Basically what that means is that in a particular situation I might not accept the validity of a certain law,as it's applied in *that* case,and as a result I,as a juror, might reject instructions that the judge might give to me during,or at the end of,the trial.
In *this* case I'm inclined to believe that if the kid's account is accurate then the cop just might have been justified,morally if not legally,to fire.
This woman absolutely should not be dead. I think it's far more likely than not the cop handled this case...the approach to the house for example...badly.If so then he could certainly be accused of serious negligence.
Again,assuming that the kid's account is accurate,I could see the cop deserving time in prison for major negligence...but I don't see anything close to "murder" as *I* define the word..
And,quite frankly,I wouldn't care what Texas law might say.
Fortunately for the rest of us, Texas law matters because this incident happened in Texas.
The cop was NOT morally or legally justified in firing. He had not identified himself, he was illegally trespassing on her property and was just another thug at that point. Are thugs morally justified in shooting their victims?
Have you even watched the bodycam video at all? We don’t have to rely on the kid’s testimony at all.
Here’s the dispatch call and the video take from the officer’s body cam.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBngqltcXRQ
This guy needs to be under the jail.
If the victim's account is accurate, then the victim's gun should be visible in the cop's body cam recording.
You've made that crystal clear.
Intentionally killing someone without lawful justification is by definition, both legally and morally, murder. Planning to do the same is capital murder.
“ And,quite frankly,I wouldn’t care what Texas law might say.“
Spoken like a true liberal.
L