Cop kills man in own apartment after mistaking his apartment for hers

[Jotaux]

It's Texas. "Murder" = 2nd degree. "Capital Murder" is what other States call 1st degree. She was charged with "Murder", not "capital murder"

I see, I had seen a comment saying first degree murder, my mistake.

[Zan15]

good "guy" with a gun doing good "guy" things.....

[Moadar]

Justice served. Poor guy sitting on his couch watching tv eating some ice cream.

I wouldnt call it justice served till we see the sentencing.

[eschatological]

Is Texas a Stand Your Ground state? I imagine her lawyers tried to argue she thought she was at home, and just applying the Castle Doctrine. In the U.S., if you're in your home, you generally don't have to attempt to flee or detain or use less-than-deadly force on an intruder. You can just shoot an intruding person, dead, in your home. No questions asked, generally. You don't have to try and flee, even.

But I agree, there's an amount of negligence combined with the unreasonableness of her not knowing it wasn't her apartment that justifies a guilty decision for murder.

[cubby]

Justice served. Poor guy sitting on his couch watching tv eating some ice cream.

Agreed. I hope she rots in jail.

[Crissi]

Is Texas a Stand Your Ground state? I imagine her lawyers tried to argue she thought she was at home, and just applying the Castle Doctrine. In the U.S., if you're in your home, you generally don't have to attempt to flee or detain or use less-than-deadly force on an intruder. You can just shoot an intruding person, dead, in your home. No questions asked, generally. You don't have to try and flee, even.

But I agree, there's an amount of negligence combined with the unreasonableness of her not knowing it wasn't her apartment that justifies a guilty decision for murder.

SYG? Not sure but we do have Castle Doctrine.

and what made it worse was her open testimony on her planning to shoot the guy. Like, her answert to why she didnt try anything else was "This was the only thing in my mind".

[Orbitus]

Beat me too it, was going to make a new thread though because afraid they will close this one for necro lol...

- - - Updated - - -

I think she will win an appeal, for it to be murder it has to be premeditated, not a "oops I went into the wrong house and thought I shot and intruder" I mean she deserves prison time, an innocent man is dead but I don't see this sticking.

There are different degrees of murder. She lied when she testified. 2nd degree murder still can get you life in prison. The bullet was going at a downward angle, which means she shot him when he was sitting or crouching. Meaning she murdered him. She claimed that she was terrified for her life because she thought he was in her apartment, even though she was on the wrong floor. He was sitting down, eating ice cream, watching TV.

[Ghostpanther]

I was not at the trial and heard all the evidence. But from what the media has reported and I have heard, she is guilty of manslaughter. Murder? She may win a appeal if the media has reported all the evidence.

[Nellise]

Is Texas a Stand Your Ground state? I imagine her lawyers tried to argue she thought she was at home, and just applying the Castle Doctrine.

The judge instructed the jury they could consider Castle Doctrine which made a lot of people upset (since it wasn't actually her home). But the jury obviously didn't find that a convincing argument. It also will make it much harder to successfully appeal since it was considered.

I was not at the trial and heard all the evidence. But from what the media has reported and I have heard, she is guilty of manslaughter. Murder? She may win a appeal if the media has reported all the evidence.

It's murder because she admitted her intent was to kill. The judge also instructed the jury to consider manslaughter as well, so that's out for appeal too.

[Crissi]

I was not at the trial and heard all the evidence. But from what the media has reported and I have heard, she is guilty of manslaughter. Murder? She may win a appeal if the media has reported all the evidence.

This wouldn't fit manslaughter as Texas defines it, because they also define intentional harm that results in death as murder. Which is what she admitted to. The only question was if it was self defense or not, and if her belief it was her apt was reasonable or not.

[Ghostpanther]

The judge instructed the jury they could consider Castle Doctrine which made a lot of people upset (since it wasn't actually her home). But the jury obviously didn't find that a convincing argument. It also will make it much harder to successfully appeal since it was considered.



It's murder because she admitted her intent was to kill. The judge also instructed the jury to consider manslaughter as well, so that's out for appeal too.

Intent to kill before she entered the apartment? Even after seeing him, you never should say or think my intent is to kill a attacker or intruder, but rather it should be to stop the threat. That is very important in a self defense situation. As a cop, she should know that. Pretty stupid to say you intended to kill.

[Elegiac]

Things like this are why I seriously have an issue with calling the police even if I know a crime is in progress. How do I have any certainty that if I call the police to intervene in a domestic dispute case that they won't shoot one or both of the involved parties, for instance?

[Ghostpanther]

This wouldn't fit manslaughter as Texas defines it, because they also define intentional harm that results in death as murder. Which is what she admitted to. The only question was if it was self defense or not, and if her belief it was her apt was reasonable or not.

Yeah, that is where she messed up.

[Orbitus]

Intent to kill before she entered the apartment? Even after seeing him, you never should say or think my intent is to kill a attacker or intruder, but rather it should be to stop the threat. That is very important in a self defense situation. As a cop, she should know that. Pretty stupid to say you intended to kill.

That would be premeditated murder, what you are eluding to. This is akin to 2nd degree murder.

