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

[NCRAVEN]

"She fired twice, and only then, she says, entered the apartment, called 911, turned on the lights, and realized she’d made a terrible mistake."

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

[NCRAVEN]

well this is part of the reason i brought up castle doctrine, which you said you werent using...

You clearly are and continue to when you claim self defense. I asked those other questions because if were taking out the location (castle doctrine), what is her fear? how was he an aggressor?

Who said he was an aggressor?

[NCRAVEN]

How are they going to spin pulling her gun and willingly firing it at another person as an accident?

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.

[blah3]

How are they going to spin pulling her gun and willingly firing it at another person as an accident?

Mistake of Fact.
Again, IF true, she believes she was entering her apartment and there was a burglar.

[ddr_jr]

so would entering the wrong home. even if she thought it was hers, she was negligent of her surroundings. its literally the same thing, Hence why shes charged with manslaughter, no different than a drunk driver.

and ill repeat, you cannot claim self defense when youre the aggressor. how was the guy being aggressive? what was the fear he caused for her life?

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

[JAB1985]

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.

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.

[NCRAVEN]

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.

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.

[JAB1985]

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.

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.

[filthflarnfilth]

I guess my question is what did she do that was illegally negligent?

This thread reminds me of Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman. The actions that led up to the shooting were based of two people misunderstanding each other’s actions. No one did anything illegal based off their knowledge. I wonder how many people here think Zimmerman should be in jail.

George Zimmerman should be in Jail, just like this fluZZIe.

[NCRAVEN]

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.

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.

No I’m talking about whether she committed a crime or is guilty of one. I’ve moved on from whether she should have been arrested.

[blah3]

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.

I completely disagree. I think cops DO often consider all the circumstances before arresting/charging. Especially in high profile cases. Especially when it gets sent to another department.

[JAB1985]

She did go in. And if you agree with Blahs argument about Mistake of Fact, the rest has to be viewed through that.

No I’m talking about whether she committed a crime or is guilty of one. I’ve moved on from whether she should have been arrested.

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 completely disagree. I think cops DO often consider all the circumstances before arresting/charging. Especially in high profile cases. Especially when it gets sent to another department.

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.