She shot an innocent man in his own house who had done nothing wrong. Police on the street in potentially dangerous situations might be given some leeway, but this woman was not in any potential danger, and was clearly intruding into his castle.
She did not act prudently and responsibly and immediately resorted to deadly force when her other and much easier option would have been to simply step back outside the door and assess the situation.
She was criminally negligent, and/or reckless, and it cost a man's life. Therefore she should be required to pay a price for recklessly killing a man.
If her gun fell out of her holster, went off, and the bullet went through the wall and killed the man then that's accidental. Drawing her pistol, aiming, and firing was deliberate.
The shooting at him was deliberate, and the practice cops receive at firing center of mass made it very likely to be a killing shot, although I've read she did miss with one round.
The intent was to kill a criminal she believed to be a threat to her in her own home. The intent was not to kill an innocent man in his own home.
The difference here is that her intent wasn't criminal, her intent was to do something she believed was legal.
About 28 years if the prosecution recommendation is followed.
The intent was to kill a criminal she believed to be a threat to her in her own home. The intent was not to kill an innocent man in his own home.
Intent isn't always relevant. The police officer in Minneapolis intended to kill someone posing a threat to his and his partner's safety. The result was killing an innocent, unarmed woman who posed no threat. The consequence was a murder conviction. No accident in either case.
The difference here is that her intent wasn't criminal, her intent was to do something she believed was legal.
Well she really blew that one then.
“The intent was to kill a criminal she believed to be a threat to her in her own home. ‘
Please cite where she stated such.