Jump to content

Dallas officer kills man after mistaking apartment for her own, police say


Recommended Posts

Posted

This is a fascinating case. Been doing this over 20 years and I teach it. Teaching the defenses right now. Can't get enough of this stuff. 

I think I could get her off. Somewhere back in September I posted an analysis of the defenses.  

 

 

Posted
Oh.  How silly of me to forget.  Of course.  And it will be a "black, shiny object."
thoshiba-remote-1.jpg
If he had a large, black object in his hands, she may have been frightened.

e371db9b5018700af21cc1cf12feba15.jpg
Posted
12 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

This is a fascinating case. Been doing this over 20 years and I teach it. Teaching the defenses right now. Can't get enough of this stuff. 

I think I could get her off. Somewhere back in September I posted an analysis of the defenses.  

 

 

I agree.  I suspect you could.  I don't even practice in the field, and I think I'd have a fair shot of it.

I'm curious about your take if we flipped the script.  Imagine Botham comes home tired, legally carrying a weapon (this is Texas, after all), and does exactly what she did - except the shooter is a black civilian male killing a white civilian female.  

You'd have a LOT harder time getting him off, wouldn't you?

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I agree.  I suspect you could.  I don't even practice in the field, and I think I'd have a fair shot of it.

I'm curious about your take if we flipped the script.  Imagine Botham comes home tired, legally carrying a weapon (this is Texas, after all), and does exactly what she did - except the shooter is a black civilian male killing a white civilian female.  

You'd have a LOT harder time getting him off, wouldn't you?

Botham isn't a cop. You don't even need to bring race or gender into it. 

If he WAS a cop - then yes (and sorry if that's what you mean). But white women are the most privileged members of society and black men unfortunately fall towards the bottom. 

Edited by ztejas
Posted
2 minutes ago, ztejas said:

Botham isn't a cop. You don't even need to bring race or gender into it. 

If he WAS a cop - then yes (and sorry if that's what you mean). But white women are the most privileged members of society and black men unfortunately fall towards the bottom. 

Oh, I know.  It's a really layer cake of shit.

White female cop does this -- probably gets off.

Black male non-cop does this -- dies in Huntsville.

Posted
1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, I know.  It's a really layer cake of shit.

White female cop does this -- probably gets off.

Black male non-cop does this -- dies in Huntsville.

I would expand that to (and not a lawyer (obviously) so feel free to correct):

White female does this to a black male - invol manslaughter and 2 years in the pen. 

Black male does this to a white female - vol manslaughter or 2nd degree and more than 2.

Fucked up but it's the country we live in. 

Posted
10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, I know.  It's a really layer cake of shit.

White female cop does this -- probably gets off.

Black male non-cop does this -- dies in Huntsville.

Unless you have an all black jury.

Posted
3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

I agree.  I suspect you could.  I don't even practice in the field, and I think I'd have a fair shot of it.

I'm curious about your take if we flipped the script.  Imagine Botham comes home tired, legally carrying a weapon (this is Texas, after all), and does exactly what she did - except the shooter is a black civilian male killing a white civilian female.  

You'd have a LOT harder time getting him off, wouldn't you?

He would be a lot harder

Posted
Seems appropriate.  John Creuzot will be the DA when this goes to trial and I trust him to do the right thing (/spike lee).  He's a good man, regardless of political affiliation, and has a track record of doing the right thing without regard for political consequences (he "invented" drug courts and other diversion programs in Dallas County many years ago as a judge).
Plus his family started Frenchys so there's that.
Posted

I can’t stop thinking about the “what if” he had a gun and shot/killed her under the assumption she was breaking into his house and armed. Wouldn’t he be essentially guaranteed to be within his rights to have killed her?

Posted
30 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

I can’t stop thinking about the “what if” he had a gun and shot/killed her under the assumption she was breaking into his house and armed. Wouldn’t he be essentially guaranteed to be within his rights to have killed her?

Yes he would be

Posted
I can’t stop thinking about the “what if” he had a gun and shot/killed her under the assumption she was breaking into his house and armed. Wouldn’t he be essentially guaranteed to be within his rights to have killed her?
Yep. Right up until the point where the police shot him dead because he shot a cop.
Posted
2 hours ago, SubliminalHorn said:

And then he would be indicted for murder of an officer. Doesn’t matter. 

Yep. He would be on death row for killing a cop who was executing a search of his apt because she smelled weed. Her bodycam would magically have malfunctioned and his blood test would've revealed crack laced with pcp. And a missing child would've been found in his bathroom. 

Posted
13 hours ago, 4th and 5 said:

This is a fascinating case. Been doing this over 20 years and I teach it. Teaching the defenses right now. Can't get enough of this stuff. 

I think I could get her off. Somewhere back in September I posted an analysis of the defenses.  

