Dallas officer enters apartment she mistakes for her own, fatally shoots man inside

[NostaSeronx]

So...
0. After 13+ hours of work.
1. Perp parks on wrong floor.
2. Goes to the door, key doesn't work...
story diverges
3a. Victim opens door only to be immediately shot.
3b. Perp bangs on door to let in and victim opens door.
3c. Perp sees door unlocked, enters to see tremendous shadow.
4a. Commotion then occurs, then call is made, pacing and crying is seen by neighbor.
4bc. A confrontation occurs and victim gets shot. Another neighbor hears confrontation.

Very confusing.

 

[realibrad]

That's nonsense. Nothing there says "reasonably believes" that they are in another place to where the actual crime was committed.

Those links you referred to are in reference to those people's actual properties. Not imagined ones.

That's nonsense. Nothing there says "reasonably believes" that they are in another place to where the actual crime was committed.

Those links you referred to are in reference to those people's actual properties. Not imagined ones.

That is your view, but, I would bet that they will make the argument that she thought it was her house and thus could defend it. Look at section 9.3.

PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

All that is required is that a person reasonably believes. I think the issue you are having is that it seems like a massive hole, but, laws do that sometimes. This is one of the issues I have with stand your ground laws and how broad they are written.

I would very much bet that unless someone steps up and gives evidence that what we have been told is wrong/incomplete, their argument will be that she reasonably thought it was her house. A jury will have to decide how reasonable it really was.

In my opinion, she had more than enough to question the situation, but, a Jury might find outherwise.

 

[realibrad]

In Texas, it looks like "crimes of passion" fall into "murder". I disagree with fski that this case can't fall under manslaughter. It's not premeditated nor involves malice aforethought, so "recklessly" causing a death seems appropriate. I don't see her actions as much different than a hunter, and I'd even go as far to say it may be less problematic because she may have been very scared.

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.19.htm

Sec. 19.02. MURDER. (a) In this section:

(1) "Adequate cause" means cause that would commonly produce a degree of anger, rage, resentment, or terror in a person of ordinary temper, sufficient to render the mind incapable of cool reflection.

(2) "Sudden passion" means passion directly caused by and arising out of provocation by the individual killed or another acting with the person killed which passion arises at the time of the offense and is not solely the result of former provocation.

Vs.

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

(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.

It would only be a crime of passion if things escalated. Her original story would be manslaughter, but, with the new details that there may have been an argument, it might fall under crime of passion and thus murder. Currently though, they are going with manslaughter as it fit the most with what they know for sure.

 

[Maxima1]

It would only be a crime of passion if things escalated. Her original story would be manslaughter, but, with the new details that there may have been an argument, it might fall under crime of passion and thus murder. Currently though, they are going with manslaughter as it fit the most with what they know for sure.

The point of my post was that in Texas, "crimes of passion" fall under "murder", not manslaughter. You quoted something that didn't apply to Texas.

 

[realibrad]

As per your own link involuntary manslaughter does not exist in Texas. Therefore it would be impossible for me to mistake something that does not exist in Texas for something that does.

I looked this up before I wrote anything and was already aware it did not exist. You should not talk about things you don’t understand. The fact that you don’t understand this topic is made clearer below.



Who cares? The fact that involuntary manslaughter does not exist in Texas is a fact not in dispute.



Again, you should not talk about things you have no understanding of. It doesn’t matter in the slightest if she went into the situation with the intent to kill because that’s not what malice aforethought means.

Malice aforethought, otherwise known as premeditation, is simply the requirement that you intended to kill or inflict severe bodily harm on the individual when you took the action that resulted in their death. From every account I am aware of she drew her pistol and fired it with the intent to kill or inflict severe bodily harm on that individual and did not do so in the heat of passion. Premeditation can occur in a fraction of a second.

You do not understand Malice Aforethought.

Here...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/malice_aforethought

The state of mind necessary to prove first-degree murder. The prosecution must prove that the defendant intended to cause death or great bodily harm, or exhibited extreme and reckless indifference to the value of life. Any intentional killing that does not involve justification, excuse, or mitigation is a killing with malice aforethought.

Just because the killing was intentional does not qualify it as malice aforethought. If she believed her life was in danger, then its not murder as self defense is a justification, excuse, and or mitigation.

 

[realibrad]

The point of my post was that in Texas, "crimes of passion" fall under "murder", not manslaughter. You quoted something that didn't apply to Texas.

I quoted a legal explanation about Texas law from a Texas lawyer.

 

[Maxima1]

I quoted a legal explanation about Texas law from a Texas lawyer.

And I posted a link to the actual statutes.

