Man shot, killed by off-duty Dallas police officer who walked into wrong apartment p3

[theprestige]

Maybe in your philosophical approach, but I see a major difference in "concept" between a jury letting someone off the hook and a jury voting to convict someone "because."

On a separate note, I don't see such a major difference.

How does it look to the family of the victim? They come to court looking for justice to be done according to the law, and then the jury comes out and says, "your loved one was killed, and the law says that's a crime, but we don't agree that it should be a crime, so we're letting him go. Justice!"

---

I am open to arguments that while positive and negative nullification are conceptually the same, positive ("guilty") nullification results in the state taking away someone's freedoms. Therefore, we are better off not privileging it the way we privilege negative ("not guilty") nullification, which protects someone from further infringement of freedom by the state.

 

[theprestige]

I think the word of the day is "boring"

It's a pretty good word.

On the other hand, the claim that Texas law says that all intentional killing is murder is fascinating.

 

[Darat]

Hmmm, it's kind of hard to decipher as I'm looking at it. I first went off of this:



Which led to this:



Though that was the day after the shooting so it might not tell the whole story.

One of the things that I was surprised at in regards to this killing is that she wasn't immediately arrested, she said she'd killed him, the police seemed to have been acting on the premise that Jean was the criminal. I actually think that if there hadn't been the public outroar the police would not have arrested her. One would hope that the police who handled this crime scene receive better training after being disciplined.

 

[Bob001]

What grounds has she for an appeal?

There are always appeals. Every ruling the judge made, everything the prosecution did in court, could be grounds for an appeal. That doesn't mean she'll win, or even has much of chance to win. But appeals are routine and can go on for years.

You can be sure if she gets sentenced to more than the mandatory minimum, that will be appealed too.

 

[Darat]

It's a pretty good word.

On the other hand, the claim that Texas law says that all intentional killing is murder is fascinating.

So is your <snip> semantic quibble.

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited for rule 12.

 

[Rolfe]

What grounds has she for an appeal?

It's normal for murder convictions to get an automatic appeal in this country, I'd have expected it to be the same in the USA.

 

[Bob001]

One of the things that I was surprised at in regards to this killing is that she wasn't immediately arrested, she said she'd killed him, the police seemed to have been acting on the premise that Jean was the criminal. I actually think that if there hadn't been the public outroar the police would not have arrested her. One would hope that the police who handled this crime scene receive better training after being disciplined.

Cops are always handled differently from civilians. They start with the presumption that whatever they did is justified, until evidence proves otherwise.

 

[Darat]

A couple of possibilities: She was denied change of venue. An "expert witness" on "inattentional blindness" wasn't allowed to testify before the jury. I'm sure they'll come up with more.

They don't sound legal appeals to me?

 

[autumn1971]

Can someone explain the “what would gogo do” references?

 

[Darat]

It's normal for murder convictions to get an automatic appeal in this country, I'd have expected it to be the same in the USA.

Maybe in Scotland but not in the rest of the UK, there is no automatic right to an appeal from a crown court trial.

 

[Bob001]

They don't sound legal appeals to me?

What do you think sounds like grounds for appeal? The defendant is entitled to a fair trial. The defense will argue that anything that might have inhibited an effective defense precluded a fair trial, particularly including any rulings the judge made against defense motions. The appeals court gets to decide what's valid.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Can someone explain the “what would gogo do” references?

Gogo is the character from Kill Bill that Thermal has as an avatar. She is a killing machine in a school girl outfit. Thermal is therefore murderous and the product of a private education. Probably Catholic, he seems to drink a lot. At least, that is what I took it to mean.

 

[theprestige]

Can someone explain the “what would gogo do” references?

Gogo Yubari is an ultraviolent thug from a Quentin Tarantino movie.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Maybe in Scotland but not in the rest of the UK, there is no automatic right to an appeal from a crown court trial.

We set a rather low bar for filing appeals so that the convicted can not say they didn't have a fair hearing. Actually overturning this verdict does not seem likely based on what has been reported.

 

[theprestige]

So is your <snip> semantic quibble.

Okay, but seriously: Texas law says intentional killing is murder. But nobody gets put on trial for murder after administering the death penalty in Texas. So obviously someone is missing something about Texas law, and it's not me.

Based on how Texas law treats people who administer the death penalty, I'm arguing that it does not actually follow from Guyger intentionally killing Jean that she committed murder. There must be some other criteria that's being elided by you and others. I'd like to know what that criteria is. Perhaps this is boring to you, but it's interesting to me.

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Quote edited to conform.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Okay, but seriously: Texas law says intentional killing is murder. But nobody gets put on trial for murder after administering the death penalty in Texas. So obviously someone is missing something about Texas law, and it's not me.

Based on how Texas law treats people who administer the death penalty, I'm arguing that it does not actually follow from Guyger intentionally killing Jean that she committed murder. There must be some other criteria that's being elided by you and others. I'd like to know what that criteria is. Perhaps this is boring to you, but it's interesting to me.

Have fun. This has been cited so often in this thread and its predecessors that I lost count.

 

[Rolfe]

Maybe in Scotland but not in the rest of the UK, there is no automatic right to an appeal from a crown court trial.

I didn't know that. I do think there is in Scotland.

 

[Bob001]

We set a rather low bar for filing appeals so that the convicted can not say they didn't have a fair hearing. Actually overturning this verdict does not seem likely based on what has been reported.

If the judge had not allowed the defense to argue castle doctrine or mistake of fact, that might have been grounds for appeal. But she did.

 

[Dr. Keith]

If the judge had not allowed the defense to argue castle doctrine or mistake of fact, that might have been grounds for appeal. But she did.

Agreed.

I didn't follow it very closely, but she did rule against the defense on a few motions, IIRC, and they will appeal all of those rulings. I doubt it will be overturned, though.

 

[William Parcher]

The sentencing hearing will resume tomorrow morning.

Ron Swanson, you may find articles that say the hearing will resume in less than 6 weeks. Those articles are accurate.