Oh this is good. Dallas PD cop kills man

[Bithabus]

“I was afraid he was going to kill me”. Much different. Her entire testimony is pretty much fear based.

she has to say that because the legally justifiable reason “immediately necessary” she took off the table when she admitted she had many other options she could have chosen but did not.

I don't think it's much different. Most people would feel fear in that situation. "he was going to kill me" is the important part here. Of course, she is playing up the fear for the courtroom.

 

[El Spicoli]

The actual standard from PC 9.32 is:

"when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary"

You can be in fear or not, you can correctly believe someone is going to kill you, but you ALSO have to show it was immediately necessary and you had no other options.


Not sure why you think tasers have anything to do with this.

At least two DPD officers said they would have withdrawn or taken defensive positions as per their DPD training. It was pointed out she had her radio and could have had back-up even faster than the 911 2 minute response.

She has to show shooting him right then and their was "immediately necessary". I do not think she did that, I did not think her lawyer walked her through it either. I think that was a mistake. They seemed to go with a fear-based defense, which while legally incorrect, works on the emotions of many people.

Well, I am pretty sure that is why she is paying her attorneys for, you know to show the immediate need and that you had no other options.
I bring up tasers because the prosecution did, hence the Ranger's statement. Yeah she could have backed out to take a defensive position and with hindsight, we all wish she had BUT you are thinking about this with the luxury of time behind the keyboard. What is the fear based defense you keep promoting in regards to Chapter 9 Use of Force? The idea is "I was in fear for my life" hence the immediate necessity to use deadly force. I think you are trying to split some mighty fine hairs.
Some were saying earlier in the trial she didn't seem remorseful and now that she breaks down on the stand it appears she and her defense team are "fear" baiting the jury to garner emotional support? We can't have it both ways. If the defense uses a method that gets her off is it legally incorrect? Where does it say it is illegal to play on jurors emotions? Attorneys do it all the time.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

She stated she was afraid before she even pushed the door open.

Why go in....

 

[El Spicoli]

Defense managed to find a former Tennant that mistakenly walked into the wrong apt

Heck they found that 23% on the upper floors had gone to the wrong apartment and that his door did not lock 50% of the time according to the DPS investigation. Hence my comment of a civil suit against the complex.

 

[El Spicoli]

We need to start a poll on the verdict...

That is easy for me, not guilty.

 

[Bithabus]

The idea is "I was in fear for my life" hence the immediate necessity to use deadly force.

That is absolutely not a justification for anything. Common myth.

If you ride in a Taxi in NYC you might be in fear for your life. Can't shoot the driver.

 

[craigntx]

I guess people don't understand that by stating the apartment was "dark" doesn't necessarily mean it as devoid of all light. If silhouetted from behind by light colored walls, she easily could have seen his hands albeit only from the outline of this body. When those hands dropped (if they were ever raised at all), or she realized his movement towards her, she could have justifiably "feared for her life."

Light from the common hallway was mentioned

 

[oldag]

Wow, this is still going?

 

[El Spicoli]

That is absolutely not a justification for anything. Common myth.

If you ride in a Taxi in NYC you might be in fear for your life. Can't shoot the driver.

Well duh. Did I say that was the only thing needed? Ability Opportunity and Intent Right? Given the circumstances as laid out in trial, are you saying she didn't have those three?

 

[Dad_Roman]

We need to start a poll on the verdict...

Done...

She stated she was afraid before she even pushed the door open.

Why go in....

True. I feel the same way. Me and Renegade (& txinvestigator?) hashed this out many pages ago.

.

 

[avvidclif]

Sure is a lot of Monday Morning quarterbacks in here. Start a poll, it could be fun. Just remember none of you are the ones that count.

Poll started, go vote

 

[Dad_Roman]

Go Vote.....TGT Poll

 

[Bithabus]

Well duh. Did I say that was the only thing needed?

Yes

 

[Renegade]

I don't think it's much different. Most people would feel fear in that situation. "he was going to kill me" is the important part here. Of course, she is playing up the fear for the courtroom.

I agree it is a nit, like smelling alcohol on someone's breath (you cant), but the immediately necessary part is important.

 

[Renegade]

We need to start a poll on the verdict...

I vote guilty because I am old school and was brought up that you take responsibility for your actions, not try and make excuses or blame others. Every mistake she made was of her own decision making. You choose to carry a gun, you own the consequences of your bad decision making. The devil did not make you do it, you did it. I do not accept Affluenza boy or any of the other people who make excuses either. So I am consistent.

As for the jury. I think 60/40 for aqcuittal. Americans (not me as much), tend to be a forgiving lot. the old phrase "...but for the grace of God go I" is in a lot of folks heads, if not in those words. I think jury demographics works against her though.

It is frightening to think if acquitted she will probably get her job back.

 

[El Spicoli]

Yes

From my post #1001 "The idea is "I was in fear for my life" hence the immediate necessity to use deadly force. I think you are trying to split some mighty fine hairs." No where in there is something saying that is all that was needed and I am petty sure most don't go around killing others ONLY when they are skeered.

But hey, whatever.

 

[Renegade]

The idea is "I was in fear for my life" hence the immediate necessity to use deadly force. I think you are trying to split some mighty fine hairs.

No I am saying she failed to show it was immediately necessary. I have been in situations I was "in fear of my life", but it was not "immediately necessary" to kill them. I chose other options.

We are currently in a mind set where it is A-OK to kill an unarmed person if you are in fear and he does not follow commands, or comes towards. As mentioned above, I am old school and do not buy into it. IMO, most killings of unarmed persons are not immediately necessary. FBI shows that every year empirically.

 

[Bithabus]

I agree it is a nit, like smelling alcohol on someone's breath (you cant), but the immediately necessary part is important.

If someone is going to kill you, killing him back is immediately necessary.

 

[BillFairbanks]

I guess people don't understand that by stating the apartment was "dark" doesn't necessarily mean it as devoid of all light. If silhouetted from behind by light colored walls, she easily could have seen his hands albeit only from the outline of this body. When those hands dropped (if they were ever raised at all), or she realized his movement towards her, she could have justifiably "feared for her life."

If she saw his hands drop or make a threatening movement, it would’ve helped if she said so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Renegade]

If someone is going to kill you, killing him back is immediately necessary.

No it is not. I can come up with dozens of examples, but here is a real life one from when I was FedAgent:

If you are banging on my door trying to get in yelling you are going to kill me, it is NOT immediately necessary for me to kill you. i have many other options.