Off duty Police officer mistakenly enters wrong home and kills the occupant

**NCRAVEN** · 09-14-2018, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by JAB1985

no the rest doesnt have to be viewed through that, nor should it by a police officer. theyre not judges or defense attorney's, theyre cops. their job is to arrest based on the facts. The law specifically says, its a "defense strategy to be used against the prosecution", not by police officers to arrest. Thats what started all this, "what crime did she commit..." well just because somebody isnt convicted doesnt mean they should have never been arrested. two different things, arrest of being accused and conviction of being found guilty, that require different levels of evidence to support.

i said i think its a good defense, not that i agree itll be proven valid in this case. Imo, she doesnt have much of an argument otherwise. I think its a real slippery slope to argue that her perception is more important than what actually happened. As to whether it was reasonable or not in this case, i think a lot of that hinges on whether or not a cop, whos suppose to be a higher standard of vigilance, would have missed something as obvious as a red welcome mat that she doesnt own being present before any of this even happened. I can get behind the notion of ignoring floor numbers, or apartment numbers, but to me, its beyond reasonable to say that somebody was that blind to their surroundings to not notice that. as theyre walking down the hallway to their apartment, or looking down to put their key into the door, as she claims, a normal person would have noticed that. fact is she had no idea who that person was, or what they were doing, (she didnt even know where she was) and only under the assumption of castle doctrine did she have a reasonable fear to use force. he did nothing to her, it was merely his presence.

I think they consider all circumstances pertaining to what their job gives them power to do, enforce the laws. they see if the evidence supports an arrest. "high profile" being other cops they do this with and not other cases (low profile), would be supporting that they gave her preferential treatment.

We disagree that cops should, or commonly do, factor in defenses to determine arrests. theyre simply not looking that far down the line.

We’re talking about two different things. I have been replying to posters about what crime did she commit, and you despit me saying I am not talking about should she have been arrested, are taking those replies to argue about whether she should have been arrested. I mean, that’s even in the reply you just quoted. In the grand scheme of things I consider that insignificant.

**JAB1985** · 09-14-2018, 02:14 PM

is there a case somebody can point to where this was used to have manslaughter charges dropped?

I cant find one, not that one doesnt exist, but most of what im seeing is this defense being used for larceny or trafficking. Id be interested to see a case where its used for comparison.

**blah3** · 09-14-2018, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by JAB1985

is there a case somebody can point to where this was used to have manslaughter charges dropped?

I cant find one, not that one doesnt exist, but most of what im seeing is this defense being used for larceny or trafficking. Id be interested to see a case where its used for comparison.

Not exactly the same but here is an appeals case on a murder conviction where the higher court ruled that the defendant did indeed have a right to have the jury consider Mistake of Fact in his case.
.

https://casetext.com/case/granger-v-state-7

**darb72** · 09-17-2018, 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

Yeah, I think you're reading that to literal.

How in the hell can I take that too literally? Those were her actions.

**darb72** · 09-17-2018, 07:24 AM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

That is not the accident. It appears everyone is looking at this backwards. It has to be looked at from the beginning from the perception she was in her apartment. If entering the apartment was a mistake everything after that has to be viewed through that thought.

Instead of listening to him she escalated the situation to deadly. Her life was never in any sort of danger since we know from her own words she entered the apartment after shooting.

If manslaughter is the best available, fine, but she should be charged with murder.

**NCRAVEN** · 09-17-2018, 08:10 AM

Originally Posted by darb72

Instead of listening to him she escalated the situation to deadly. Her life was never in any sort of danger since we know from her own words she entered the apartment after shooting.

If manslaughter is the best available, fine, but she should be charged with murder.

Listen to him? What did he say?

**blueridgemtnman** · 09-17-2018, 08:13 AM

I've read up on some "mistake of fact" cases. First off, in most cases, I can't even believe it exists. It's down right stupid. So, as long as someone says "ooops, sorry, it was a mistake", they walk or get reduced sentences? No personal responsibility needed anymore? When does being incompetent or plain stupid become a defense? So, I'm out hunting and see something move in the woods, I just shoot it? "Sorry.....well......I thought it was a deer, man. Sorry I shot ya man. It was a "mistake of fact". Uhhhhh…..no. I'm not saying the law doesn't exist in some places, because it does. It just should not even be considered in this case and in my opinion, should not even exist. I also do not feel that she should be charged w/murder, but only because they will probably not get a conviction for that. Manslaughter, for damn sure. Then drag her dumb ass into Civil Court after that.

**Don Frye's Moustache** · 09-17-2018, 09:24 AM

You cant get blood from a stone. What is a civil trial going to get from an out of work, former low-level police officer?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

**blueridgemtnman** · 09-17-2018, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by Don Frye's Moustache

You cant get blood from a stone. What is a civil trial going to get from an out of work, former low-level police officer?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

You get what you can and whatever she may have in the future, that's what. I imagine the guys' family has an attorney and will look into whether it's worth it.

**NCRAVEN** · 09-17-2018, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by blueridgemtnman

I've read up on some "mistake of fact" cases. First off, in most cases, I can't even believe it exists. It's down right stupid. So, as long as someone says "ooops, sorry, it was a mistake", they walk or get reduced sentences? No personal responsibility needed anymore? When does being incompetent or plain stupid become a defense? So, I'm out hunting and see something move in the woods, I just shoot it? "Sorry.....well......I thought it was a deer, man. Sorry I shot ya man. It was a "mistake of fact". Uhhhhh…..no. I'm not saying the law doesn't exist in some places, because it does. It just should not even be considered in this case and in my opinion, should not even exist. I also do not feel that she should be charged w/murder, but only because they will probably not get a conviction for that. Manslaughter, for damn sure. Then drag her dumb ass into Civil Court after that.

No, you don’t just get to say it was an accident. It has to be one and it has to be a reasonable to believe it was ie evidence has to support it etc.

**blueridgemtnman** · 09-17-2018, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

No, you don’t just get to say it was an accident. It has to be one and it has to be a reasonable to believe it was ie evidence has to support it etc.

Yes, I understand that. Guess we need to see how it all plays out. As w/lots of stories, we all probably don't know half of what the details of the case are. And only two people know what really happened and one of them is dead. As you said, it all needs to be believable. Also, since you brought it up, one could bring up the evidence on the other side of the story. Her being a trained LEO, should have known where she was, the red carpet, etc., etc. Goes both ways w/the evidence, my friend.

**NCRAVEN** · 09-17-2018, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by blueridgemtnman

Yes, I understand that. Guess we need to see how it all plays out. As w/lots of stories, we all probably don't know half of what the details of the case are. And only two people know what really happened and one of them is dead. As you said, it all needs to be believable. Also, since you brought it up, one could bring up the evidence on the other side of the story. Her being a trained LEO, should have known where she was, the red carpet, etc., etc. Goes both ways w/the evidence, my friend.

Should have known, maybe/probably. That would not mean it’s not an accident.

And for the record, I’m not saying she’s being truthful or not. I have no idea. There are very few details available right now.