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

[plague311]

You got me curious, so I checked. Here's the first two cases that came up on my search:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2014/02/08/texas-man-who-killed-police-officer-during-no-knock-raid-will-not-face-murder-charge-grand-jury-refuses-to-indict/

https://newsmaven.io/pinacnews/eye-on-government/texas-man-found-not-guilty-for-shooting-three-cops-during-noknock-raid-ehraX84ZEUi9Q0___1p4XA/

Both no-knocks in Texas. Both times occupant shot officers. Both walked away.

Yee hah.

The second one was still charged and convicted.

But those charges were reduced during the trial to three counts of aggravated assault on a public official.

Prosecutors argued that Rosas was well aware they were cops because they yelled “police” at some point during the raid.

Strange version of "walked away", but ok. The first one is real, and the charges were dropped. Now if that's a regular occurrence or a one off, I don't know. I'll stand by what I said.

 

[plague311]

Weed in the apartment does not count as evidence?
Kudos on the logic and reason.

The **** are you talking about? Did you read the quoted passage I was responding too? Perhaps spend a moment doing that, then come back. I'll take you just rescinding this comment when you're ready. Thanks.

The "mistake of fact" is based upon the reasonableness of the mistake.
Whilst being tired may be a factor- it is not a necessary one to make the argument.

So your claim is that she wasn't tired, she wasn't distracted, she just parked on the wrong floor, walked by multiple floor # signs, went to an apartment that has a bright red doormat that she didn't have, didn't look at the lit up sign next to the door, barged in and started shooting because of that mistake?

 

[Distracted1]

I am unaware of any posters in this thread who want her to move to their complex. In fact, Thermal and I have both been clear that she should be locked up as a murderer, even if we are not confident that she will. I think some others have a similar position as it has been roundly derided by some as "having it both ways", rather than just being honest.

Is there anyone in this thread who thinks that she should walk free of any punishment, without any reference to the local laws, just as a matter of how the world would work if they were King?

Impossible to distinguish without consideration of the local laws.

If I were "king" people would not be going around armed thus.

However, if I were KOTW ("king of the world-"-in case I have need to use the term again),
people acting within local laws would not be criminals.

So, yes, based on my current, limited ,understanding of local laws and the circumstances so far made public, she should not be convicted of murder.

 

[Thermal]

The second one was still charged and convicted.



Strange version of "walked away", but ok. The first one is real, and the charges were dropped. Now if that's a regular occurrence or a one off, I don't know. I'll stand by what I said.

You're misreading. The charges were lowered, but the jury still found not guilty. Home boy walked free.

After two hours of deliberations, the jury found him not guilty, according to the Corpus Christi Caller-Times.

Stand by what you like.

 

[Darat]

If you have never once in this thread defended the "mistake of fact", then I will absolutely apologize. I'll dig through the thread, since I've got some time today, just for S's and G's. The mistake of fact premise is based on her being tired, and having a long day at work of at least 16 hours.







He shouldn't have ******* had to respond to any commands. She also never said, "Police Officer", and this also is counter to what you're claiming. He can't have been a threat if he were stoned off his ass, and had delayed movement as you implied.



Also, per this article, I don't think her defense is going to work all that well. It was actually the Grand Jury that upgraded the charges in this case, not the DA.







I would bet that there is something we're missing.

I doubt it.

At some point the "mistake of fact" has to break down, I suspect like me they would consider the mistake of fact only gets her to the wrong apartment. That's the point when it breaks down, after that point she makes a decision to kill someone, she has been trained to make those decisions, she wears an active firearm so she can make that decision, she is now doing what she has been trained to do. It is much worse for her than a non police officer who just likes wearing a lethal weapon around town.and decides to kill someone. She has no grounds to claim she made a mistake when she decided to kill Jean, that she didn't know what she was doing.

 

[Distracted1]

The **** are you talking about? Did you read the quoted passage I was responding too? Perhaps spend a moment doing that, then come back. I'll take you just rescinding this comment when you're ready. Thanks.



So your claim is that she wasn't tired, she wasn't distracted, she just parked on the wrong floor, walked by multiple floor # signs, went to an apartment that has a bright red doormat that she didn't have, didn't look at the lit up sign next to the door, barged in and started shooting because of that mistake?

"So", your claim is that she went to Mr. Jeans' apartment, got past his locked door, and shot him with full awareness of where she was and who she was killing?

 

[plague311]

You're misreading. The charges were lowered, but the jury still found not guilty. Home boy walked free.



Stand by what you like.

I was misreading, I thought you meant they didn't get charged. Which in the first case was the case, the second wasn't.

