Posted on 10/01/2019 8:55:22 AM PDT by CaptainK
Ma’am, it definitely does make a difference in the eyes of the law if it was deliberate or an accident. However, it makes little difference to the victim or (if the victim did not make it) the victim’s family. Accepting accidents happen does not mean one lets go. If someone mistakenly put contaminants in my drink - by mistake - and it made me unwell, I would understand it was a mistake ....and then sue their pants off.
It depends on the degree of the mistake. I’ve once let someone off for a fender bender that wasn’t too serious. The person made a mistake, they were seriously confused, and I just told them to pay it forward. On the other hand, if they did something more serious - eg demolishing my home by mistake because they got the wrong address, or performed an abortion on a loved one by mistake (both real incidents that have happened to others) - I would definitely not ‘understand.’ I would accept it’s a mistake, and then take maximal legal action.
The bus driver who parked the bus on railway tracks - I am certain that quite a number of the parents of those deceased children would definitely do something ‘deliberately criminal’ to that bus driver if they could get a hold of her. I doubt ANY of them would ‘understand’ that it was a mistake, and that any rational man or woman would just park a bus on rail tracks.
No anger in me by the way. As for real criminals - the lady was not a real criminal. I do not subscribe as others do that she did it on purpose. I think she made a mistake. However, to the family of the man who was irrevocably killed, it doesn’t make much difference to them if it was on purpose, a mistake, or an asteroid landed on his head.
But then again, they should just accept and move on. After all, she only made a mistake and didn’t mean it. No harm no foul. Anything else is ‘anger’ and emotional.’
I’m curious about the lady who left the school bus on tail tracks that got hit by a train killing children. I will google to try and find out what happened to her. Who knows - maybe the system said no harm/no foul and let her go since it was a mistake ...
Thanks for your response ExTxMarine! I do enjoy this thread and appreciate your thinking so much.
I can tell you my understanding of the old saw “innocent until proven guilty.” But I am telling you how it really works, not how I hope it works if they charge you for some crime.
“Innocent until proven guilty” just means that the King cannot put you in the Bastille, they must have a trial and produce one piece of the tiniest evidence against you. She cannot be punished until the trial is over. That is pretty much all it means.
“Actus reus” This just means that something has to have happened. It was an important advance in human rights. He’s dead and you did it. Before this the aristocracy could just have you arrested, no charge no trial. Then this and they had to at least show that something happened.
“Mens rea” This just means you are allowed to show it was an accident. Yes he’s dead, yes I killed him, but I didn’t mean to.
“Guilty” This is the word for the finding of the jury. If there is no evidence of guilt then the prosecutor is supposed to suspend prosecution. If the evidence is too thin then the grand jury should return no bill of indictment.
So here is how I understand it: You are arraigned and charged because someone is dead and you were there at the time, or even worse, there is something of yours that is there at the time. The jury is seated and the prosecutor calls two witnesses, a coroner who says Joe is dead, and a cop who says you were there. You present no defense because your attorney says they did not prove you were guilty. The jury goes out and returns in five minutes with a verdict of guilty. You are no longer innocent, you have been proven guilty.
You do not have to present a defense. But before you go with that, you ask the court for a directed verdict or ask the court to dismiss with prejudice. Surely that is what he will do. But if that motion is rejected you better present a defense!
You are right that I believe anyone can be charged and found guilty of anything, hang the law and morality, but in this case the grand jury was following precedent charging under 19.01a. The jury was allowed even instructed to convict of lesser charge if hung on 19.01.
They were allowed to believe her exculpatory story and acquit if they wanted to. They are now allowed to slap her on the wrist, five years, or throw her in the slammer for 99 years no parole.
You said, “To what person would that not be considered a threat?” Well if one juror agreed with you, then she would have been convicted of manslaughter. Her strategy though was trying to use the castle doctrine to justify her intention. They did not buy it because they thought the castle doctrine would have justified him in killing her, not in her killing him.
Really appreciate your comments, and if I understand what you saying she should have owned up to the manslaughter and begged the mercy of the court. She may yet do that but I doubt it. She is going to go for leniency under 19.02(2). That will not work.
“I thought she would get manslaughter.
_____________________________________________
The majority of blacks on the jury must have decided to stick it to the white woman cop.”
Initially I could not have signed off on a Murder verdict, but I realized that in the course of her shooting this victim to death that she had also committed a Felony Home Invasion by entering the victim’s apartment. I suspect that played a large part in her getting a Murder conviction.
That said, the revelation that immediately before the shooting she was distracted by sexting a MARRIED male cop that she had been having an EXTRAMARITAL AFFAIR with didn’t help her any either.
Murder in Texas only requires intent to kill
DIRECT QUOTE from trial:
Prosecutor Jason Hermus: “When you pulled that trigger you intend to kill Mr. Jean?”Amber: “He was the threat, yes sir.”
She intended her action. Did she intend to murder someone? No. But that's not what 'intent' is about. She intended to draw her pistol. She intended to shoot Jean. It was not an accident. She acted intentionally.
Says who? It's been what 'intent' was about since Roman Law. Changing the legal meaning of the word 'intent' to mean something different from what it has always meant in legal terms is just wrong.
Don’t quote me on the RR story. It is a hypothetical based on real events well past. Mostly to make a point as to whether the person is a crook because of the incident.
The point is, the intention is very important. It was an accident, not a murder. Yes, you can sue for gross negligence but to treat the person as a genuine criminal - a murderer - is tantamount to libel in my book.
I agree. In fact, on another thread, I made a very similar point (when the brother of the deceased hugged the lady, the jury gave a low sentence, and the judge came to hug her as well and give her a bible). It was the best end to a very bad situation.
As I said, don’t quote me as details were not the point, but here is the incident that mostly drove my example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Fox_River_Grove_bus%E2%80%93train_collision
She intended her action. Did she intend to murder someone? No. But that's not what 'intent' is about. She intended to draw her pistol. She intended to shoot Jean. It was not an accident. She acted intentionally.She found the door ajar and heard the "intruder" before she entered. I think from the moment she decided to draw her weapon, open the door, and enter the apartment to confront the "intruder", Jean's death was almost unavoidable. It was her decision, and her intent, to take immediate offensive action, rather than step back and call for backup/help.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.