Dallas officer enters apartment she mistakes for her own, fatally shoots man inside

Page 41 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
Or maybe the jury, regardless of any ethnicity or heritage, did not accept her story that Jean was charging at her when she shot him because the evidence contradicted it.
This is what I'm guessing as well. Even cops have to learn that it's not enough someone be in your home (or what you sincerely believe is your home) for you to shoot them. They have to be an active and immediate threat to your life. And then that threat has to be found reasonable by a court of law. And this one was not, considering the evidence contradicted her claims.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,538
759
146
This is what I'm guessing as well. Even cops have to learn that it's not enough someone be in your home (or what you sincerely believe is your home) for you to shoot them. They have to be an active and immediate threat to your life. And then that threat has to be found reasonable by a court of law. And this one did not, considering the evidence contradicted her claims.

In a lot of states, you have a lot of discretion no matter how it unfolded if you are a homeowner. In fact, some people get off with no charge despite mistaken identity.
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
I don't see how this part changes much. She thought she was shooting someone inside her own home with no indication of malice on her part. I think the quick escalation to deadly force was a combination of incompetence/fear.



Defense can be imperfect (as you say, not retreating if you think she was obligated to retreat) and lead to a lower charge.



What she intended to do was incapacitate a burglar, which she would have had the right to do if it was her own home.

What floored me though during her testimony is that she said she intended to kill him, which probably stuck with the jury. I can imagine her lawyers must have told her not to frame it as an accident, but she botched this, and I don't know how it slipped by. She should have said incapacitate or stop the threat. That's the reasoning I've always come across for self-defense.
NO!!! You do not have the right to automatically shoot someone just because they have unlawfully entered your home. You can only do so if you are legitimately in fear of an immediate attack that threatens your life or great bodily harm. You may have no duty to try to retreat thanks to castle law, but if the intruder is not an immediate threat you cannot shoot.

I'm guessing she shot him thinking he was in her apartment and she could simply claim he was rushing her and it would all be accepted. When it turned out to not be her apartment the poop hit the fan as it should have.
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,538
759
146
NO!!! You do not have the right to automatically shoot someone just because they have unlawfully entered your home. You can only do so if you are legitimately in fear of an immediate attack that threatens your life or great bodily harm. You may have no duty to try to retreat thanks to castle law, but if the intruder is not an immediate threat you cannot shoot.

I'm guessing she shot him thinking he was in her apartment and she could simply claim he was rushing her and it would all be accepted. When it turned out to not be her apartment the poop hit the fan as it should have.

This is speculation. You're guessing because there's no proof. I think the fear/incompetence did her in while giving commands (which is suggestive by itself that she didn't intend to automatically shoot him). The fact is if you're at your home, the fear defense is so easy to claim, and many states allow you to confront the intruder, which opens up even more subjectivity. Ex. As someone here did, someone questioned her "fear" because she decided to confront what she heard.

Father who killed teen son after mistaking him for an intruder will not be charged
 

SteveGrabowski

Diamond Member
Oct 20, 2014
7,428
6,157
136
NO!!! You do not have the right to automatically shoot someone just because they have unlawfully entered your home. You can only do so if you are legitimately in fear of an immediate attack that threatens your life or great bodily harm. You may have no duty to try to retreat thanks to castle law, but if the intruder is not an immediate threat you cannot shoot.

I'm guessing she shot him thinking he was in her apartment and she could simply claim he was rushing her and it would all be accepted. When it turned out to not be her apartment the poop hit the fan as it should have.

In Texas you can. Burglary is considered a violent offense so it's legal to respond with deadly force.
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,538
759
146
In Texas you can. Burglary is considered a violent offense so it's legal to respond with deadly force.

Damn. You reminded me of this weird case.

 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
In Texas you can. Burglary is considered a violent offense so it's legal to respond with deadly force.
Only if it's warranted and you are protecting yourself from danger, or in some states protecting your property. Show me any law in any state that say a homeowner has the legal right to kill an intruder just because they entered illegally even if the intruder is not posing a threat. I'm not talking about how juries rule or when prosecutors decline to file charges, but actual law.

Just because someone enters your home against your will does not give you the AUTOMATIC right to shoot them. They have to be posing a credible threat to your life, doing you injury or great bodily harm, and in some states, you can do so to protect your property. But not just simply because they entered.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,637
50,864
136
Wow just wow.

Hopefully she wins an appeal or something.

If you look at the definition of murder, this clearly didn't fit in it. I don't deny that she needed a good hefty sentence though because killing someone isn't an "Oh my bad, I guess I'll serve 2 years and learn my lesson".

Interestingly enough according to Lawyer Twitter (always a great source) the main problem here is Texas' murder statute and under that she is guilty of murder.


19.02 - Murder is if someone intentionally kills another person, unless that individual is guilty of manslaughter or kills them in the heat of passion. She definitely intentionally killed him and there was no heat of passion.

19.04 - Manslaughter is if she killed him through recklessness but her act of shooting him was not reckless, it was intentional.

That's murder. It might feel wrong, but it sure sounds like murder to me by Texas law. (real lawyers feel free to correct me?)
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

kn51

Senior member
Aug 16, 2012
700
120
106
Yeah, again different state like I said earlier but basically on the trial I was on the kid gets stabbed. It was some random front yard party when a group showed up and you can guess what happens next.

Was it premeditated? No, not that I can remember. Strange thing was during the whole thing I didn't think the guy 'intended' to kill him but teach him a lesson or whatever. But when we got the instructions it was pretty black and white in the law. Any deadly weapon...intent to kill so murder. Period.

It was a strange case. He had a public defender, couldn't speak English and the whole defense strategy was so laughably bad I almost broke out in laughter in one of the re-enactments. What he did was despicable of course, but how he got railroaded into taking it into trial and not a plea deal always has amazed me. And I live in a city that thrives on plea deals to solve things.
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,538
759
146
Interestingly enough according to Lawyer Twitter (always a great source) the main problem here is Texas' murder statute and under that she is guilty of murder.


19.02 - Murder is if someone intentionally kills another person, unless that individual is guilty of manslaughter or kills them in the heat of passion. She definitely intentionally killed him and there was no heat of passion.

19.04 - Manslaughter is if she killed him through recklessness but her act of shooting him was not reckless, it was intentional.

That's murder. It might feel wrong, but it sure sounds like murder to me by Texas law. (real lawyers feel free to correct me?)

I guess it depends on how you look at it, or if you believed the prosecution's angle that she decided to wantonly kill him just because she thought she had him in her home. It's also confusing because people in Texas seem to have different opinions on how the language of murder is being used.

For the former, why are hunters getting charged with manslaughter in Texas? Why do I care that they thought it was an animal in that case if we don't care that AG thought it was a burglar in her case? It would be intentional death in either case if we disregard the mistaken identity.
 
Dec 10, 2005
25,056
8,336
136
For the former, why are hunters getting charged with manslaughter in Texas? Why do I care that they thought it was an animal in that case if we don't care that AG thought it was a burglar in her case? It would be intentional death in either case if we disregard the mistaken identity.
Maybe because walking into the wrong freaking apartment is not a good excuse for shooting someone you thought was a burglar in your own home. We're not talking about someone who was shot while wandering through the brush in hunting season. These are two, very different circumstances.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,538
759
146
Maybe because walking into the wrong freaking apartment is not a good excuse for shooting someone you thought was a burglar in your own home.

This just means you accepted the prosecution's angle that she just wantonly killed him. I don't believe personally they proved this.

We're not talking about someone who was shot while wandering through the brush in hunting season. These are two, very different circumstances.

Hahaha Holy crap dude! I would not want to hunt with you. If you mistake your target with a human for a deer or other game, that's really stupid. Similar level to AG not realizing the apartment looked nothing like hers. They are very similar. To her defense, fear can lead to irrationality, while hunting mistakes are just pure incompetence and/or callous disregard.
 
Last edited:

MrPickins

Diamond Member
May 24, 2003
9,088
723
126
For the former, why are hunters getting charged with manslaughter in Texas? Why do I care that they thought it was an animal in that case if we don't care that AG thought it was a burglar in her case? It would be intentional death in either case if we disregard the mistaken identity.

Intent is key.

She intended to kill a human; she didn't think she was shooting at an animal.
 

Viper1j

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2018
4,264
3,840
136
Wow just wow.

Hopefully she wins an appeal or something.

If you look at the definition of murder, this clearly didn't fit in it. I don't deny that she needed a good hefty sentence though because killing someone isn't an "Oh my bad, I guess I'll serve 2 years and learn my lesson".

I come from a family of law enforcement, (my mother was a cop, and my kid brother just retired from California State parole.) I even spent some time working for the Orange County Sheriff's office, but I never saw any of the street shit, all I did was fly Baker1, since I went in right after serving in the Marine Corps as a pilot.

I can speak from personal experience, when I say that there is a certain level of "invincibility" when you make it out of the Academy, and get sworn in. You don't have to look at your speedometer anymore when you drive, because you have that shield in your wallet. You'd be surprised how much "professional courtesy" is extended to you. Everything from free meals at Denny's to driving 100 miles + per hour on I–15 on the road to Vegas.

This girl thought she would have to go through the process, but never once in her mind, did she ever entertain the thought, that she might be convicted. The same can be said of Sgt. Drew Peterson. You get a certain mindset, or at least some people do. You do start to think that you've become untouchable. Some people fight the impulse, others embrace it.