"Involuntary exists, its not defined explicitly under that name. What Texas does is to fit everything under manslaughter and then give out stronger penalties depending on the factors."

I assume most states include "crimes of passion" within manslaughter, but the point is that Texas does not. Bolded below is not the case in Texas.

"Voluntary manslaughter: This crime occurs “in the heat of the moment” and is sometimes referred to as a “crime of passion.” These terms describe the lack of malice aforethought that defines manslaughter charges. For example, if someone is provoked to such a degree that any reasonable person would be expected to react in a violent manner and the person causing the provocation is killed, a charge of voluntary manslaughter can be brought against the killer."

 

[woolfe9998]

As per your own link involuntary manslaughter does not exist in Texas. Therefore it would be impossible for me to mistake something that does not exist in Texas for something that does.

I looked this up before I wrote anything and was already aware it did not exist. You should not talk about things you don’t understand. The fact that you don’t understand this topic is made clearer below.



Who cares? The fact that involuntary manslaughter does not exist in Texas is a fact not in dispute.



Again, you should not talk about things you have no understanding of. It doesn’t matter in the slightest if she went into the situation with the intent to kill because that’s not what malice aforethought means.

Malice aforethought, otherwise known as premeditation, is simply the requirement that you intended to kill or inflict severe bodily harm on the individual when you took the action that resulted in their death. From every account I am aware of she drew her pistol and fired it with the intent to kill or inflict severe bodily harm on that individual and did not do so in the heat of passion. Premeditation can occur in a fraction of a second.

OK, so first of all, I explained why manslaughter can apply here up thread, and what I said is legally accurate. See post #356 where I discuss the common law doctrine of "imperfect self-defense" which I believe is recognized in Texas.

So far as "malice" goes, it's a rather poorly defined term which is subject to different definitions in different states, and sometimes inconsistent definitions within the same system. Generally, however, it means a wrongful intent to kill, meaning you had no justification or excuse. The common meaning of the word "malice" should give you a clue that intent to kill by itself doesn't qualify.

https://thelawdictionary.org/malice/

Depending on the state, this defense is either an affirmative defense called imperfect self-defense or it's an argument that there is no malice. Either way, if successful, it results in manslaughter. The notion behind either argument is that while the defendant's actions were not "reasonable" under the circumstances, if the jury concludes that the defendant did nonetheless actually believe he or she was threatened, the crime is then manslaughter rather than murder.

The key, of course, is that the jury has to believe the defendant. Here, if they don't think she actually felt threatened, then it's murder. If they do believe her, however, I guaranty you the jury instructions will lead them to a finding of no malice and hence manslaughter.

 

[Paladin3]

Keep in mind she is in TX and stand your ground is a thing there. Its possible she had the thought that a guy in her house would justify her shooting him. In that case, all she would have to say is that she felt like he might injure her. Once that is met, and given the fact that she was in her house, it would justify lethal force. That may have very well entered her mind going into that situation.

NO, NO, NO. Please stop repeating that falsehood. The stand your ground laws only mean you have no duty to retreat. The belief that you are in danger of bodily harm or death must still be REASONABLE. You can't just kill someone because you believed in your wacky mind that you had to, it has to be a reasonable fear according to a judge and jury for it to be justified.

"In Texas, individuals have no duty to retreat when they have a reasonable belief they are in danger of bodily harm or death if they’re threatened in their home, in their vehicle, or at their job. To raise the Texas stand your ground law defense, the person must be able to show that they didn’t provoke the person who attacked them. They must also be able to show that they weren’t breaking any laws at the time of the incident."

 

[fskimospy]

You do not understand Malice Aforethought.

Here...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/malice_aforethought

Just because the killing was intentional does not qualify it as malice aforethought. If she believed her life was in danger, then its not murder as self defense is a justification, excuse, and or mitigation.

To repeat - you were simply, obviously wrong to state that she had to go into that situation with the intent to kill. You are now attempting to shift your argument away to a new one that’s different from your previous, wrong one.

 

[woolfe9998]

I wasn't saying that "heat of passion" applies necessarily to her case. I was saying that even heat of passion is included in manslaughter. Fski seemed to be talking in general about manslaughter in the country. From what I've read, Texas has "murder" and "capital murder". In Texas, heat of passion falls under "murder".

That's fine, as an aside, but again, has nothing to do with the case at hand because the killer here has not alleged any sort of provocation. I just want to make sure that we aren't mixing up the allegation that someone felt threatened with the allegation that someone was provoked.

I understand your point above, and I think you get mine. I just want to make sure that the thread doesn't go off in the wrong direction of conflating those two things.

