• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joe Random said:
WAG? I'd say for some people the fact that she was a cop means an assumption of professionalism and deference to her judgement in the case. Amber the bartender was just a trigger-happy redneck with no training looking to blow someone away. But if a cop went to the wrong apartment and shot the occupant, well there must have been something done to her to cause that mistaken entry and surely a cop wouldn't have shot someone without cause, so he must have done something to deserve, or at least cause, it.

I say this as someone with generally a strong pro-law enforcement bias. I think the fact that she was a cop has some people wondering what he did wrong to make her shoot, since she must have had a good (even if flawed) reason for her actions, her being a professional and all.

Personally I don't buy an inch of that reasoning.
Click to expand...

She is a cop who had previously shot a suspect with at least some justification, but also she was the only police officer to actually think it worth shooting in that case, which suggests she's a bit more trigger-happy than most other cops.
 
plague311 said:
I've seen absolutely zero evidence of that.
Click to expand...

Her whole publicly released statements have focused on how she thought she was in her own apartment. That's mistake of fact, which might decriminalize her actions under Texas law. The defense would be incompetent not to try it.

And that's what I find interesting, too. I agree that each and every thing she did was wrong, and 100% her own fault. But just like Texas law allows you to use deadly force against someone you believe is about to commit a robbery (shudder), she may get off easy under mistake of fact. Remember, this is the state that allows you to shoot a hooker in the back if she steals your cash.
 
Last edited:
jimbob said:
She is a cop who had previously shot a suspect with at least some justification, but also she was the only police officer to actually think it worth shooting in that case, which suggests she's a bit more trigger-happy than most other cops.
Click to expand...

Yup, that's my take on it as well.
 
plague311 said:
ETA: Didn't see the edit, I think you ninja'd me.
Click to expand...

Haha yeah, sorry. I realized right after I'd posted that I'd kind of failed to make my point so I edited. I was hesitant to wade in here, but I've been lurking. This case is just crazy. It actually inspired me to put a bunch of decorations on my door, in the hopes that the other idiots living in my building never make a similar mistake and try to come bursting in for some reason. Obviously, I tend to keep my door locked, but **** happens. I forget things, like we all do.

Overkill? Probably. But now my door looks really nice!
 
Thermal said:
Her whole publicly released statements have focused on how she thought she was in her own apartment. That's mistake of fact, which might decriminalize her actions under Texas law. The defense would be incompetent not to try it.

And that's what I find interesting, too. I agree that each and every thing she did was wrong, and 100% her own fault. But just like Texas law allows you to use deadly force against someone you believe is about to commit a robbery (shudder), she may get off easy under mistake of fact. Remember, this is the state that allows you to shoot a hooked in the back if she sets your cash.
Click to expand...

As has been pointed out multiple times, the mistake of fact only gets you to the wrong apartment. It doesn't justify shooting someone to death for doing absolutely nothing. She wasn't even in the apartment, so Castle Doctrine doesn't apply. She wasn't defending herself from anything and according to her she couldn't see because it was dark. She was firing a gun at nothing and ended up murdering someone. We need to drop the mistake of fact because that's not a justification here.

isissxn said:
Haha yeah, sorry. I realized right after I'd posted that I'd kind of failed to make my point so I edited. I was hesitant to wade in here, but I've been lurking. This case is just crazy. It actually inspired me to put a bunch of decorations on my door, in the hopes that the other idiots living in my building never make a similar mistake and try to come bursting in for some reason. Obviously, I tend to keep my door locked, but **** happens. I forget things, like we all do.

Overkill? Probably. But now my door looks really nice!
Click to expand...

The more voices the better. It encourages conversation. We have a security system at my house, but where I live I almost never arm it. We've never had anyone try to come in our house, or anything like that. We lock the doors sometimes, but we can't even do that consistently.
 
Last edited:
plague311 said:
As has been pointed out multiple times, the mistake of fact only gets you to the wrong apartment. It doesn't justify shooting someone to death for doing absolutely nothing. She wasn't even in the apartment, so Castle Doctrine doesn't apply. She wasn't defending herself from anything and according her she couldn't see because it was dark. She was firing a gun at nothing and ended up murdering someone. We need to drop the mistake of fact because that's not a justification here.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and I have been one of the posters saying mistake of fact should stop at the door. But the defence will certainly try to extend it to the shooting. Where you or I think mistake of fact stops is irrelevant. How the defense argues it to the jury is what will matter.

I think this kind of thing is interesting from the standpoint of challenging laws regarding civilian executions, which I'm not exactly a fan of.
 
