ship could stop in 200 yards.
Mistake about what?
First, the accused officers were exonerated.
Quote:
YOKOSUKA NAVAL BASE, Japan — The Navy will drop charges against two former USS Fitzgerald officers accused of criminal negligence in the 2017 fatal collision of the ship that killed seven sailors, according to a Navy statement Thursday.
Former Fitzgerald commanding officer Cmdr. Bryce Benson and the destroyer’s former tactical action officer Lt. Natalie Combs will instead receive secretarial letters of censure from Navy Secretary Richard Spencer. The two were previously dismissed from their jobs and received nonjudicial punishment, the Navy said.
A board of inquiry moved not to separate from service a sailor who the Navy had previously charged with negligent homicide for his role in the 2017 fatal collision of USS Fitzgerald (DDG-62), USNI News has learned.
On Friday, a board found “no basis†to separate Lt. Irian Woodley from the Navy for cause, Woodley’s lawyer, Lt. Cmdr. Justin McEwen, confirmed to USNI News when contacted on Friday. The board was made up of three surface warfare officers and was based in Japan.
“The findings were 3-0 that the government did not prove a ‘basis’ for separation. Because the government did not prove basis, the board did not need to answer the question whether Lt. Woodley would be retained or separated. He is automatically retained,†McEwen wrote in a statement to USNI News.
“The finding of ‘no basis’ is essentially an equivalent and analogous to a full acquittal if this were a court-martial.â€
The question is: Why? I pointed out that the defense did produce pictures indicating that the civilian ship was running the lights of a much smaller vessel.
That doesn't mean the Navy officer of the deck "didn't know" the ship was there, it means that he would have miscomprehended factors such as length and ability to maneuver. The "Law of Gross Tonnage" presumes everyone has a correct idea of everyone else's gross tonnage.
But that is just something the defense proposed. I believe there were numerous other indications that the USS Fitzgerald's officers and crew were not prepared or equipped for their mission, and that the senior brass was aware...and didn't want that laundry aired.
In fact, the accused officers were exonerated. You can come up with whatever reasons you want--I'm not going to bother debating issues that have not been released to the public.
The question is: Why? I pointed out that the defense did produce pictures indicating that the civilian ship was running the lights of a much smaller vessel.
That doesn't mean the Navy officer of the deck "didn't know" the ship was there, it means that he would have miscomprehended factors such as length and ability to maneuver. The "Law of Gross Tonnage" presumes everyone has a correct idea of everyone else's gross tonnage.
But that is just something the defense proposed. I believe there were numerous other indications that the USS Fitzgerald's officers and crew were not prepared or equipped for their mission, and that the senior brass was aware...and didn't want that laundry aired.
In fact, the accused officers were exonerated. You can come up with whatever reasons you want--I'm not going to bother debating issues that have not been released to the public.
Read it again. They were not exonerated.
Quote:
Former Fitzgerald commanding officer Cmdr. Bryce Benson and the destroyer’s former tactical action officer Lt. Natalie Combs will instead receive secretarial letters of censure from Navy Secretary Richard Spencer. The two were previously dismissed from their jobs and received nonjudicial punishment, the Navy said.
You do understand those letter are career death sentences don't you?
You do understand those letter are career death sentences don't you?
They were facing conviction for a capital federal crime and years in prison.
Instead, the captain will retire with full military retirement pay and benefits. He won't get to be an admiral--oh, dear. He'll have to retire at the top 1% instead of the top 0.5%
The deck officer, in fact, has been re-instated, although further promotions are unlikely. The deck officer will be able to resign and go on with life.
They were facing conviction for a capital federal crime and years in prison.
Instead, the captain will retire with full military retirement pay and benefits. He won't get to be an admiral--oh, dear. He'll have to retire at the top 1% instead of the top 0.5%
The deck officer, in fact, has been re-instated, although further promotions are unlikely. The deck officer will be able to resign and go on with life.
Which is a wordy way of saying their careers are over.
Which is a wordy way of saying their careers are over.
Hell, if they'd been caught with porn on their computers, their careers would have been over.
When a ship has a collision at sea, a Navy captain and the deck officer automatically know they have zero promotion capability. It doesn't matter who will be found "at fault." The Navy doesn't suffer a collision without the captain and the deck officer paying consequences. That's why they get salutes and big bucks.
That's the way the Navy is.
There are fifty squeaky-clean candidates for every promotion slot in the military. Records with dots fall out in the first round. A collision is obviously going to be a dot on that record.
Being acquitted of criminal charges is what "exoneration" legally means. Have you not been in the military, or are you just quibbling because you don't know any better.
Hell, if they'd been caught with porn on their computers, their careers would have been over.
When a ship has a collision at sea, a Navy captain and the deck officer automatically know they have zero promotion capability. It doesn't matter who will be found "at fault." The Navy doesn't suffer a collision without the captain and the deck officer paying consequences. That's why they get salutes and big bucks.
That's the way the Navy is.
There are fifty squeaky-clean candidates for every promotion slot in the military. Records with dots fall out in the first round. A collision is obviously going to be a dot on that record.
Being acquitted of criminal charges is what "exoneration" legally means. Have you not been in the military, or are you just quibbling because you don't know any better.
No quibble just facts. Which it is clear you agree with. So why all the quibbling?
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.