 

[fskimospy]

OK, so first of all, I explained why manslaughter can apply here up thread, and what I said is legally accurate. See post #356 where I discuss the common law doctrine of "imperfect self-defense" which I believe is recognized in Texas.

So far as "malice" goes, it's a rather poorly defined term which is subject to different definitions in different states, and sometimes inconsistent definitions within the same system. Generally, however, it means a wrongful intent to kill, meaning you had no justification or excuse. The common meaning of the word "malice" should give you a clue that intent to kill by itself doesn't qualify.

https://thelawdictionary.org/malice/

Depending on the state, this defense is either an affirmative defense called imperfect self-defense or it's an argument that there is no malice. Either way, if successful, it results in manslaughter. The notion behind either argument is that while the defendant's actions were not "reasonable" under the circumstances, if the jury concludes that the defendant did nonetheless actually believe he or she was threatened, the crime is then manslaughter rather than murder.

That makes sense, thanks for the clarification. Under no circumstances though would she have had to go into the situation with the intent to kill for it to be murder though, correct?

The key, of course, is that the jury has to believe the defendant. Here, if they don't think she actually felt threatened, then it's murder. If they do believe her, however, I guaranty you the jury instructions will lead them to a finding of no malice and hence manslaughter.

It would be a pretty dark day for our country if you can barge into someone else’s place, shoot them, and then not be convicted of murder because you felt threatened by the person whose house you were invading.

 

[realibrad]

NO, NO, NO. Please stop repeating that falsehood. The stand your ground laws only mean you have no duty to retreat. The belief that you are in danger of bodily harm or death must still be REASONABLE. You can't just kill someone because you believed in your wacky mind that you had to, it has to be a reasonable fear according to a judge and jury for it to be justified.

"In Texas, individuals have no duty to retreat when they have a reasonable belief they are in danger of bodily harm or death if they’re threatened in their home, in their vehicle, or at their job. To raise the Texas stand your ground law defense, the person must be able to show that they didn’t provoke the person who attacked them. They must also be able to show that they weren’t breaking any laws at the time of the incident."

I promise you that her argument is going to be that she thought he had broken into her house and that she thought he was going to attack her. You cant shoot someone for trespassing, but you can shoot them if they are trying to get into your house, or they are there and you think they are going to attack you. There are examples of this already.

 

[Maxima1]

It would be a pretty dark day for our country if you can barge into someone else’s place, shoot them, and then not be convicted of murder because you felt threatened by the person whose house you were invading.

I don't think anyone is arguing that murder could never apply. There is evidence that she did make a bunch of blunders and foolishly thought it was her own apartment. I'm not going to lose sleep over someone getting convicted of manslaughter instead of murder in this case just like I won't ever stop going into the outdoors to hunt, hike, etc., just because a hunter or someone could shoot me and "get off" with manslaughter.

 

[realibrad]

To repeat - you were simply, obviously wrong to state that she had to go into that situation with the intent to kill. You are now attempting to shift your argument away to a new one that’s different from your previous, wrong one.

Don't try and pretend that this post was not the topic.

I’m not sure how this could be reasonably construed as manslaughter though. Manslaughter is supposed to be for when you do something shitty but weren’t attempting to kill the person. In this case from all accounts I am aware of she deliberately shot him.

You were questioning how it could be manslaughter because she deliberately shot him.

 

[Paladin3]

Again, people in this thread had the gall to suggest he was a threat to her. In what universe is that possible?

Who said they believed he was a threat to her? I think you are confusing asking the question with suggesting he was. Your outrage is unfounded. For her to be able to justify shooting him she would have to prove she reasonable believed he was a threat. There is nothing wrong with asking that question, and it in no way means we are accusing him of being such.

 

[fskimospy]

Don't try and pretend that this post was not the topic.

You were questioning how it could be manslaughter because she deliberately shot him.

And woolfe cleared up how that could be, which I appreciate! That in no way changes your very wrong description of the requirement for premeditation. Can you admit it was wrong?

 

[woolfe9998]

That makes sense, thanks for the clarification. Under no circumstances though would she have had to go into the situation with the intent to kill for it to be murder though, correct?

No. In some jurisdictions it could be pre-meditated murder even if the intent was formed after she went into the apartment, while some require a longer period of time for pre-meditation and deliberation. But even if it isn't pre-meditated murder, there are various forms of second degree murder (or just "murder" in TX) for which intent can be formed on the spot.

It would be a pretty dark day for our country if you can barge into someone else’s place, shoot them, and then not be convicted of murder because you felt threatened by the person whose house you were invading.