Funny people only find the case where the white cop shoots the black guy "interesting" to the point that they have to adopt the full on persona of a member of their legal defense team over it.

Apparently nobody has ever made a mistake or been tired while committing a crime at any point in history that had to be discussed to this degree.
 
Thermal said:
Yeah, and I have been one of the posters saying mistake of fact should stop at the door. But the defence will certainly try to extend it to the shooting. Where you or I think mistake of fact stops is irrelevant. How the defense argues it to the jury is what will matter.

I think this kind of thing is interesting from the standpoint of challenging laws regarding civilian executions, which I'm not exactly a fan of.
Click to expand...

Yet, you say with a lot of certainty that what Distracted1 has said will come to pass. I have no reason to believe that if this is explained to the jury (that the mistake of fact only gets her to the door and absolutely no further) there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to understand it. We aren't talking about some convoluted mumbo jumbo. It's clear cut.
 
There's also the subtext of what Distracted1 proposing being absolutely horrible and something we should be ashamed of if it does happen, which isn't the feeling I'm getting from the apologists.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Funny people only find the case where the white cop shoots the black guy "interesting" to the point that they have to adopt the full on persona of a member of their legal defense team over it.
Click to expand...

And here comes the YOU'RE A RACIST IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME tripe. This has zip to do with skin color and a lot to do with under what circumstances people are allowed to kill each other. This one does get more hazy because she is a cop, who has more legal authority to shoot.

We can assume Guyvers lawyers will milk defense of fact like a fat cow. They e implied as much. For me, the discussion is far more about what changes should be made to law to CLEARLY CRIMINALIZE. scenarios like this. So take your Great White Savior racist finger pointing and shove it.

Apparently nobody has ever made a mistake or been tired while committing a crime at any point in history that had to be discussed to this degree.
Click to expand...

This whole thing is an outlier scenario. Mistake of fact was presumably created to not punish people for honest mistakes. But this one is arguably less than clear in whether it should apply. I think it shouldn't. Even a little bit. But will the Yosemite Sam State interpret it the same way? Could this nightmare freak show happen elsewhere, like our own states? Should we come up with new Amber Laws that shut down attempts to make ANY EXCUSES for civilians shooting others absent a clear threat to life? I think we should.
 
plague311 said:
Yet, you say with a lot of certainty that what Distracted1 has said will come to pass. I have no reason to believe that if this is explained to the jury (that the mistake of fact only gets her to the door and absolutely no further) there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to understand it. We aren't talking about some convoluted mumbo jumbo. It's clear cut.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion on where mistake of fact starts and ends, or rather where you think it should. I doubt you are a Texas criminal attorney, but forgive me if I am mistaken on that point. Wanna make a bet that the defense rolls it out, no matter what you think gets explained to the jury?
 
Thermal said:
That's your opinion on where mistake of fact starts and ends, or rather where you think it should. I doubt you are a Texas criminal attorney, but forgive me if I am mistaken on that point. Wanna make a bet that the defense rolls it out, no matter what you think gets explained to the jury?
Click to expand...

No, I don't want to make that bet. As you said, they've already stated they're going to do as much. Why would I doubt it?

The reason my opinion on where it starts and ends is because it HAS to end at the door. What possible mistake of fact was made post her getting to the apartment? I don't need to be a lawyer to understand simplistic things like that.

After she got to the door everything she did was with purpose. She pulled her gun, she fired two shots, she killed the man, then decided it would be a good time to bother doing some critical thinking. There was no mistake once she got to that door. None.
 
Thermal said:
This whole thing is an outlier scenario. Mistake of fact was presumably created to not punish people for honest mistakes. But this one is arguably less than clear in whether it should apply. I think it shouldn't. Even a little bit. But will the Yosemite Sam State interpret it the same way? Could this nightmare freak show happen elsewhere, like our own states? Should we come up with new Amber Laws that shut down attempts to make ANY EXCUSES for civilians shooting others absent a clear threat to life? I think we should.
Click to expand...

I share your pessimism about the good people who will be on the jury in my fair state, but feel the need to point out that Yosemite is California.
 
Dr. Keith said:
I share your pessimism about the good people who will be on the jury in my fair state, but feel the need to point out that Yosemite is California.
Click to expand...

And with that, my entire argument collapses like a guy watching football in his Dallas apartment.
 
Dr. Keith said:
I share your pessimism about the good people who will be on the jury in my fair state, but feel the need to point out that Yosemite is California.
Click to expand...
But Yosemite Sam doesn't have much connection to California, being a US cartoon character that only fictionally visited California intermittently.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom