Cont: Man shot, killed by off-duty Dallas police officer who walked into wrong apartment p2

[Belz...]

The intent to shoot was to stop an intruder in her apartment, this however was only able to happen because of the mistake of fact, of entering the wrong apartment.

That's why it all hinges on whether her initial mistake was reasonable. I find that it was not.

However, since there are several possibilities other than "intruder" in your own home when you're not there, and since the situation is reversed (you entering, the other person already there) I find it hard to support shooting EVEN IF she had been at the correct appartment.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The intent to shoot was to stop an intruder in her apartment, this however was only able to happen because of the mistake of fact, of entering the wrong apartment.

And again, for the 50th billionth time, this insane interpretation of "mistake of fact" undoes the very concept of a crime.

Nothing would be criminal in your insane world because everything could be countered with "well I thought the situation was different."

And as Belz said even this insanity hinges on the initial "mistake" being anywhere near reasonable which is most certainly wasn't.

And, for the like 500th billionth time, I wanna know where all the "Mistake of fact" fetishists are at when a black guy shoots a cop executing a no-knock warrant.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/michigan-man-shoots-wife-mistaking-intruder-sheriff/story?id=64317617

"Investigators are saying the incident is being treated as an accident, and no charges are being filed"

So, no.

Choosing not to charge is not evidence that the killing was lawful. Prosecutors have wide discretion.

 

[Distracted1]

That's why it all hinges on whether her initial mistake was reasonable. I find that it was not.

However, since there are several possibilities other than "intruder" in your own home when you're not there, and since the situation is reversed (you entering, the other person already there) I find it hard to support shooting EVEN IF she had been at the correct appartment.

Not being "in support" of something is different from asserting that that same thing is a crime though, no?

I don't support "shoot first", but in some places it seems it is a legal act.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again this "I'm not supporting her, I'm just role playing as a member of her legal defense team" thing is getting stale.

 

[Belz...]

Not being "in support" of something is different from asserting that that same thing is a crime though, no?

Well, you're in luck, then. Unless you can legally shoot someone dead, it's a crime.

 

[Distracted1]

Well, you're in luck, then. Unless you can legally shoot someone dead, it's a crime.

Did you read my link from a few posts ago?

 

[Belz...]

Did you read my link from a few posts ago?

Instead of playing 50 questions, how about you make a point?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Blasted through a crosswalk on the way to work today and ran over 6 kids. Cops had to let me go because I told them my boss made me stay an hour late last night and I was a bit sleepy.

OneSimpleTrickJudgesDon'tWantYouToKnow

 

[Belz...]

Blasted through a crosswalk on the way to work today and ran over 6 kids. Cops had to let me go because I told them my boss made me stay an hour late last night and I was a bit sleepy.

Plus you thought they were rabid ducks, so it's all ok.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I see a solution here. The judge just orders the bailiff the shoot the woman in the head during the trial, and then claims he was sleepy.

Jesus Christ this is inane. Damn near every 3 days for 20 years someone would come to my bed, wake me up in the middle of the night for the specific purpose of getting a gun and walking around outside while exhausted.

The "BUT SHE WAS AWAKE TOOOOOOOOO LONG" is intellectually and morally insulting.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Plus you thought they were rabid ducks, so it's all ok.

You weren't there man. The way the sunlight was hitting them, they looked like ducks. No one can impugn my lived experience as unreasonable.

 

[Distracted1]

Instead of playing 50 questions, how about you make a point?

You made the claim that one cannot shoot someone dead without committing a crime.
The post is a recent example of that very thing occurring. Directly refuting your claim.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You made the claim that one cannot shoot someone dead without committing a crime.
The post is a recent example of that very thing occurring. Directly refuting your claim.

You can't shoot someone dead WITHOUT GOOD REASON and it not be a crime.

"But I've been awake... like literally the exact same amount of time as any other working adult" is nowhere near any sane person's version of a good reason.

 

[Belz...]

You made the claim that one cannot shoot someone dead without committing a crime.

Quote me.

 

[Distracted1]

You can't shoot someone dead WITHOUT GOOD REASON and it not be a crime.

"But I've been awake... like literally the exact same amount of time as any other working adult" is nowhere near any sane person's version of a good reason.

The reason in the link was that the woman was killed entering her own home because the shooter mistook her identity.
That mistake of fact seems to make the killing an accident- not a crime.

Unless, you think that the sherrif is referring to the act of discharging the gun as the "accident".

 

[JoeMorgue]

The reason in the link was that the woman was killed entering her own home because the shooter mistook her identity.
That mistake of fact seems to make the killing an accident- not a crime.

Unless, you think that the sherrif is referring to the act of discharging the gun as the "accident".

I don't care. You're not actually a member of this woman's legal defense team not matter how deep in character you've gotten and this isn't a court room, it's a discussion. You can't win by setting precedent that's only vaguely related.

We're not saying nothing can ever not be a crime because of an initial "mistake of fact" where saying THIS PARTICULAR INCIDENT wasn't a reasonable "mistake of fact" and consequences thereoff. Do NOT quote another case about "mistake of fact" at us UNLESS THEY ARE ACTUALLY COMPARABLE.

Also, and I'm going to keep grabbing you by the lapels and screaming this into your face into you get it... IT WAS NOT HER ******* HOME.

 

[Distracted1]

Quote me.

You in post #326: "Unless you can legally shoot someone dead, it's a crime"

My post demonstrates that one can shoot someone dead legally.

Your assertion, by your own reasoning, then becomes " it is not a crime ".

 

[Darat]

The intent to shoot was to stop an intruder in her apartment, this however was only able to happen because of the mistake of fact, of entering the wrong apartment.



An example: A driver of an armored vehicle is told that anything on Hill 225 is a hostile enemy. But due to lack of sleep, the armored vehicle crew has placed their sights on a nearby hill 221, a vehicle appears, the first vehicle fires a round striking what they thought was an enemy vehicle. They intended to blow up the vehicle, but made a mistake of fact on the target area.



This would still be an accident, despite the intent of shooting the vehicle.

Nope. The intent to shoot was to kill someone.

 

[Darat]

That's why it all hinges on whether her initial mistake was reasonable. I find that it was not.



However, since there are several possibilities other than "intruder" in your own home when you're not there, and since the situation is reversed (you entering, the other person already there) I find it hard to support shooting EVEN IF she had been at the correct appartment.

Nope. Her original mistake was thinking she was at her apartment. There has not been one jot of evidence that she wasn't trying to kill Jean by quite deliberately deciding to pull her gun from its holster, take aim, shoot and then take aim again and fire again.