With your logic, as soon as somebody is killed in any particular country then the country most likely had the highest murder rate of the last second/millisecond, would you say that they've surpassed the murder rate of every other place in the world recently?
You are either really, stupidly dense OR you are deliberately arguing dishonestly. "The concern thing" would be referencing the latter, that you are a deliberate troll. I lean towards thinking you are not deliberately trolling. This is not a compliment.
Instead the assumption made by him and others is that I'm trying to mislead and or troll.
Your WHOOSH factor is off the charts.How am I being dense? I don't think you are equipt to understand things enough to make judgements about people. You are the same person that thinks physics and a soap dispenser are racist.
Although her reported belief that she was inside her own apartment was mistaken, the law does consider what an officer believed at the time of an offense and whether it was reasonable. A trial jury would probably find that Guyger was legally justified as a police officer in her use of deadly force, Williams said.
...
The case, then, comes down to the trial jury’s analysis of whether she acted reasonably: a civilian breaking into a neighbor’s apartment, intentionally aiming and firing a gun and killing him.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/cri...tion-lake-highlands-service-suspended-station
Last night a man in Dallas shot someone on a commuter train in what multiple witnesses described to the police as self-defense, and even told police that the man had attempted to fight the assailant off multiple times before drawing his gun. The police still arrested him immediately in a clear difference in how they treated the Amber Guyger case.
He was not arrested, he was released after questioning, it was a self defense shooting. The shooter was being savagely beaten by a crazy athletic guy who was attacking him over and over. The shooter tried to get away several times on the crowded train and when the train stopped at the station the shooter tried to get away again. The guy kept attacked him in a rage, strikig him, etc. The guy shot in self defense. The article makes it seem like some guy just pulled a gun out and blasted a dude simply for "harrassing a female" but thats not what occured at all.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...-deadly-force-defense/?utm_term=.77cc0dbe982e
This is her best defense right now. If anything comes out that she was arguing with him, or something of that nature, her defense will be greatly diminished.
I wonder if he was arrested, or just taken in for questioning.
I wonder if you had a stroke while posting this.Hmmm. I was first going to say that this is the type of thing that angers people toward police, but, the comment on the article that was linked said this.
I wonder if he was arrested, or just taken in for questioning.
And yet, if she didn't argue with him and took the "shiot first and ask questions later" approach, could her actions have been reasonable?
If the victim here saw a person carrying a gun walk into his apartment, certainly he could have shot that person in self defense. How can there reasonably be a situation where both potential shooters are entitled to claim self defense and whoever lands the killing shot is the lucky one?
What exactly is the difference between 'being arrested' and 'just taken in for questioning'? The video clearly shows he was not given a choice. He was, at gunpoint, handcuffed, disarmed, and taken into custody. If that is not 'being arrested' then what is?
I wonder if you had a stroke while posting this.
I did not see the video as its blocked for me right now. If they did handcuff him then yeah it sounds like arrested.
Yes, in the video 3 cops approach him from three sides with guns drawn and yell at him to put his hands up. They then handcuff him, search him, and take him away.
EDIT: BTW- I'm not saying that what the cops did here was wrong. Clearly he is armed and the cops should treat him with caution. Arresting him while they sort this out is the right thing to do. It is the way they treated Amber Guyger that was wrong.
It does not though. You are 100% correct that reasonable people will consider the same thing you are. Any jury will also have this same fact pointed out to them.
That said, there are ways to test this. Has anyone thought their life was in danger and then killed someone in what they thought was self defense, only to find out they misunderstood the situation?
The answer is yes, and if you want I can give you examples.
What you seem to be stuck on is that she was not actually in her house, but, as I have tried to explain, that does not ultimately matter in her fear of safety.
One side is going to argue gross negligence and say she should have picked up on her mistakes and that it was her decisions that lead to the event. This is currently my side.
The other side will be that people make mistakes and she reasonably thought she was at her house, and that someone had broken into it. Upon being confronted with the intruder she reacted and shot the man.
That 2nd part only works if there was not an argument. If there was, and there are hints that there might have been, then it starts breaking that argument. That's because she was given even more ques to realize.
But, the argument for sure will be that she thought she was at her residence and that she thought she was confronting someone that had broken into her apartment.
The reasonableness argument here is going to be very tough for the defense. You don't 1) park on the wrong floor, 2) go to the wrong apartment, 3) not notice the giant red floor mat, 4) not notice the inside looks different, then claim your fear was reasonable. At most, her fear was actual, assuming she is telling the truth about her motive for the shoot.
A typical situation where there is a reasonable but mistaken belief is say a teenager is pointing a BB gun at you and it looks a lot like a real gun. It's usually based on some action of the victim which could have led a reasonable person to conclude that the victim was threatening the defendant even though he was not. It isn't because the defendant stumbled into the wrong house while half asleep. In this case, the entire circumstance was caused by her own errors.
Her lawyer can make the argument you're outlining here, sure. Good luck.
A typical situation where there is a reasonable but mistaken belief is say a teenager is pointing a BB gun at you and it looks a lot like a real gun. It's usually based on some action of the victim which could have led a reasonable person to conclude that the victim was threatening the defendant even though he was not. It isn't because the defendant stumbled into the wrong house while half asleep. In this case, the entire circumstance was caused by her own errors.
I'm not saying its a good defense, but, it appears to be her only defense. I think at best her actions make her guilty of manslaughter as she seems to have had many chances to get off of the path she was on.
I really think they are going to have to play the sympathy card. She had a hard day, she was multitasking, she had issues she was dealing with ect. If they can get a jury to empathize they will have a good chance. If she is not squeaky clean and her history good, then I think she will be found of guilty.
Still a lot more info we need though. For sure she sounds more guilty than innocent.
The 'reasonable fear' argument in this case would boil down to 'murder through stupidity'. I just don't think we, as a society, can allow "I'm just a silly airhead" to be an affirmative defense for murder.
I'm surprised no one has compared this case to the Oscar Grant case, where a BART police officer tried to fire his Taser at Grant, but was holding his service pistol, while the Taser was in his belt. The outrage there was that many people didn't believe him because no one thought anyone could make that mistake. But the officer had worked a 16 hour shift and was dead tired. The PD was criticized over allowing that circumstance to happen.
The jury convicted him of manslaughter nonetheless, because no one seriously thought that mistaking a pistol for a Taser was "reasonable." Like here, the only real dispute was whether it was murder or manslaughter.
I think people were too angry at the incident to be able to have a discussion. I think people are so angry and burned out that they just cant engage yet. I probably should have realized that sooner, but, too late now.
I think people were too angry at the incident to be able to have a discussion. I think people are so angry and burned out that they just cant engage yet. I probably should have realized that sooner, but, too late now.
** Stands over a bleeding-to-death black man while holding a smoking gun **
"Okay, I think we need to have a discussion."