Posted on 10/16/2019 3:07:46 AM PDT by Navy Patriot
It would have a bearing on the case if I was a juror because,as has been made clear by many of this nation's top legal scholars,a juror's judgment regarding the evidence presented *and* the law being cited in the case cannot be questioned.
For proof just google "jury nullification" and study its history.
Perhaps a review of the legal definitions in general are a wise move, espc. if you bear arms or drive etc.
Apples and oranges.IMO there are somewhat different standards,from a *moral* standpoint,in effect when judging a police officer's use of arms than when judging a "common citizen's" use of arms.and as I've made clear in previous posts that "moral" definitions mean more to me than do "legal" ones.Thus,my support for jury nullification.
Yes,one can argue that,through negligence or through lack of training,you're correct in that statement.
In order to be sure if your statement is correct I'd have to know more about the well established procedures that are seen in police manuals regarding this type of situation.
Try going to a neighbors home, sneak around the house with a flashlight at 2:30 am and then shoot the guy when he comes to the door.
I have absolutely no experience,as a cop,answering a "welfare check" call at 2:30AM. How about you? Who knows what cops find on "welfare checks"? A person who's died of a heart attack? A person who's committed suicide? An unconscious person? A meth addict who's in a paranoid state ready to blow away anything that moves? A person wanted for a double homicide that just happened three hours earlier?
I,personally,would like to hear from cops who have that experience
Yes, that’s the way it looked. She was sitting down in a chair or by the side of the bed and you can see her clothing when he’s shining the flashlight through the lower window. Then she stands up and looks directly out the upper part of the window and he barked his orders (that he never completed) and shot her in the head. Then the cam spins away....
You are correct, it does not mesh with the currently known or stated “facts” and was not intended to do so. My point was that only one side has been presented and to conclude that a man is guilty of murder without hearing a defense is premature at the least. Obviously my point was missed but that is of no real consequence as neither of us will likely serve on the jury that will hear the case.
No, it was pulled from YouTube before I could capture/download it. It has turned up in edited form elsewhere. However, I did see part of it and neither officer announced themselves at any time.
Thanks. Your word is good enough for me.
If you give it a few days, it should hopefully be up on LiveLeak or somewhere else for your own evaluation. It may also be on the FWPD web site but I have not had time to go look.
I could see your point if the woman had smoked the cop and was hooked up for murder, but alas that is not the case.
Jury nullification is certainly worthy of specific cases, but this is not one of them. The officer was not lawfully where he was, he intentionally shot the woman. He became the unlawful aggressor in a homicide He was not following TX law nor PD policy/tactics in all of these circumstances. In the end, if jury null is applied, then it will be a miscarriage of justice.
However, we shall see.
“ And,quite frankly,I wouldn’t care what Texas law might say.“
Spoken like a true liberal.
L
I’ve been called a lot of things in my life...but “liberal” ain’t one of them.
If the kid's account is accurate then this is a *perfect* case for nullification.
The officer was not lawfully where he was...
Oh,so he was just prowling the area while off duty...in civilian clothes? Hey,thanks for telling me that...I thought that he was *in* uniform...on duty...carrying out an assignment (the welfare check) that had been ordered to complete. Well,with this new info I've changed my mind!
He was not following TX law nor PD policy/tactics in all of these circumstances.
As I've said before I reject the validity of Texas law *in this case*...assuming,that is,that the kid's account is accurate.As for policy...if that's correct then that could argue in favor of a "negligent homicide" conviction rather than "murder".
Final exchange , just to clarify: we’re talking about a cop who shot a woman not a woman who shot a cop, right?
As previously stated, we shall see.
“ I’ve been called a lot of things in my life...but “liberal” ain’t one of them.”
Get used to it.
L
Yup,we are.And if the kid's account is accurate we're talking about a woman who pointed a gun at the cop before he fired.
OK,fair enough. But if you ever kill a woman who's pointing a gun at you don't come to us crying "self defense".
“ But if you ever kill a woman who’s pointing a gun at you don’t come to us crying “self defense”.
Highly unlikely since I won’t be so criminally negligent, and just plain stupid, as to be creeping around in someone’s backyard at 2 am, armed, without announcing myself beforehand. In Texas that’s perfect legal justification for being armed while looking out your own window.
In Texas also perfect legal justification for blowing the idiot doing the creeping into the next life.
So like I said...get used to it.
L
Actually, it goes more towards the concept that the woman was lawfully responding to a perceived threat and holding a firearm in her home where she had a right to be and to defend herself and her nephew ( TX Castle Doctrine)) law.
The child’s statement will not have too much impact, he I a minor and forensic evidence will be the primary tools used to determine who did/had what.
Do you think it reasonable for a homeowner to point/hold a firearm in a proper posture if they believed there was an unlawful threat? Did the police announce they were present? Did they attempt? Was it reasonable for her to know the police were there?
Quite sure if the woman survived, she would not be accused of anything, her mistake of fact was legitimate, even if she was able to shoot her attacker.
Okay, now I will avoid further response, your position, as well as mine, will be eventually clarified at court
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.