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

[Darat]

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

Or, your mind was elsewhere and you mistakenly didn't think you were at a crosswalk. Therefore you made a "mistake of fact" so you have a defence against any claims of unlawful killing.

As JoeM says this is ludicrous because all anyone would ever do is make a claim for a " mistake of fact" and lo and behold you won't be prosecuted because all you did was make a mistake.

 

[Distracted1]

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 Do NOT quote another case about "mistake of fact" at us UNLESS THEY ARE ACTUALLY COMPARABLE.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.

Yet, as recently as post #322, you are claiming what seems to amount to:
"a world where mistaking facts can be exculpatory is 'insane', because then every crime can be negated by claiming it was a mistake".

You roll that back in post #337, claiming that sometimes "mistake of fact" can be exculpatory.

IMO, that is progress.
Can we agree, at least, that sometimes what might under other circumstances would be criminal is not due to the principle of mistake of fact?
And, further, that accepting that principle as a valid one does not create some kind of crazy world where "I can just shoot anyone I like and then walk because I can claim I was mistaken"?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yet, as recently as post #322, you are claiming what seems to amount to:
"a world where mistaking facts can be exculpatory is 'insane', because then every crime can be negated by claiming it was a mistake".

Again dude you're not in a courtroom, don't play lawyer games with me.

You know the difference, don't play stupid. There's no jury you're impressing with it.

 

[jimbob]

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".

There is a big difference, the shooter mistook someone entering the property.

Guyver first mistook the property, then mistook the person in the property for a home invader then mistook him for a threat.

But she had been sleepy, so that's allright.

 

[Distracted1]

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.

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

When the authorities in the linked episode decided to treat it as an "accident", do you think they are referring to the act of firing the gun (as in, not intending to pull the trigger) or are they perhaps referring to the choice of target?

 

[Matthew Best]

I feel like we had this whole conversation about Oscar Pistorius. The conclusion was even if he was telling the truth about believing there was an intruder in his toilet, it would still be murder to shoot that person through the toilet door. So his "defence" was no defence at all.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Can we agree, at least, that sometimes what might under other circumstances would be criminal is not due to the principle of mistake of fact?
And, further, that accepting that principle as a valid one does not create some kind of crazy world where "I can just shoot anyone I like and then walk because I can claim I was mistaken"?

No, not in the frame and context you've already driven the discussion it.

We're talking a situation that is absurd piled on absurd. She walked into the wrong apartment and shot the unarmed person sitting there... twice.

No. Question of nuance and grey area and "sometimes" lamb bleating do not belong here.

That's why I keep asking what would be a crime in your insane hypothetical worldview because if this isn't, I don't know what could be.

That's why I didn't bite your "Ah but you said a mistake could make something a crime here but said not here AHA GOTCHA!" inanity.

In any sane world, yes. In your world where "Slightly sleepy cop executes black man in his own home" is questionable, no.

 

[Darat]

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

When the authorities in the linked episode decided to treat it as an "accident", do you think they are referring to the act of firing the gun (as in, not intending to pull the trigger) or are they perhaps referring to the choice of target?

No idea and not at all interested in the initial reaction apart from what it indicates about how police officers are investigated.

 

[Distracted1]

I feel like we had this whole conversation about Oscar Pistorius. The conclusion was even if he was telling the truth about believing there was an intruder in his toilet, it would still be murder to shoot that person through the toilet door. So his "defence" was no defence at all.

And, in that situation, it would still have been a crime because that is illegal where it occurred. The same act, in Dallas Tx, is quite possibly not illegal.

 

[Distracted1]

No idea and not at all interested in the initial reaction apart from what it indicates about how police officers are investigated.

The shooter was not a police officer.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And, in that situation, it would still have been a crime because that is illegal where it occurred. The same act, in Dallas Tx, is quite possibly not illegal.

I can personally guarantee you that it IS illegal to break into someone else's home and shoot them twice in Texas.

 

[Distracted1]

No, not in the frame and context you've already driven the discussion it.

We're talking a situation that is absurd piled on absurd. She walked into the wrong apartment and shot the unarmed person sitting there... twice.

No. Question of nuance and grey area and "sometimes" lamb bleating do not belong here.

That's why I keep asking what would be a crime in your insane hypothetical worldview because if this isn't, I don't know what could be.

That's why I didn't bite your "Ah but you said a mistake could make something a crime here but said not here AHA GOTCHA!" inanity.

In any sane world, yes. In your world where "Slightly sleepy cop executes black man in his own home" is questionable, no.

This thread is not about what happens in "my hypothetical world" as much as it is about what did happen in Dallas.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I can personally guarantee you that it IS illegal to break into someone else's home and shoot them twice in Texas.

What if you're a First Class Citizen?

 

[JoeMorgue]

This thread is not about what happens in "my hypothetical world" as much as it about what did happen in Dallas.

Okay. She entered someone else's house and made the conscious decision to shoot an unarmed, nonthreatening person twice.

These are the facts and they are not in dispute.

That's it. There's nothing else to discuss.

The second you go "Okay but she thought..." we are in your hypothetical world.

 

[Belz...]

My post demonstrates that one can shoot someone dead legally.

So does mine. That was my whole ******* point.

 

[Belz...]

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.

What do you mean "nope"? Where are we disagreeing, exactly?

 

[plague311]

I don't believe this was premeditated, I think someone asked me that in the earlier pages (I just caught up now), but I can't remember whom.

I think she was negligent on multiple occasions and her negligence led to the death of an innocent man. As others have posted here, even if she thought she was in the wrong apartment, it doesn't give her the right to shoot him.

I personally believe that her negligence was on display long before entering the apartment. I've stated the multiple, in some case literal, signs that she had to have missed or ignored to get to the point of opening that door.

The only reason her being a cop is relevant to me is that I don't believe she would have been armed otherwise. Which would have led to this whole situation being avoided. That's not the case, however, she is\was a cop. Being a cop enabled her to be armed, being armed led her to having the ability to shoot a man for absolutely no reason.

She belongs in prison for murder.

 

[Distracted1]

So does mine. That was my whole ******* point.

My apologies. I saw sarcasm where it did not exist.

 

[Belz...]

My apologies. I saw sarcasm where it did not exist.

Well, let's move on, then: Of course, killing someone, unless you have a good reason to, is a crime. So since this is the case on this specific topic, absent a good reason, she committed a crime. So when you said:

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

In this case, yeah, if I don't support her decision to shoot, it's because I think she committed a crime.

 

[theprestige]

Well, let's move on, then: Of course, killing someone, unless you have a good reason to, is a crime.

Not exactly. If you conclude from the available information that you have good reason, then it's not necessarily a crime, even it it turns out that you were working with faulty or incomplete information.

Someone who takes reasonable steps to be well-informed, and makes a reasonable decision based on that information, isn't committing a crime even if the information turns out to be wrong.

And even when a crime is committed, the crime in question will depend on what exactly they did. Not taking reasonable steps to be well informed is negligence, not murder.

While Guyger did probably intend to kill the man (in a technically correct is the worst kind of correct sort of way), I don't think it's murder. Not unless she knew it was his apartment, knew he wasn't a threat, and intended to kill him anyway.