 

[Bob001]

Side issue: The story about jury selection says the defense has requested a change of venue. If the judge was inclined to grant it, would the defense have anything to say about the new location, or would it be limited to a certain distance from Dallas? I recall some speculation about how the defense would like to move the trial to a small town, where the jurors would be more likely to be white and pro-cop. On the other hand, if it gets moved to Austin or even Houston, Guyger could be worse off.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The whole "Change of venue" thing seems like a quaint relic in a post-information age world.

 

[plague311]

Side issue: The story about jury selection says the defense has requested a change of venue. If the judge was inclined to grant it, would the defense have anything to say about the new location, or would it be limited to a certain distance from Dallas? I recall some speculation about how the defense would like to move the trial to a small town, where the jurors would be more likely to be white and pro-cop. On the other hand, if it gets moved to Austin or even Houston, Guyger could be worse off.

That's a good question, they wanted it moved to a different county but same judicial district:

The defense team asked that the trial be moved to another court in the same judicial district in which Dallas County is located, specifically to one of the following counties: Collin, Grayson, Kaufman, Ellis, Rockwall or Fannin.

Would the prosecutor and judge remain on the case?

 

[Dr. Keith]

So, yes, based on my current, limited ,understanding of local laws and the circumstances so far made public, she should not be convicted of murder.

Should she face any lesser charges?

 

[Dr. Keith]

That's a good question, they wanted it moved to a different county but same judicial district:

Off the top of my head: I'm not familiar with all of those counties, but the ones I am familiar with are far more white than Dallas County.

 

[plague311]

"So", your claim is that she went to Mr. Jeans' apartment, got past his locked door, and shot him with full awareness of where she was and who she was killing?

Nope, I don't know what I think. I know that her version of events don't add up, and I know that the Grand Jury was faced with giving her a charge of manslaughter and decided to up it to murder after they had seen the evidence.

 

[Distracted1]

Should she face any lesser charges?

Don't know, but I don't see how she should. If one accepts that an act based upon a reasonable mistake is exculpatory. And that the act she committed would have been legal had she not been mistaken, (Which I do so far)It seems to me she is absent criminality.

In my limited understanding of the legal system, that is one of the basis for the existence of a separate civil court.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Don't know, but I don't see how she should. If one accepts that an act based upon a reasonable mistake is exculpatory. And that the act she committed would have been legal had she not been mistaken, (Which I do so far)It seems to me she is absent criminality.

In my limited understanding of the legal system, that is one of the basis for the existence of a separate civil court.

Why the hell should she? How does "Mistake of fact" get her out of one charge but not another?

And no I don't want another lamb bleating "But I'm just saying what the jury is gonna do" out of you.

If she being "mistaken" gets her out of murder/manslaughter/whatever where do you possibly argue from that she should be charged with anything else?

 

[Thermal]

Don't know, but I don't see how she should. If one accepts that an act based upon a reasonable mistake is exculpatory. And that the act she committed would have been legal had she not been mistaken, (Which I do so far)It seems to me she is absent criminality.

In my limited understanding of the legal system, that is one of the basis for the existence of a separate civil court.

But if you are the KOTW, and you actually make the laws, even on the fly:

Should what she did be punishable, or excusable and **** Jean and his bad luck?

 

[Thermal]

The whole "Change of venue" thing seems like a quaint relic in a post-information age world.

Truth. I wonder when the first challenge will come that an accused cannot receive a fair trial, except by bumpkins cut off from the outside world?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Truth. I wonder when the first challenge will come that an accused cannot receive a fair trial, except by bumpkins cut off from the outside world?

Gut feeling? Long term (probably very long term but I wouldn't be surprised if it sneaks up on us sooner then we think) that or something like will be what finally causes either an abandonment or a massive restructuring of the very idea of a "jury trial."

 

[Dr. Keith]

Don't know, but I don't see how she should. If one accepts that an act based upon a reasonable mistake is exculpatory.

Not if. Do you accept that an act based upon a reasonable mistake is completely exculpatory.

And that the act she committed would have been legal had she not been mistaken, (Which I do so far)It seems to me she is absent criminality.

My question is should that act have been legal had she not been mistaken?

By the way, Texas does have this:

Sec. 19.04. MANSLAUGHTER. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.

Which could apply even if you assume her initial problems with location were reasonable.

 

[Distracted1]

But if you are the KOTW, and you actually make the laws, even on the fly:

Should what she did be punishable, or excusable and **** Jean and his bad luck?

Were I KOTW, she would be acting in a criminal manner by being armed while not on duty, and for killing someone when she had a reasonable option not to.

ETA. She would, however, be able to be excused on charges of trespassing and B&E due to her mistaking where she was.