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.
This is all wrong. Murder is defined by the murder statute. If something meets that definition, it's murder, and no other sections are relevant to that determination. That doesn't mean it's not also some other crime, but it is murder.
If a murder is committed (according to the definition in section 19.02), the prosecutor can decide not to charge because he thinks the killing was justified. Or, if the prosecutor charges someone with murder, the accused can raise the defense.
All criminal law is defined or controlled by legal theories such as mens rea or guilty mind. To prove murder you have to prove the person intended or knew they were not acting in self defense and not just that they intentionally acted in a way that caused the death. That is a misinterpretation of the statute's meaning of "intended or knowingly".
It in other words means you intended or knowingly killed someone not in self defense and with a guilty mind.
In Western jurisprudence, concurrence (also contemporaneity or simultaneity) is the apparent need to prove the simultaneous occurrence of both actus reus ("guilty action") and mens rea ("guilty mind"), to constitute a crime; except in crimes of strict liability. In theory, if the actus reus does not hold concurrence in point of time with the mens rea then no crime has been committed.
All criminal law is defined or controlled by legal theories such as mens rea or guilty mind. To prove murder you have to prove the person intended or knew they were not acting in self defense.
No, you don't. Not if the defendant doesn't claim self-defense.
The mens rea for murder in Texas is intent to kill (or intent to cause serious bodily injury if that intent is expressed through an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual).
One commits murder by intentionally and knowingly causing the death of an individual. Tex. Pen.Code Ann. § 19.02(b)(1) (Vernon 2003). Being so defined, murder is known as a "result of conduct offense." Schroeder v. State, 123 S.W.3d 398, 400 (Tex.Crim.App.2003); Medina v. State, 7 S.W.3d 633, 639 (Tex.Crim.App.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1102, 120 S.Ct. 1840, 146 L.Ed.2d 782 (2000); Cook v. State, 884 S.W.2d 485, 491 (Tex.Crim.App.1994). That is, the statute requires the accused to have had a particular mind set (i.e. either intentional or knowing) viz the prohibited result.
Moreover, your "self-defense" argument is inconsistent with your own view that this meets the definition of criminally negligent homicide. If the negation of self-defense is part of the definition of murder than it would also be part of the definition of criminally negligent homicide as well.
All criminal law is defined or controlled by legal theories such as mens rea or guilty mind. To prove murder you have to prove the person intended or knew they were not acting in self defense and not just that they intentionally acted in a way that caused the death. That is a misinterpretation of the statute's meaning of "intended or knowingly".
It in other words means you intended or knowingly killed someone not in self defense and with a guilty mind.
Other sections of Texas law, which hbdwihdh378y9 insists on ignoring, take that into account to define other circumstances of homicide as situations other than murder.
No, you don't. Not if the defendant doesn't claim self-defense.
The mens rea for murder in Texas is intent to kill (or intent to cause serious bodily injury if that intent is expressed through an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual).
Moreover, your "self-defense" argument is inconsistent with your own view that this meets the definition of criminally negligent homicide. If the negation of self-defense is part of the definition of murder than it would also be part of the definition of criminally negligent homicide as well.
It's already presumed she's innocent and acted in self defense until evidence proves otherwise. Murder mens rea means you intended to kill not in self defense.
I'm saying if her intent, knowledge and awareness was she was acting in self defense, shooting an intruder in her apartment, then she is not guilty of the mental state required to be guilty of murder. But she can't be considered innocent by self defense because she still acted negligently by entering the wrong apartment.
When you kill someone believing your acting in self defense but while acting negligently, it's consider criminally negligent homicide.
Other sections of Texas law, which hbdwihdh378y9 insists on ignoring, take that into account to define other circumstances of homicide as situations other than murder.
LOL. The murder statute defines murder. If I'm talking about murder -- which is what I'm doing -- I'm going to look at the murder statute. If you want to talk about some other crime, then you will need to look at some other statute.
It is a fact that what this officer did meets the definition of murder in Texas. Whether she has a defense and whether the DA wants to charge her are separate questions.
It's already presumed she's innocent and acted in self defense until evidence proves otherwise.
Then you can't say it was criminally negligent homicide. The same objection you're making to the murder charge would apply to criminally negligent homicide. If it was self-defense, and self-defense negates mens rea, it wouldn't be criminally negligent homicide, either.
LOL. The murder statute defines murder. If I'm talking about murder -- which is what I'm doing -- I'm going to look at the murder statute. If you want to talk about some other crime, then you will need to look at some other statute.
It is an absolute fact that what this officer did meets the definition of murder in Texas.
Funny, though, how that is not the charge.
The charge is manslaughter.
And that would be because it better meets the definition of manslaughter in Texas.
It is simply the crime scene. They need a search warrant to collect the evidence such as the shell casings and her gear.
Excuse me but wouldn't that type of warrant have specific limitations to those particulars and not the nightstand in his bedroom where his stash of pot would be expected to be?
If the judge authorizing the search gave them a blank cheque to allow them to roam at will and look in the guy's toilet tank, he's just added another level of proof of the existence of a two layer system.
Tables being turned; that lady cop would not have her apartment searched if she were not a cop and the victim of similar circumstances by someone other than a cop.
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.
