His brother addresses her....
Dallas policer officer that killed black man
- Thread starter tlwwake
- Start date
The entire situation is a tragedy for all involved. From all accounts the kid that was killed was a good kid from a good family.
Dallas defense lawyers are miffed. Not a shred of evidence was presented for murder. Much evidence for carelessness. The parade of lawyer guests I've heard on WBAP in Cow Town believes with an appeal, the Texas Board of Criminal Appeals will acquit, barring something else coming to light.
I watched most of the trial last week and this week. I was pretty surprised at the murder verdict. I thought they’d get her for manslaughter. I had lunch with a retired judge yesterday and he said the same thing, but he said when the prosecution asked her when she shot Bothem Jean was her intent to kill him and she answered yes she put the nail in the murder coffin.
It was really just a sad, sad ordeal all the way around.
It was really just a sad, sad ordeal all the way around.
A bunch of different lawyers said the court case ruled out manslaughter not sure why.
Manslaughter was an option on the table. She was charged with murder and that’s what stuck, but the jury could have came back with a not guilty of murder and guilty of manslaughter conviction instead. They didn’t though.
I think under the circumstances she could of gotten as little as two years.
I would imagine she'll do 5 or 6 and paroled which seems fair for making major mistake and taking a life.
The racist activists booed the sentence. They don't care anout the facts. A white police officer killed a black man and they wanted her to fry.
I would imagine she'll do 5 or 6 and paroled which seems fair for making major mistake and taking a life.
The racist activists booed the sentence. They don't care anout the facts. A white police officer killed a black man and they wanted her to fry.
IMO, they got this one right.
When she arrived at the door to "her" apartment, the door was ajar and she heard someone inside the apt. At that point, she could have called 911 (or called for backup using her police radio). She had the only exit from the apartment covered. She could have waited outside for help. Instead, she drew her gun and charged in. As a police officer, she should be held to a higher standard to not make stupid decisions with a gun in her hand. Her mindset appears to have been "some asshole broke into my apartment, I'm not going to let him get away with this". So, I think the murder verdict works in this case.
I am also OK with the sentence being only 10 years (with possible parole in 5). She made a horrible mistake, resulting in loss of Jean's life. But, it was a mistake. It was not premeditated. She didn't have a vendetta against him. She deserves prison time, but I don't think she deserves to have no chance at rehabilitation and to have a chance to right the wrong that she did.
As to Jean's brother, I can't watch/listen to what he did/said without tearing up. @Ostatedchi , he is a better person than everyone that posts on this site, and probably better than 99+% of people on Earth. Special dude, who will likely do great things in his lifetime.
I've been listening to a parade of lawyers on WBAP on the Chris Salsado and Rick Robert's Shows. Not a shred of evidence for murder. If nothing new comes forward, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals will almost surely acquit.
Dallas police announced late yesterday an internal investigation. There may have been a lack of providing aid to the victim and they may want to know more about the convicted officer's relationship with her fellow officer. The reporter also said something about tampering with cameras. I'll learn more today while on a project in Weatherford, Texas. Lot's of time for radio listening.
One reporter said last night there may be no appeal by the convicted officer.
Dallas police announced late yesterday an internal investigation. There may have been a lack of providing aid to the victim and they may want to know more about the convicted officer's relationship with her fellow officer. The reporter also said something about tampering with cameras. I'll learn more today while on a project in Weatherford, Texas. Lot's of time for radio listening.
One reporter said last night there may be no appeal by the convicted officer.
I think the court got it exactly right. Fact is, she was negligent and she did INTENTIONALLY shoot him. Wasn't premeditated in any case, but that's why its not Murder 1. But frankly, I haven't seen anything that IMO justifies her decision to use deadly force. She's trained to handle escalations and to handle confrontation, and not just "intruder = shoot to kill".
I am no lawyer, but in Texas it is a murder if you kill someone on purpose and then it can be argued from a first degree felony down to a second degree felony during the sentencing phase based on the circumstances of the murder.
Manslaughter is when you kill someone on accident through recklessness. It is a second degree felony.
So it is possible for murder and manslaughter to be equal in terms of severity of punishment in Texas.
Manslaughter is when you kill someone on accident through recklessness. It is a second degree felony.
So it is possible for murder and manslaughter to be equal in terms of severity of punishment in Texas.
No, murder doesn't require motive. Murder is simply the intentional killing of another person with malice aforethought. No prosecutor ever has to establish motive as an element of murder.
She murdered the man and the jury was right to find her guilty. She also should have been given more than 10 years, but she was a good actress and her defense team did a good job pushing their theory of the case. She is also a white female, which I am sure helped too.
Were you on the jury? Do you feel better qualified to make that determination than the people who were in the court room and listened to all of the testimony?
At that point... run in shooting? She:
1. Is too thick to distinguish her apartment on one floor from another apartment on a different floor, with different stuff down the hallway and outside her OWN apartment ;
2. Didn't step back into the hall and yell inside ("Police");
3. Or call for backup
4. Or announce herself from a position of safety
5. Shot the unarmed guy without any hesitation;
She needs to do some time and the public needs protected from her, imo. She sounds like a legit danger to the public. Forget the racial component, she just has criminally dangerous judgment and a willingness to kill people.
Were you?
I gave my opinion based on the facts and evidence that I saw. Just as you did above.
There were two theories of this case. The media coverage has presented the defense' theory of the case consistently while the state's theory of the case hasn't received as much coverage. Clearly, the jury embraced the state's viewpoint and found her guilty of murder. And they were right IMO.