[Ghostpanther]

Well, I mean, I'm not sure what else would be inferred by the jury anyway, seeing as how she fired a weapon at him and killed him.

"I didn't mean to kill him, honest!" would probably come off as even less sympathetic.

In Ohio, for example, a home owner has the right to use deadly force and is by law, judged to be justified to fear for their life if a intruder breaks into their home or vehicle. Even in other situations where you are justified to use deadly force to defend yourself, the most important issue at stake is, did you have a justified reason to fear for your life and was your intent to stop the person from harming you which created that threat.

You never tell/say something stupid like, " my intent was to kill the attacker/intruder ". Even from a personal position, your attitude as a gun owner is to stop a threat in any self defense situation. One needs to understand that is your lawful position. It just so happens, that the best way to stop a threat is to aim for center mass of the target, but such can lead to the death of the person. You never shoot to just wound, like a arm or leg. As that can end quickly in your own serous harm or death.

[eschatological]

In Ohio, for example, a home owner has the right to use deadly force and is by law, judged to be justified to fear for their life if a intruder breaks into their home or vehicle. Even in other situations where you are justified to use deadly force to defend yourself, the most important issue at stake is, did you have a justified reason to fear for your life and was your intent to stop the person from harming you which created that threat.

You never tell/say something stupid like, " my intent was to kill the attacker/intruder ". Even from a personal position, your attitude as a gun owner is to stop a threat in any self defense situation. One needs to understand that is your lawful position. It just so happens, that the best way to stop a threat is to aim for center mass of the target, but such can lead to the death of the person. You never shoot to just wound, like a arm or leg. As that can end quickly in your own serous harm or death.

In this case, her intent was clear because it was literally the first, and only thing, she attempted to do. And she admitted it on the stand. She didn't say anything to him, she didn't reasonably assess her surroundings as unfamiliar, she didn't leave even though she was not trapped (in fact, he would have had to go through her to get to the exit), etc.

Also, I think you're slightly confusing things in terms of the charges here. In most states, this would be called "2nd degree homicide," IE a homicide committed intentionally, but without premeditation. Heat of the moment acts and crimes of passion usually fall in here.

[Ghostpanther]

Of course, but it seems like trying to play wordsmith at that point.

Prosecutor: "Did you intend to kill your target?"

Witness: "No, I just wanted to stop the attack."

Prosecutor: "By shooting them three times in the upper torso?"

Witness: "Yep, that's how I did it."

Prosecutor: "But you didn't intend to kill them."

Witness: "Nope, wasn't my intent at all. Just so happens that shooting someone three times in the upper torso does that as a side effect."

Maybe there's some legal ring-around-the-rosie that laywers play with that, but as a juror I'd just be rolling my eyes.

But that should be your stance. For one, saying you intended to kill the sucker, could be looked upon by the prosecutor, as reasons maybe you did not fear for your life, but more was involved. This is something they taught us in the class I had to take in order to get my conceal carry license. And personally, I feel it should be required for all firearm purchases if you have not taken a class for such before.

- - - Updated - - -

In this case, her intent was clear because it was literally the first, and only thing, she attempted to do. And she admitted it on the stand. She didn't say anything to him, she didn't reasonably assess her surroundings as unfamiliar, she didn't leave even though she was not trapped (in fact, he would have had to go through her to get to the exit), etc.

Also, I think you're slightly confusing things in terms of the charges here. In most states, this would be called "2nd degree homicide," IE a homicide committed intentionally, but without premeditation. Heat of the moment acts and crimes of passion usually fall in here.

Not really. The only thing I was not originally aware of , was her saying she intended to kill him. I see why she was found guilty of murder.

[eschatological]

Also, I should note: on appeal, appeals courts usually only ever judge things they consider "matter of law," and they almost always hold that "matters of fact" are what the jury says they are. In other words, appeals courts don't question a jury's judgment of the facts.

What they will do is question whether evidence was improperly suppressed/not suppressed, whether prosecution acted fairly, whether proper jury instructions were given, etc. And since the judge charged that they could discuss manslaughter, nothing is likely to be overturned here.

[Crissi]

Also, I should note: on appeal, appeals courts usually only ever judge things they consider "matter of law," and they almost always hold that "matters of fact" are what the jury says they are. In other words, appeals courts don't question a jury's judgment of the facts.

What they will do is question whether evidence was improperly suppressed/not suppressed, whether prosecution acted fairly, whether proper jury instructions were given, etc. And since the judge charged that they could discuss manslaughter, nothing is likely to be overturned here.

Judge did have to lay down the law on the DA for violating a gag order though. So I hope that doesnt fuck things up.

[dubious_doomhammer]

Great, justice served for once in a police shooting.

Honestly, police shouldn't be allowed to investigate other police - there should be independent civilian oversight agencies that get involved after any serious incident takes place involving a police officer to determine whether they were justified or not.

There should also be a shift in police training to de-escalate instead of training them to be scared of everything and immediately shoot because they thought their lives were in "danger".

Being a cop is a tough job, there's no argument otherwise ... but if you cant do the job without being afraid every waking moment, shooting someone while they're running away, cant remember what your apartment looks like, escalating a situation to a point where you have to shoot, etc. then maybe it's time to find a new job.