The ones that embrace it, are the ones that go down. Sooner or later.

 
Last edited:

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,022
2,872
136
When she discharged her firearm, she intended to kill. That is what police are trained to do in the face of imminent danger. It is too dangerous to try and fire a warning shot or inflict a non-fatal wound to an attacker.

I can't personally rationalize that, were she intending to commit premeditated murder of Jean (much less motive), that this is how she would go about it. There are other possibilities such as crime of passion intentionally confronting him resulting in killing him, but of course this is not the narrative she provided.

The alternative is to believe her story. Personally, as a psychiatrist, I have seen some really bizarre dissociative episodes and acute psychotic episodes, none involving killing someone else, but certainly makes me realize that her story, regardless of all the off details, is plausible. Those are exceptional cases, but if it's the only thing that makes sense, then it's likely the right explanation.

It puts us in an odd place legally and societally if we accept her version of events. One might ponder psychiatric treatment, which of course I couldn't imagine at least a regular therapy wouldn't be important for her, but as far as the psychiatric disturbance that specifically led to this action, it has already resolved.
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,538
759
146
Intent is key.

She intended to kill a human; she didn't think she was shooting at an animal.

And again, It seems silly to me that mistake of fact leads to murder charge. She intended to stop the threat of a burglar, of which she clearly thought she was in her own home, and it's reasonable to think she was afraid. With similar facts in a case where she was actually in her own home (e.g. burglar dies near ottoman eating bowl of icecream with downward trajectory and she heard sounds before she went in), it wouldn't even have gone to trial. Just an aside, I agree it would be murder if what the prosecution argued was true, but I don't think that was proven beyond a reasonable doubt (around ~95% likelihood).
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,735
28,908
136
And again, It seems silly to me that mistake of fact leads to murder charge. She intended to stop the threat of a burglar, of which she clearly thought she was in her own home, and it's reasonable to think she was afraid. With similar facts in a case where she was actually in her own home (e.g. burglar dies near ottoman with downward trajectory and she heard sounds before she went in), it wouldn't even have gone to trial. Just an aside, I agree it would be murder if what the prosecution argued was true, but I don't think that was proven beyond a reasonable doubt (around ~95% likelihood).
Weren't there also fabricated stories like the door being propped open when they are designed to prevent that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,538
759
146
Weren't there also fabricated stories like the door being propped open when they are designed to prevent that.

Maybe? I remember something like that when there was a flurry of articles on it when it happened. What's the point, though?

Edit:

So I looked at the prosecution's closing, and they used a hunting accident as an example of "mistake of fact". He reiterated as they did prior that AG's series of inattentiveness was "unreasonable" so it didn't count as "reasonable" like the hunting example. I find this absurd because there are vast differences between people on mental processes of which everyone does something inattentive once in awhile (not necessarily to the extent of AG, but an unusual case is expected when there are millions of people). It seems really wrong to just declare memory lapses and incompetence as egregious things that need to be punished severely because you weren't "using your brain". I also find it strange that many liberals seem to be happy with the outcome despite it making a mockery out of "beyond a reasonable doubt". I don't see at all how it's ~>=95% likely that AG already decided before she went in that she was going to shoot up Jean.
 
Last edited:

MrPickins

Diamond Member
May 24, 2003
9,088
723
126
And again, It seems silly to me that mistake of fact leads to murder charge. She intended to stop the threat of a burglar, of which she clearly thought she was in her own home, and it's reasonable to think she was afraid. With similar facts in a case where she was actually in her own home (e.g. burglar dies near ottoman eating bowl of icecream with downward trajectory and she heard sounds before she went in), it wouldn't even have gone to trial. Just an aside, I agree it would be murder if what the prosecution argued was true, but I don't think that was proven beyond a reasonable doubt (around ~95% likelihood).

I wasn't arguing whether or not she should have been charged, only stating the specifics of why the charge was murder vs manslaughter.
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,538
759
146
I wasn't arguing whether or not she should have been charged, only stating the specifics of why the charge was murder vs manslaughter.

It's dependent on whether you believe it was reasonable or not, not dependent on what you think (animal vs. person) you shot. Prosecution was aggressively arguing that she already decided to kill him before she entered. The jury bought it. Would have been murder anywhere. If you bought the defense, it would be "mistake of fact", hence lesser charge or acquittal (or potentially 2nd degree felony murder in sentencing phase, but I highly doubt this jury will decide that here).
 

allisolm

Elite Member
Administrator
Jan 2, 2001
25,080
4,544
136
I guess it depends on how you look at it, or if you believed the prosecution's angle that she decided to wantonly kill him just because she thought she had him in her home.

It's not about believing the prosecution's angle that she decided to wantonly kill him. It's about her own testimony that she intended to kill him. There isn't more than one way to look at that.