Dallas officer kills man after mistaking his apartment for her own

[BLAKE]

Don't argue with him, it's pointless. You've already stated you're not an LEO anymore and hes still making a reference to that and like you said, pointing his finger at you for posting facts, what a dope...

Yeah, and don't take it personally. Ruff can't get an erection if he hasn't had an argument in the last 4 hours. He must have a hot date tonight.

[jewozzy]

Don't argue with him, it's pointless. You've already stated you're not an LEO anymore and hes still making a reference to that and like you said, pointing his finger at you for posting facts, what a dope...

Truth

[Rick Modena]

You are correct, however, you should be saying that to yourself. People are protesting because they usually aren't educated in why people are/aren't convicted. They should work more on getting laws changed and less on protesting if it isn't swaying the lawmakers in their favor.

You are upset because the law doesn't say what you want it to say and because of that you think I'm the bad guy. I'm looking at it from a legal point of view not with my emotions like you are. People are convicted because of laws not emotions.

Also since you either aren't comprehending or you don't care, I do not agree with the fact that I think she will end up walking free because I do feel she should be punished. But in my opinion it is the correct choice based on my interpretation of the law.

Don't argue with him, it's pointless. You've already stated you're not an LEO anymore and hes still making a reference to that and like you said, pointing his finger at you for posting facts, what a dope...

[ram57ta]

You do realize people are charged with manslaughter in car crashes all the time right?

And its fascinating that you can compare an auto accident with going into someone else's home and shooting them.

Yes she did but it wasn't intentional and she thought she was in her own home. A terrible accident, but doesn't meet the charge of murder.

[Ruffdaddy]

So this is going to confuse some people....but when there is a car accident and someone gets killed...do we automatically punish the other driver because someone died even if they didn't break any law? IT WAS A GODDAMN ACCIDENT. Accident means it wasn't meant to happen. There was no intent. It was a terrible accident. That has been established repeatedly..over and over. What was the crime? It was a damn accident. Simple as that. This same scenario could have happened to any of the people living in that complex as several witnesses have stated that some of the locks didn't work right, many of them have accidentally parked on the wrong floor, gotten off the elevator on the wrong floor. It was a perfect storm. It was NOT murder.

You do realize people are charged with manslaughter in car crashes all the time right?

And its fascinating that you can compare an auto accident with going into someone else's home and shooting them.

[ram57ta]

So this is going to confuse some people....but when there is a car accident and someone gets killed...do we automatically punish the other driver because someone died even if they didn't break any law? IT WAS A GODDAMN ACCIDENT. Accident means it wasn't meant to happen. There was no intent. It was a terrible accident. That has been established repeatedly..over and over. What was the crime? It was a damn accident. Simple as that. This same scenario could have happened to any of the people living in that complex as several witnesses have stated that some of the locks didn't work right, many of them have accidentally parked on the wrong floor, gotten off the elevator on the wrong floor. It was a perfect storm. It was NOT murder.

[jewozzy]

No amount of reasoning here will make you see this honestly or logically.

This is why people are protesting...

You are correct, however, you should be saying that to yourself. People are protesting because they usually aren't educated in why people are/aren't convicted. They should work more on getting laws changed and less on protesting if it isn't swaying the lawmakers in their favor.

You are upset because the law doesn't say what you want it to say and because of that you think I'm the bad guy. I'm looking at it from a legal point of view not with my emotions like you are. People are convicted because of laws not emotions.

Also since you either aren't comprehending or you don't care, I do not agree with the fact that I think she will end up walking free because I do feel she should be punished. But in my opinion it is the correct choice based on my interpretation of the law.

[Ruffdaddy]

No amount of reasoning here will make you see this honestly or logically.

This is why people are protesting...

[jewozzy]

And not coming anywhere close to explaining why you as a cop think she isnt guilty of that when it defines exactly what she did.

Not quite sure what you're getting at. I've stated my position very clearly. Legally, I don't think it meets the definition of "Manslaughter" "Criminally Negligent Homicide" or "Murder". The pure reason why is because as I posted, the Culpable Mental State did not meet the definition of "Reckless".

Personally, I think it completely sucks because someone lost their life over something that shouldn't have happened. She should be punished but there isn't a crime that she will be punished for simply because of how the laws are worded and their definition.

[Ruffdaddy]

Bolding with no context? I'm pasting the law from the Texas Penal Code.....

And not coming anywhere close to explaining why you as a cop think she isnt guilty of that when it defines exactly what she did.

[jewozzy]

You are just bolding with no context.

Tell me how this doesnt meet the requirements of manslaughter per the law. I've already said how.it does...you're just sticking your head in the sand.

Then show me a case that does.

Bolding with no context? I'm pasting the law from the Texas Penal Code.....

[Ruffdaddy]

I've already quoted from the penal code multiple times the definition. You keep choosing to either ignore it or state your own opinions.

You are just bolding with no context.

Tell me how this doesnt meet the requirements of manslaughter per the law. I've already said how.it does...you're just sticking your head in the sand.

Then show me a case that does.

[jewozzy]

How is it not?

I've already quoted from the penal code multiple times the definition. You keep choosing to either ignore it or state your own opinions.

[jewozzy]

So in ANY WORLD...and I truly mean ANY world...aside from cop protecting a cop...

Going into someone else's home and shooting them is reckless.

Anyone that knows what a firearm is knows that if you shoot someone they have a high chance of death.

This is as clear cut as it gets unless you are a cop trying to protect a cop.

You truly believe what you are saying and its so sad that you do. This is why trust in law enforcement is fading, and you're showing what that lack of trust is well earned.

I am not disagreeing with you at all. I agree it was reckless. However, you keep quoting a law based on nothing because you do not know the legal definition of "Manslaughter". Legally (which is what we use to convict people with and not or own opinions) she will get off.

I've said the entire time she won't be convicted because unfortunately it does not meet the culpable mental state of any crime, not that I agree with it.

[Ruffdaddy]

Yes, its reckless, but it isn't the definition in the penal code which is what we convict people with.

How is it not?