Results 217 to 228 of 337
-
-
-
Re: Off duty Police officer mistakenly enters wrong home and kills the occupant
-
09-14-2018, 09:26 AM #220Hall Of Fame Poster
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
- Posts
- 9,160
-
09-14-2018, 09:30 AM #221
Re: Off duty Police officer mistakenly enters wrong home and kills the occupant
Don't worry about that...now that they've established he was a marijuana smoker..her defense will say he was acting like a crazed dog and she feared for her life.
Then they'll move the case to Desoto Texas because they cant get a "fair" trial in the City of Dallas because of the protest.
She will get the bare minimum. We've seen this before many times.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
-
Re: Off duty Police officer mistakenly enters wrong home and kills the occupant
it has to be looked at in totality. her perception is not whats criminal. her actions are. youre stuck on her intent. the law covers unintentional deaths. if were arguing murder vs manslaughter youd be making a good argument, but manslaughter is unintentional death. Shes being charged assuming her actions werent intentional.
Blah has a great defense for her charges. i dont disagree. It fits. its still a defense that the defense has to prove reasonable, to the jury or judge to use. A cop on the scene is not going to be looking at what they may use during a trial to dictate if he makes an arrest. hes executive, thats judicial.-JAB
-
Re: Off duty Police officer mistakenly enters wrong home and kills the occupant
Blah’s argument and mine are virtually the same. The Mistake of fact was going in the wrong apartment. Because she she made a mistake about the fact of where she was, it’s reasonable to believe she feared for her life and used self defense.
If that mistake doesn’t matter, or doesn’t count there is no defense and she’s as guilty as sin.
-
Re: Off duty Police officer mistakenly enters wrong home and kills the occupant
well id agree with darb from what she said she didnt go in until after, but even if she did, thats still negligent resulting in a death. If we agree that theres a variance on negligence, criminal negligence is when a crime is committed because of your negligence. there were crimes committed.
the problem here is you guys continue to use a defense strategy when arguing whether a person should be arrested. Im not arguing outcome of the trial. i have no idea of that. Ive never argued that isnt a good defense for her, ive argued a cop isnt going to take that into effect because its not his job to.
i cant decide as an officer to not make an arrest because this guy could use temporary insanity and get off. that would be the equivalent here. it may result in those charges/arrest not resulting in a conviction but you still have to arrest/charge based on the facts of what happened, pertaining to the law as written.-JAB
-
09-14-2018, 09:47 AM #225Veteran Poster
- Join Date
- Oct 2015
- Posts
- 3,701
-
Re: Off duty Police officer mistakenly enters wrong home and kills the occupant
She did go in. And if you agree with Blahs argument about Mistake of Fact, the rest has to be viewed through that.
the problem here is you guys continue to use a defense strategy when arguing whether a person should be arrested. Im not arguing outcome of the trial. i have no idea of that. Ive never argued that isnt a good defense for her, ive argued a cop isnt going to take that into effect because its not his job to.
i cant decide as an officer to not make an arrest because this guy could use temporary insanity and get off. that would be the equivalent here. it may result in those charges/arrest not resulting in a conviction but you still have to arrest/charge based on the facts of what happened, pertaining to the law as written.
-
09-14-2018, 09:52 AM #227Hall Of Fame Poster
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
- Posts
- 9,160
-
Re: Off duty Police officer mistakenly enters wrong home and kills the occupant
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.-JAB
Bookmarks