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.
Well, we'll have to wait and see how this thing plays out in a court of law. But one thing for sure, she'll most likely do more time in prison for killing this man then Jose Ines Garcia Zarate got for killing that woman in San Francisco.
Oh and how do you accidentally barge into somebody else's apartment and still not realize you were in the wrong apartment as soon as you saw the interior?
I still think she might have been using drugs or intoxicated.
To be convicted of manslaughter, a defendant must be proven beyond reasonable doubt to have recklessly caused the death of another person. As opposed to murder, intent does not need to be proven in order to convict someone of manslaughter.
You need to read more than one source, but let's go with the one you linked:
Quote:
In order to be charged with murder, the defendant must have knowingly and willingly caused the death of another person. The biggest distinguishing factor between murder and manslaughter involves the intent of the perpetrator. If the defendant intended to cause serious bodily harm or death, or intended to commit a felony other than manslaughter that resulted in death, he or she can be charged with murder.
That has been interpreted in the courtroom to mean that the perpetrator intended to pull the trigger. What you'd like to see is motivation. But, sorry, motivation is not necessary to prove, only that the perpetrator intended to pull the trigger.
If the perpetrator is proven to have intended to pull the trigger, then the next thing to demonstrate is whether she had self-defense as a valid reason why she intended to pull the trigger.
Quote:
Many states have two different forms of manslaughter: voluntary and involuntary. Texas, however, combines these two charges into one and has enhanced penalties for certain aggravating factors.
To be convicted of manslaughter, a defendant must be proven beyond reasonable doubt to have recklessly caused the death of another person. As opposed to murder, intent does not need to be proven in order to convict someone of manslaughter.
The "intent" stated here is intent to cause harm--that is, in the case of manslaughter there was no intention of shooting anyone. The gun wasn't aimed intentionally or the trigger wasn't pulled intentionally.
Regarding your link to the man convicted of manslaughter, there is this, indicating that it probably wasn't proven that the man pulled the trigger intentionally:
Quote:
According to an arrest affidavit, witnesses told police that Cowart, Bearden and others were hanging out beside a shed when the shooting occurred. Witnesses also told police Bearden and Cowart had been “horseplaying," teasing and arguing with each other throughout the night prior to the shooting.
"In the Texas Penal Code, there is a listed defense known as “Mistake of Fact.”
According to the code, “it is a defense to prosecution that the actor through mistake formed a reasonable belief about a matter of fact if his mistaken belief negated the kind of culpability required for commission of the offense.”
I wouldn't be surprised if there is rioting in Dallas if she isn't convicted. She really needs to do time for this.
"In the Texas Penal Code, there is a listed defense known as “Mistake of Fact.”
According to the code, “it is a defense to prosecution that the actor through mistake formed a reasonable belief about a matter of fact if his mistaken belief negated the kind of culpability required for commission of the offense.”
How's that supposed to get her anywhere? Shooting him is murder regardless of what she believed. She would have to argue that her "mistake of fact" gave her a basis for another affirmative defense. Does it really work that way?
"In the Texas Penal Code, there is a listed defense known as “Mistake of Fact.”
According to the code, “it is a defense to prosecution that the actor through mistake formed a reasonable belief about a matter of fact if his mistaken belief negated the kind of culpability required for commission of the offense.”
I wouldn't be surprised if there is rioting in Dallas if she isn't convicted. She really needs to do time for this.
Theres no way that Mistake of Fact can cover for her not even checking to see if she was at the right apartment. If it does, ILL be rioting in the streets of Texas.
You need to read more than one source, but let's go with the one you linked:
That has been interpreted in the courtroom to mean that the perpetrator intended to pull the trigger. What you'd like to see is motivation. But, sorry, motivation is not necessary to prove, only that the perpetrator intended to pull the trigger.
If the perpetrator is proven to have intended to pull the trigger, then the next thing to demonstrate is whether she had self-defense as a valid reason why she intended to pull the trigger.
The "intent" stated here is intent to cause harm--that is, in the case of manslaughter there was no intention of shooting anyone. The gun wasn't aimed intentionally or the trigger wasn't pulled intentionally.
Regarding your link to the man convicted of manslaughter, there is this, indicating that it probably wasn't proven that the man pulled the trigger intentionally:
None of that matters. The statement was there is no manslaughter charge in Texas. There is.
Theres no way that Mistake of Fact can cover for her not even checking to see if she was at the right apartment. If it does, ILL be rioting in the streets of Texas.
I agree. Let's say I come home some night and mistakenly walk into someone else's apartment. I kill that person. Does anyone think the courts would say " Oh, he just made an honest mistake, no harm, no foul !" ?No way, I would be found guilty and so should this cop...……...in fact, she should be held to a higher standard, she is trained to know how to react in stressful, unexpected situations.
I agree. Let's say I come home some night and mistakenly walk into someone else's apartment. I kill that person. Does anyone think the courts would say " Oh, he just made an honest mistake, no harm, no foul !" ?No way, I would be found guilty and so should this cop...……...in fact, she should be held to a higher standard, she is trained to know how to react in stressful, unexpected situations.
.
She should be, of course! But cops seldom get convicted. She will walk. There is almost zero chance of a conviction. I just think the city of Dallas (and I live here in this area) need to be prepared for rioting when that happens. They need to understand why people are angry at an unjust court system and police brutality that goes unchecked and unpunished.
It would have been better for her to get a manslaughter charge, because a conviction would have been easier to get on the lesser charge. I think they charged her with murder, knowing it wouldn't stick. She has not plea bargained because she & her lawyer know the murder charge won't stick.
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.