I don't agree, actually. What I do think is that cops should be treated like everyone else and they're quite obviously not. I don't agree, however, that an honest but mistaken belief that one is threatened should be punished as murder. We don't punish people for murder who lack evil/bad intent (i.e. malice). The fact that it's a home invasion doesn't change that except for the fact that circumstances like this are so strange, a jury just might not believe that the defendant actually felt threatened, because they may wonder how anyone could actually make that mistake. But if it really was a mistake, I don't see why it should be treated as murder. We don't just punish for the harm caused. We also punish for intent. If it was solely based on harm, then we wouldn't even have a crime of manslaughter; there would just be murder.

 

[esquared]

That is your view, but, I would bet that they will make the argument that she thought it was her house and thus could defend it. Look at section 9.3.



All that is required is that a person reasonably believes. I think the issue you are having is that it seems like a massive hole, but, laws do that sometimes. This is one of the issues I have with stand your ground laws and how broad they are written.

I would very much bet that unless someone steps up and gives evidence that what we have been told is wrong/incomplete, their argument will be that she reasonably thought it was her house. A jury will have to decide how reasonable it really was.

In my opinion, she had more than enough to question the situation, but, a Jury might find outherwise.

"All that is required is that a person reasonably believes."
No, no and no.
Who says that? Show me in that law that a person charged will be able to say "I believed I was in a different place than I actually was", as a viable defense.
What you propose is more for someone mentally ill. Who knows, maybe she is mentally ill.
No reasonable person or jury would ever believe that.

Let's see anyone, anywhere at anytime in Texas that have used this premise.
Complete bullshit.

 

[Paladin3]

I was referencing what others here questioned which just angered me.

And that's on you for taking it as some kind of an insult to Mr. Jean. I hope someone asks the cop under oath what it was that made her think he was such a was a threat and needed to be shot. No mater how unlikely we think it may be, the question still needs to be asked and I want to hear her try to answer it.

Unless you already know what happened.

 

[Paladin3]

Look, I can't convince you of anything, you have decided what you wish to believe and if I so stepped on your neck and force fed you evidence you'd whisper with your last dying breath that you don't see it.

I find that having discussions with people who have decided that they are right no matter what is a complete and utter waste of time.

So have it your way.

Said the guy who thinks he knows what happened.

 

[Paladin3]

There may be something to this

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/09/at...ink-dallas-cop-innocent-man-gunned-apartment/

“The only connection we have been able to make is that she was his immediate downstairs neighbor,” Meritt said. “And there were noise complaints from the immediate downstairs neighbors about whoever was upstairs, and that would have been Botham. In fact, there were noise complaints that very day about upstairs activity in Botham’s apartment. Botham received a phone call about noise coming from his apartment from the downstairs neighbor.”

Did the cop call him or not? Shit, these questions aren't very hard to ask. Why the ambiguous statements that make it sound like she did but don't actually say so?

 

[Paladin3]

I have my opinions but that's based on what would happen if it was you or I, in place of her.
I am pretty sure we would be charged with murder, may not first degree but 2nd degree.
Texas law will have to look at this to see. I don't see those two scenarios being similar.

I mean cops already have the "I felt my life was threatened" card that they use in many shooting cases.
Can you imagine cops being able to use "I believed I was in my house/apt/car, when I shot him"?
We can't keep lowering the bar when it comes to the actions of the police. We need to raise them, and hold them accountable for these
mistakes and lapses in judgement.

Those defenses still have to be found reasonable by a judge and jury for them to work. Everyone loves to leave out the "reasonable belief" portions of castle doctrine and stand your ground laws so they can claim they make murder legal. They don't make it legal to shoot someone just because in the shooter's wacky mind they thought it was appropriate.

 

[woolfe9998]

"All that is required is that a person reasonably believes."
No, no and no.
Who says that? Show me in that law that a person charged will be able to say "I believed I was in a different place than I actually was", as a viable defense.
What you propose is more for someone mentally ill. Who knows, maybe she is mentally ill.
No reasonable person or jury would ever believe that.

Let's see anyone, anywhere at anytime in Texas that have used this premise.
Complete bullshit.

You guys are hung up on bad semantics here. Brad's statement "all that is required is that a person reasonably believes" is incomplete. It should read "all that is required is that a person reasonably believes his or her life is threatened." Whether or not you reasonably believed it was your place is just an aspect of the total circumstances which a jury will use to answer the question I have now correctly worded for you.

 

[esquared]

Those defenses still have to be found reasonable by a judge and jury for them to work. Everyone loves to leave out the "reasonable belief" portions of castle doctrine and stand your ground laws so they can claim they make murder legal. They don't make it legal to shoot someone just because in the shooter's wacky mind they thought it was appropriate.

This (bolded)