Yes, besides everything else she should face the same problem with that defense that drunk drivers face, she killed someone in the commission of another crime (which in Texas automatically makes it murder). In her case breaking and entering.
Wasn’t that the old defense tactics of drunk drivers.
“I didn’t mean to kill them”
Pulling a gun and killing someone with it is not a mistake. Maybe they made a mistake going into the wrong apartment, but killing the person inside was not a mistake, it was a rational decision.
EDIT: And yes, pulling a gun and issuing a command most definitely fits the legal definition of premeditation. They did not kill someone on accident. They did not do so in a fit of unreasonable emotion. They made a choice to kill someone. That is the legal definition of premeditation.
Is that your expert legal opinion? Because if it is, then you should leave.
You know that you can point a gun, kill someone, and it not be murder right? I'm not even talking about self defense.
It is the issuing a command, then waiting to see if that command is followed or not that makes it murder. It shows clear premeditation. She created a plan that included the possibility of killing someone and followed through with it to the end that someone was killed. It does not matter how fast that plan was created and carried out, it was a plan and that is the legal definition of premeditation.
So are you unaware that you can intentionally kill someone and it be manslaughter? I just went back and see it was explained to you before.
Manslaughter is killing another person without malice aforethought. Murder is the prior intention to kill or to create a deadly situation.
Giving a command and waiting to see if that command is followed shows malice aforethought. She intended to kill him if they did not follow her orders. That is murder. How can you argue that giving someone a command and killing them for not following it is anything but malice aforethought?
You don't have to spend days planning to kill someone. You just have to show that you knew that you were creating a situation where you might kill someone.
She pulled a gun, a reasonable person knows that sets up a deadly situation. She gave a command, that shows she was made a plan that included killing someone. She waited for that command to be followed or not. That shows she made the choice to kill. She fired that gun. That shows her intention to kill. You can't get much more premeditated than that.
You are talking out of your ass.
I've giving my reasoning and all you have said is 'nu-uh!' so who is talking out their ass?
To be convicted of manslaughter, a defendant must be proven beyond reasonable doubt to have recklessly caused the death of another person. As opposed to murder, intent does not need to be proven in order to convict someone of manslaughter.
I don't think it should be a valid defense even to murder. She shot first and asked questions later, that is murder. The pulling of a gun and the issuing of an order is premeditation. She knew she was doing something that would very likely end in someone's death but didn't take the appropriate precautions to make sure she had a right to kill that person.
And, that is why its being sought as manslaughter, and not murder.
https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/m...e-dallas-cop-amber-guyger-faces/287-592469274
Thus, you are talking out of your ass.
Pulling a gun and killing someone with it is not a mistake. Maybe they made a mistake going into the wrong apartment, but killing the person inside was not a mistake, it was a rational decision.
EDIT: And yes, pulling a gun and issuing a command most definitely fits the legal definition of premeditation. They did not kill someone on accident. They did not do so in a fit of unreasonable emotion. They made a choice to kill someone. That is the legal definition of premeditation.
Which is pretty much the definition of manslaughter. Manslaughter means criminal negligence, which is not the same as ordinary (oops!) negligence.
There is a question as to whether or not she was mistaken as to her location and so there might be a defense there.
That makes sense to me. You would agree that her actions meet the standard for premeditation though, right?
Except of course she has been charged with murder not manslaughter. Oops.
Just in case you think that one was a mistake:
CBS News calls it murder.
MSN says she faces murder charges.
Dallas Monring News explains that she was arrested on Manslaughter charges, but was eventually charged with murder because she intended to shoot Jean, and in Texas manslaughter is a reckless act.
Yes, but that is only relevant if she's lying about being mistaken about the apartment.
She's going to argue self-defense based on a 1) good faith and 2) reasonable belief that her life was in imminent danger. The problem is even if she's telling the truth about making a mistake, that only meets the good faith part of it, but the mistake isn't likely to be viewed as a "reasonable" by a jury because it's just too colossal a mistake. Meaning self-defense is "imperfect" and it falls to manslaughter instead of murder + self-defense = acquittal.
So it comes down to either the jury believes her, in which case she gets 5-7 years or whatever the punishment is there for manslaughter, or they don't, in which case I assume it's 20 years to life or something like that for murder. I don't see an acquittal scenario here unless we end up with a pretty biased jury.
Then they must have information that was not widely out in the public. If not, then they very much risk over charging and losing the case. Issuing a command and then pulling a trigger is not enough to establish murder. You can give comments in the heat of the moment and it still be in the heat of the moment. I hope this does not turn into another Casey Anthony case.
Then they must have information that was not widely out in the public. If not, then they very much risk over charging and losing the case. Issuing a command and then pulling a trigger is not enough to establish murder. You can give comments in the heat of the moment and it still be in the heat of the moment. I hope this does not turn into another Casey Anthony case.
"I am not aware of a case in which a person shoots another person in the torso, with death as the result, and is charged with manslaughter," Creuzot [a former judge and Dallas County prosecutor, and current Dallas County DA] said. "In Dallas County, the longstanding practice of our law enforcement agencies, in similar cases, has been to charge suspects with murder."
What do you mean about the 'heat of the moment'? Are you still arguing that this didn't meet the standard for premeditation? If so you are badly wrong.
Yes, that was my understanding - that her defense would be based on thinking it was her apartment, not that her actions wouldn't meet the standard for premeditated murder if she wasn't mistaken about her location. Thanks for the insight as always!
You do not understand the difference between murder and manslaughter in Texas very well. In Texas the difference mainly relies on the if it was a intentional or reckless act. If the defendant did something reckless that ended in a person's death then it is manslaughter, if they did something that was intended to end in a persons death then it is murder.
To quote the Dallas Morning News article I posted earier:
Not speaking on the reality of what happened, as that will have to be for the trial. But, if it is that she reasonably mistook his apartment as hers, and shot him because she saw something he did as a threat then it would not be murder.
As I said pages back, its going to be hard to prove a defense given what we knew. I have not been following new details in the case, so maybe they have something that shows she should have reasonably known it was not her apt. If they have that, then I see no defense of manslaughter and it would be murder.
But, I can't find any new details with the quick search I did.
His argument was that giving a command and then pulling a trigger inherently elevated it to murder, and that is wrong.
Well, self defense you could shoot someone in the chest and kill them and not get charged with either manslaughter or murder. I would need more context for his comment than what is provided in that article. As it stands, that makes no sense.
Yes, if she's lying it would meet the definition of premediation in pretty much any state, since it obviously would have been planned at least several minutes in advance and even in states where premediation really means more than forming intent 2 seconds before the act it would still qualify. But I should mention that isn't relevant here since TX has one crime of murder, not two broken into degrees, and it doesn't require premeditation. Premeditation isn't needed to prove murder there. Only thing required is "malice" which is basically a wrongful intent to kill, meaning intent without justification like self-defense.
Something else I would point out here though. A jury could well end up believing her. Or not. Hard to say. On the one hand, her mistake story is perhaps hard to believe because, well, who makes that sort of mistake, right? Then again, OTOH, no motive for murder has been found. That's going to make it tough on the jury. I myself am still not certain if this was murder or manslaughter. The only thing I'm certain of is that she's guilty of one or the other.
Yes, if it is justified it is not a crime, but if it is not justified it is murder. It can only be manslaughter if you can argue that the gun went off on accident, or you can claim you didn't think the weapon was loaded or something like that. Intentionally firing the gun raises it to murder in Texas because it is at that point not reckless but intentional.