Off-duty Cop walks into the wrong apartment after her shift, shoots and kills the man in who lives there. (Ohio, regular)
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.
The charge of murder is correct. She committed murder. She admits it.
The question is whether she has a defense.
Well of course she killed someone, but they are going to look at the scenario and see if it fits. I doubt the jury will convict her due to the circumstances. That is why I think they should levy a lower charge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbdwihdh378y9
He was overcharged only in the sense that the cops who investigated the case believed he acted in self-defense, and he was charged solely for political reasons. There was no lesser offense he could have been convicted of.
I was incorrect, the judge actually allowed the jury to consider a manslaughter charge.
You think she went out her way to purposely murder him? As in she got done with work, came to her condo building, went to his unit, then murdered him? Do you have a reason she did this?
So far from the news, there is zero evidence this is murder.
The defendant has admitted all of the elements of murder under Texas law. It is murder.
On another note, I cannot wait until the cop who murdered Laquon McDonald in Chicago is sentenced next year. It's been half a century since a Chicago cop has been found guilty of murder while on the job. I hope all the cops there that night and involved in the coverup are also found guilty. You just know if you and I were complicit in covering up a crime we'd be toast.
Why are juries afraid to convict cops though? Are they worried that other cops who were friends of the cop, will target them and give them a hard time, perhaps even seek sort of or revenge or framing? I mean sure prosecutors might not want to prosecute cops, but if they are doing it anyway, and got a jury, why is the jury afraid to convict and send a message? The jury has no ties...
Why did she confess that it was murder, if she is willing to go to trial?
He's talking about her recounting of the circumstances of the incident. "I intentionally pointed the gun at him and pulled the trigger" is the basis of a murder charge, but there are a lot of other circumstances that must be shown in the courtroom before anyone can be convicted on it.
He's talking about her recounting of the circumstances of the incident. "I intentionally pointed the gun at him and pulled the trigger" is the basis of a murder charge, but there are a lot of other circumstances that must be shown in the courtroom before anyone can be convicted on it.
She walked into the wrong apartment. She started this incident. She compounded it by shooting some one to death. She has to be accountable for something.
Why are juries afraid to convict cops though? Are they worried that other cops who were friends of the cop, will target them and give them a hard time, perhaps even seek sort of or revenge or framing? I mean sure prosecutors might not want to prosecute cops, but if they are doing it anyway, and got a jury, why is the jury afraid to convict and send a message? The jury has no ties...
Part of the issue is the very narrow way "rules for police" are drawn for juries. Take the case from the video below. That police officer was acquitted on the grounds of "she feared for her life because the suspect did not keep his hands outstretched" even while she was actively tazing him.
In this case, they've already essentially revealed their defense: The man did not follow the police officer's instructions," which is another slam-dunk out for police officers. This isn't the first time officers have gotten an address wrong and killed the wrong person. Regardless of any other circumstance of the situation--such as when officers burst in upon any innocent civilian who is surprised unware even in his own bed--if the civilian doesn't immediately recognize and respond in instantaneous obedience, the police officer is free to shoot him. That's been in and out of court several times.
He's talking about her recounting of the circumstances of the incident. "I intentionally pointed the gun at him and pulled the trigger" is the basis of a murder charge, but there are a lot of other circumstances that must be shown in the courtroom before anyone can be convicted on it.
What else has to proven though, if she is on the record saying that she shot him intentionally?
What else has to proven though, if she is on the record saying that she shot him intentionally?
Every time a police officer shoots someone, those are the essential facts: "I pointed the gun at him and pulled the trigger."
Whether that was a justified action is what must be demonstrated.
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.