 

 

And you would be able to sleep at night knowing full well, you let some one get away with murder? What happens when it is your apartment next time?

Posted (edited)
On 11/30/2018 at 6:05 PM, 4th and 5 said:

This is a fascinating case. Been doing this over 20 years and I teach it. Teaching the defenses right now. Can't get enough of this stuff. 

I think I could get her off. Somewhere back in September I posted an analysis of the defenses.  

 

 

The electronic locks at that apartment complex may be pivotal. Those usually have an audit trail. If there are time logs that show she went to her apartment first her whole story is toast.  When I last dealt with electronic locks the last 100 entries had a time and key used record.

Edited by ShaggyBevo RIP
Posted

Way until the jury finds out she requested to work that extra long shift even though it wasn't her turn to do so.  Adding fuel to her fire that she  was "wiped out from a long shift and not thinking clearly."  She set the wheels in motion on this thing long before that night.  

Posted
On 12/1/2018 at 6:10 AM, texasjacket said:

And you would be able to sleep at night knowing full well, you let some one get away with murder? What happens when it is your apartment next time?

You prejudge much? You think someone charged with a crime doesn't deserve one zealous advocate to counter the infinite resources of the state to prosecute? In my experience, people like you have this attitude, but when it's you or your loved one whose ass is in a sling, you whine and complain about rights you don't even have, or failed to exercise, and want a break from the system. When I spot people like you, you know what I do? I charge you an extra couple thousand. 

Who said it was a murder? You, not knowing the facts of the case?

Based on the evidence presented at trial, if the jury verdict is an acquittal, there is no murder. And if got a NG, I'd sleep good. Real good.

To be clear, I said I thought the appropriate charge was murder, because her act was intentional, not reckless. And she has defenses to her conduct.....which I doubt were presented to the grand jury. The defense has no right to present evidence to a grand jury.

We'll see if the jury finds from the evidence presented at trial whether the defenses available to her were proved by the state beyond a reasonable doubt not to apply to her conduct.

  • Like 3
Posted
7 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

You prejudge much? You think someone charged with a crime doesn't deserve one zealous advocate to counter the infinite resources of the state to prosecute? In my experience, people like you have this attitude, but when it's you or your loved one whose ass is in a sling, you whine and complain about rights you don't even have, or failed to exercise, and want a break from the system. When I spot people like you, you know what I do? I charge you an extra couple thousand. 

Who said it was a murder? You, not knowing the facts of the case?

Based on the evidence presented at trial, if the jury verdict is an acquittal, there is no murder. And if got a NG, I'd sleep good. Real good.

To be clear, I said I thought the appropriate charge was murder, because her act was intentional, not reckless. And she has defenses to her conduct.....which I doubt were presented to the grand jury. The defense has no right to present evidence to a grand jury.

We'll see if the jury finds from the evidence presented at trial whether the defenses available to her were proved by the state beyond a reasonable doubt not to apply to her conduct.

And that is indeed EXACTLY how it's supposed to work.

What bothers folks is that the exact same scenario plays out quite differently when the shooter is a cop.  Two sets of laws/justice is a real problem.  And it's how you destroy faith in a pretty good system of justice.

  • Like 1
Posted
On 11/30/2018 at 9:10 PM, SquishMitten said:

I can’t stop thinking about the “what if” he had a gun and shot/killed her under the assumption she was breaking into his house and armed. Wouldn’t he be essentially guaranteed to be within his rights to have killed her?

I'd like to think you can't just shoot somebody who accidentally walks into the wrong apt.

Posted

I would guess that if he killed her under the same set of facts it would be pretty easy self defense claim on his behalf.  Killing an armed stranger that walked into your apartment/house that is.  The only thing that would make me hesitant is her being a cop, but it's not like she knocked and announced herself as police she just walked right in.

Posted
1 hour ago, Gene Parmesan said:

I would guess that if he killed her under the same set of facts it would be pretty easy self defense claim on his behalf.  Killing an armed stranger that walked into your apartment/house that is.  The only thing that would make me hesitant is her being a cop, but it's not like she knocked and announced herself as police she just walked right in.

Would be interesting. I'd think there would be some questions. I mean, she's a cop. She executes warrants all day. She's trained to not just enter folks' homes without following proper police procedures. If the black guy was the only witness to the shooting of a cop I'm afraid it might go badly regardless of the circumstances or truth.

Posted
2 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

Would be interesting. I'd think there would be some questions. I mean, she's a cop. She executes warrants all day. She's trained to not just enter folks' homes without following proper police procedures. If the black guy was the only witness to the shooting of a cop I'm afraid it might go badly regardless of the circumstances or truth.