Just wondering Sy, do you believe her (or her defense team's) story that she walked into the wrong apartment thinking it was her's?
I guess the difference is that I said they got it right. You said they got it wrong.
Neither of us knows what they know/heard/suspect. This was a very complex case with a lot of moving parts. I hate the idea of judging the jury with less information than they had. They had a very difficult job to do, and I give them the benefit of the doubt that they did it correctly, and to the best of their ability.
I think it's hard without seeing the evidence. Lots of times media picks out the points theythink are important but jurors and lawyers do their own thinking, and you really need to see and hear everything. But yeah, I find it hard to believe she walked down a different hallway with different furnishings and decorations, and her own doorway didn't have a doormat and plant that the dead guy's did and she thinks it's hers. Even if she did not deliberately walk into the wrong door, if you do with a gun drawn and kill someone in my head, if I'm a juror, the burden shifts to her to explain it and "oops" isn't really gonna get her acquitted in my book.
She sounds like a cliche of a mean, stupid cop to me that didn't have to kill someone. I'm fine with the verdict. Doing 5 years for deliberately shooting someone in the chest seems light to me, but I'm not the guy that screams about juries getting it wrong without actually seeing the evidence .
What's the alternative? She purposely went to the wrong door and decided to kill whoever was inside? She decided to kill a black dude and made up the whole story so she could do it and get away with it?
Did you know that the defense had over 50 residents say that they had made the same mistake....parked on the wrong level and ended up at the door of the apartment directly above or below theirs?
Did you know that Jean's door had a bent strike plate and it caused it to have issues locking.? As a result, when she inserted her key card, the door pushed open as if she had unlocked it. Had the locking mechanism worked properly, she would have tried her key and been unable to unlock the door. At that point, she might have realized that she was on the wrong floor and gone home.
I agree that she charged in with gun drawn and should not have done so. She killed someone she did not need to kill rather than exercising restraint and caution.
I think they got the verdict right, I disagree with the sentence.
Both both are our opinions. Neither of us were on the jury.
Do you take the same approach with the OJ Simpson jury? The Casey Anthony jury?
I guess the 5 blacks, 5 hispanics, and 2 whites on the jury were just a bunch of racists.
To address those of you concerned about the murder conviction, Texas' murder statute is pretty screwy-louie. She essentially got a manslaughter sentence for a murder conviction. Probably a just result. If it were my family member, I would have wanted more, but that's why jurors must be disinterested persons. And at the end of the day, the victim received far more justice than Kate Steinle did.
Not all murders require malice aforethought. That’s 1st Degree Murder.
2nd degree murder does not require malice aforethought.
Not even all 1sr degree murders even require the intentional killing of another person by the person charged. With the felony murder concept, some deaths are first degree murder if resulting from certain enumerated crimes even without specific intent to cause death.
Last edited:
Well, there is a lot of alternatives to the notion that she walked into the wrong apartment thinking it was her's and opened fire on the person inside the apartment without thinking straight. You named a few, there are others I could think of too.
I don't buy her story but that is just me.
I believe CowboyJD may have been typing too fast and cited "murder-felony" instead of the "felony-murder rule."
Ie. You rob a bank and run down a pedestrian while fleeing in your car, or hit an innocent bystander (fatally) while shooting at a cop during the robbery. You didn't intend to kill either person, but you did so while engaged in another felony.
A. Aperson commits murder in the first degree when that person unlawfully and with malice aforethought causes the death of another human being. Malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a human being, which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof.
B. A person also commits the crime of murder in the first degree, regardless of malice, when that person or any other person takes the life of a human being during, or if the death of a human being results from, the commission or attempted commission of murder of another person, shooting or discharge of a firearm or crossbow with intent to kill, intentional discharge of a firearm or other deadly weapon into any dwelling or building as provided in Section 1289.17A of this title, forcible rape, robbery with a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, escape from lawful custody, eluding an officer, first degree burglary, first degree arson, unlawful distributing or dispensing of controlled dangerous substances or synthetic controlled substances, trafficking in illegal drugs, or manufacturing or attempting to manufacture a controlled dangerous substance.
————————
Homicide is murder in the second degree in the following cases:
1. When perpetrated by an act imminently dangerous to another person and evincing a depraved mind, regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual; or
2. When perpetrated by a person engaged in the commission of any felony other than the unlawful acts set out in Section 1, subsection B, of this act.
————————-
Can’t believe I’m explaining this to a lawyer that clerked for a federal judge. I’m sure you took criminal procedure in school and understand that malice aforethought is a term with a very specific meaning and standard.
I see you went back and edited your post.
Actually, malice aforethought is included in Second-Degree Murder. Second-Degree murder doesn't included premeditation. And of course, I am not referencing manslaughter when I reference murder in the context of this thread.
I really don't know why you are trying to explain it to me at all. The definitions you posted are consistent with the definition I gave. Murder is the intentional killing of another with malice aforethought.
I didn't get into defining degrees (usually dealing with premeditation) or try to equate murder with manslaughter within the context of this thread.
Last edited:
I cited the statutes in Oklahoma.
2nd degree murder absolutely does not require malice aforethought.
Felony murder doctrine absolutely does not require malice aforethought.
Manslaughter isn’t even murder as legally defined....it is an illegal homicide, but murder and homicide are not interchangeable terms.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Canton Ohio Black Man dies while handcuffed on floor. Here we go again
- Latest: LAY THE WOODY
-
