Posted on 09/25/2019 10:55:31 PM PDT by Texan4Life
Sec. 19.02. MURDER.
(b) A person commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;
(d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he caused the death under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree.
(a)
(1) “Adequate cause” means cause that would commonly produce a degree of anger, rage, resentment, or terror in a person of ordinary temper, sufficient to render the mind incapable of cool reflection.
She did intentionally pull her gun and put a fatal bullet into him while he was in his own apartment minding his own business. Was she reasonably enraged or terrorized to see him there? Sounds like that comes into play at sentencing.
I ain’t buyin’ the “wrong apartment” story. I’ve lived in too many apartments to believe it. More to this story between these two.
So police can shoot an unarmed man in his own home and walk away from it?
_______________________________________________________________
Actually police shoot unarmed people all the time and get away with it. While we give police the benefit of the doubt it should be just the opposite. They should be held to a higher, much higher standard. They have the guns, they have the law when they make a horrible mistake they should never be allowed to serve in a position of trust again and should have to answer to the criminal justice people just the same as you and me or harsher than you and me.
I find it sickening what she did without provocation. Woman finds black man in her apartment and kills him except, whoops, it wasn’t her apartment. Let her rot in prison for at least 20 years, if you encourage someone else to make the same mistake. Punish her and make the punishment a deterrent for anyone else to make the same mistake.
Well, if you are referring to Tasca, there is video for anyone to see. And that video is one illustration of case after case of “bad seed” officers using qualified immunity to justify abusing citizens. The whole idea of beating on someone who is not resisting, while screaming “stop resisting”, strikes me as abusive & sociopathic behavior. Now...if you are referring to the female officer in Dallas, I do not support her...
Everyone defending or at least mitigating her actions are bent on the word “intentionally”, but fail to read the next word “ knowingly”....
The charge is Murder, not Murder1, right? Big difference- Murder 1 in TX and most other states requires forethought/premeditation.
Did she premediate the act? Probably not unless there is some other interesting evidence, but did she intentionally shoot the victim? Did she knowingly shoot the victim? Unless her sidearm fell out of her holster and discharged while out of her hands, or she thought the figure she saw was a shoot house simu-target, she did both. She may have unwittingly entered the wrong apartment ( who espc. a cop, enters their home if the door is ajar? Well, I live in a rural area, so yes, I would “clear my home too”, most likely, but it would BE MY HOME, MY CASTLE).
So, she killed Mr. Jean by intentionally and knowingly shooting him twice with her sidearm. Convicted? We shall see.
Mitigating? TX law allows for both extenuation and mitigation by virtue of “mistake of fact” ( but the jury will have to be convicted that her mistaken entry into HIS apartment was a reasonable mistake to make) and that her actions were out of “passion” of the moment, both can reduce the action to murder or even criminal negligence, but her defense cannot be simply she did not intend to kill Mr. Jean.
She intentionally entered the wrong apartment ( even if by mistake of fact), and she intentionally and knowingly drew, aimed and shot the dead lawfully present resident. She had no lawful right to be where she was and therefore she has no defense by self defense etc.
But, we all shall see how the good people of TX on the jury see the facts.
That’s just it...they are not judged by the same standard. And it would seem to be a big problem.
The Ranger did not say she was “blameless”. That’s not his job to say that. The Ranger didn’t even have any protocol to arrest her. He simply investigated.
She was later indicted and charged by a Grand Jury and a prosecutor.
That was the correct process.
Bingo!
I think the Prosecutor will bring this fact up- that the dead man actually would be justified in shooting her, but with caveats, as his door WAS ajar... What silly webs we weave. Why was his door ajar? Do folks who live in ugly metropolis routine fail to secure their doors?
Another mitigating or extenuating or clouding circumstance....
Yes. That, and the fact that "officer safety" somehow transcends any other concerns.
It's the local name for the LEO's union. Your bunch may have a different name, but the results are the same. They provide legal funding when some thug gets his pecker in a crack.
The big question is always whether they are an arm of the local power structure, or actually out for the best interests of the police.
Absolutely agreed.
Garbage.
OK good, thanks for explaining.
Scott Reisch has covered all of the court proceedings well. Take a look at this YouTube Video where he summarizes:
Texas has Murder and Capital Murder. (Also manslaughter). The penalty range for Murder is huge, and the jury decides. (Anywhere from 5* to 99 years, or life (eligible for parole)). (* The minimum can actually be as little as two years, depending on the jury's findings.) So someone convicted of Murder can do as little as 2 years, or spend the rest of their life locked up.
If you can’t trust the Texas Rangers...or FBI...who can you trust?
The 2nd Amendment.
For now.
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.