Yeah it muddies the waters, but the same set of facts would be under the pretense that she believes she was walking into her apartment.  So there would be no police procedures to follow or warrants to execute because she (in her mind) is walking into her apartment. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Gene Parmesan said:

Yeah it muddies the waters, but the same set of facts would be under the pretense that she believes she was walking into her apartment.  So there would be no police procedures to follow or warrants to execute because she (in her mind) is walking into her apartment. 

Wouldn't surprise me a bit if the guy was indicted under those circumstances. I doubt he'd be convicted but he'd be the ham sandwich.

Posted
19 minutes ago, Gene Parmesan said:

Yeah it muddies the waters, but the same set of facts would be under the pretense that she believes she was walking into her apartment.  So there would be no police procedures to follow or warrants to execute because she (in her mind) is walking into her apartment. 

If he killed her, we wouldn’t know that she thought it was her apartment.  The facts would simply be dead white cop, black shooter, drugs found at the scene.  End of story, welcome to Huntsville.

Posted
2 minutes ago, conVINCEd said:

If he killed her, we wouldn’t know that she thought it was her apartment.  The facts would simply be dead white cop, black shooter, drugs found at the scene.  End of story, welcome to Huntsville.

We wouldn't know that she lived directly above/below, was off duty, and had no police reason to be at that apartment?

Posted
2 hours ago, conVINCEd said:

If he killed her, we wouldn’t know that she thought it was her apartment.  The facts would simply be dead white cop, black shooter, drugs found at the scene.  End of story, welcome to Huntsville.

Hammer meet nail

Posted
2 hours ago, Reagan1k said:

Will all those 100's of episodes, I can't believe Law and Order didn't come up with this plot first.

That's just what John Mulaney said.  ;)

 

Posted
4 hours ago, Gene Parmesan said:

I would guess that if he killed her under the same set of facts it would be pretty easy self defense claim on his behalf.  Killing an armed stranger that walked into your apartment/house that is.  The only thing that would make me hesitant is her being a cop, but it's not like she knocked and announced herself as police she just walked right in.

Maybe not. Would his belief had been reasonable if she was in uniform? This would assume he had the ability to see and perceive her uniform. Or that he used force prior. Depends on how she enters. If she just walks in or is beating on the door because she can't get it to open. It is all a matter of his perspective at the time of the incident. I don't think he would get the presumption that the force used was reasonable in the castle doctrine if he had an opportunity to see her in uniform, plus he was in possession of marijuana. And I think there is doubt whether he would get the stand your ground / no duty to retreat instruction in 9.31(e) and (f) because he was in possession of marijuana....Still, he could claim self defense but would not get the benefit of the presumption and instruction.


 

(a)........The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

 

 


 

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

 

 

3 hours ago, El Diablo said:

Would be interesting. I'd think there would be some questions. I mean, she's a cop. She executes warrants all day. She's trained to not just enter folks' homes without following proper police procedures. If the black guy was the only witness to the shooting of a cop I'm afraid it might go badly regardless of the circumstances or truth.

 

3 hours ago, Gene Parmesan said:

Yeah it muddies the waters, but the same set of facts would be under the pretense that she believes she was walking into her apartment.  So there would be no police procedures to follow or warrants to execute because she (in her mind) is walking into her apartment. 

Agree with the above, but while the procedures would not, in fact, have been followed, it might look like they had been, or could have been argued by the state that they might have been, because with her not there to testify, their theory would have been she smelled weed, knocked on the guy's door, there was a struggle, he shot her, etc. It could be argued (logically, but wrongly) to have taken place in her capacity as a peace officer

2 hours ago, El Diablo said:

Wouldn't surprise me a bit if the guy was indicted under those circumstances. I doubt he'd be convicted but he'd be the ham sandwich.

Agreed.

2 hours ago, conVINCEd said:

If he killed her, we wouldn’t know that she thought it was her apartment.  The facts would simply be dead white cop, black shooter, drugs found at the scene.  End of story, welcome to Huntsville.

With her not available to testify, it's scary how this could really happen.

2 hours ago, Gene Parmesan said:

We wouldn't know that she lived directly above/below, was off duty, and had no police reason to be at that apartment?

God point, but see above. The state's working theory is probably she happens to smell some green, makes contact and gets killed. Could sounds a lot more plausible than she's a dumbass and entered the wrong apartment. There may be no dispatch logs, calls for service or radio transmissions to document her police activity. I don't think the absence of this paper trail would necessarily negate action in her capacity as a peace officer, but it could certainly be offered as relevant evidence that tended to prove she was not there as a cop, but rather just going home. Along with same apartment, different floor, walking in with a bunch of personal effects, etc.

Either scenario makes for an interesting trial.

 

 

 

Posted

Would she have radioed that she was going to go into his house?  If that is normal procedure that she did not follow when breaking into his house that would all the other procedures into question.

 

For that matter, do we know if she radioed in before she killed him?

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...