Seriously? That's what the discussion is down to? Pluralization? You'll notice that the prosecutor also considers the whole case coin flip odds.
It's not an irrelevant point. I haven't seen other prosecutors or lawyers discuss the case. I have no idea if this guy is on point, or if he's misinterpreting the law, or if he's just not factually correct on this case. I have absolutely no doubt that what he feels he's saying is true, but one person saying it isn't enough to convince me. Hell, one source isn't even enough to pass journalistic integrity. This isn't some personal attack on you, it's just my observation.
Right. What Schulte said was that if the jury buys mistake-of-fact, she is entitled to acquittal. Texas precedent allows for shooting any intruder on sight (shudder), so it is a rubber stamp if mistake-of-fact is accepted. The threat is being on someone's property (an intruder) in Texas. They don't have high bars for being justified in shooting.
That is not the way I'm viewing what he said. To tie it in there still needs to be a threat. Which is exactly what someone posted up top. If he's sitting on his couch, or even at the counter, or comes to the door, or so on. There's still no threat there. I even think the castle doctrine requires you to be in your house, I know you've argued that it can extend to other places, but even that is up for debate.
I don't get where you guys think that she has to prove self-defense. Have there not been enough stories in the news about Texan justified shootings to make it clear that she does not have to prove anything in order to shoot? She only needs to convince them that mistake-of-fact was reasonable, and it rolls on autopilot from there.
I would hope the jury would not consider her shooting to be defensive, too, but I'm not holding my breath. On what grounds could they ignore precedent?
eta: I posted Schulte's analysis because so many here are spouting off like they know all about Texas criminal law. I'm pretty confident no one does. So unless you have a more authoritative source, I am deferring to mah dood.
You can defer to absolutely anyone you want, but others can also call that an appeal to authority. I don't even know if the guy you linked to is a decent lawyer. I am taking his statement exactly in its context. As a lawyer that is making a claim based on the evidence he has, which is still incomplete.
This is what I've found from another Texas lawyers
website:
When Does Stand Your Ground Apply?
According to the Texas stand your ground law, you are allowed to use force to protect yourself in your home, vehicle, or place of work if you were:
- Rightfully present at that location.
- Not engaged in any illegal activities.
- Attacked without provocation.
None of those reasons are able to be used here. First, she wasn't rightfully present at that location, which again we can use the mistake of fact. She actually was engaged in illegal activity, she was trespassing, but again mistake of fact. Lastly though, and the biggest one to me, she was NOT attacked without provocation. In fact, she wasn't attacked at all, she was the attacker. I am all happy with discussing those merits, but I really don't feel that lawyer is correct. Feel free to ride or die with him, that's all good. That doesn't mean other people are wrong for disagreeing you and him.
