Trial of the year over.

[gauss]

I think those of us who are not Texas residents are at a disadvantage in this thread.

 

[tinlizzy]

I've delivered to the same neighborhoods for most of my career and I never failed to noticed if the decor changed. Even if I was at the right address it would make me pause and take a second look at the address. Apartments are no different and the guy had a bright red doormat.

I don't believe she thought that was her apartment. I think she probably had a beef with him because of noise or a parking space and thought she was smart enough to get away with murder. She didn't render assistance to the wounded guy but had the presence of mind to tell the 911 operator 9 times that it was a mistake and she thought the apartment was her apartment.

 

[Gumby]

I've delivered to the same neighborhoods for most of my career and I never failed to noticed if the decor changed. Even if I was at the right address it would make me pause and take a second look at the address. Apartments are no different and the guy had a bright red doormat.

I can tell my house just by the smell as soon as I open the door. I can tell when our cleaning lady has been there, because it smells a little different that day.

 

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by Lewis Clark View Post
...

Watching the news last night, they showed a video of the trial where the defendant was asked if she intended to kill the victim when she shot him. She very clearly said yes she did.

She might not have had previously planned to kill the victim, but at the moment of the shooting, killing the victim was clearly her intent.

I suspect that this played a large role in the jury convicting her of murder and not manslaughter.

That was a Perry Mason moment. After crying in tears, she said that she intended to kill the victim rather than saying she shot in what she was thinking as self-defense.

I don't see it that way.

From what I understand, Law Enforcement is trained to shoot to kill if they feel they are in danger. The idea of "winging them" is a Hollywood myth, you can't count on hitting a 6" wide target (leg) with a pistol under these circumstances. You aim for a much larger target, the torso. So if she felt threatened, this is exactly what she was trained to do. So "intended to kill the victim" is actually exactly the same as "she shot in what she was thinking as self-defense". To defend yourself, you shoot to kill. Maybe some of the LE on the forum can confirm/deny this.

But from what I've gathered (and not actually being in the courtroom means we really don't know much of anything about this case), she really was not justified in any way in feeling she was in danger, there sure seems to be better ways to deal with the situation, or to have avoided it altogether.

But I suppose a jury (like some posters here), hear "shoot to kill" and take it to mean something different? She would have been lying to say otherwise. It actually adds to her credibility to admit something that sounds bad, but is likely true.

I'm also curious (had not heard) if she ever had any other interaction with this guy. Still seems a hell of a stretch to think she actually planned this, thinking the "I thought it was my apartment" excuse would let her off the hook. That would be a very risky move (as we see) and at a minimum would trigger an investigation and threaten her career, and for what gain?

I'm tempted to believe that she really did think she was in her apartment, was so shook by seeing someone there, that fear took over. Everything else becomes a blur. If someone barged in on me, I'd probably jump up, and that might have looked to her as an aggressive move. Clearly, she needed to slow down and get a better grasp of the situation before firing her weapon, or even opening the door, if she thought someone might be in her apt because the door wasn't locked. She should have taken some time to valuate things, try to make some sense of it, maybe call for back up if it was clear it was her apt, and someone was inside. Why confront that alone? Everything she did looks to be wrong, I'm not excusing it in any way, I'm just trying to explain how it might have happened.

-ERD50

 

[easysurfer]

I don't see it that way.

...

But I suppose a jury (like some posters here), hear "shoot to kill" and take it to mean something different? She would have been lying to say otherwise. It actually adds to her credibility to admit something that sounds bad, but is likely true.

-ERD50

She could have said I shot to kill in self-defense.

 

[easysurfer]

I've delivered to the same neighborhoods for most of my career and I never failed to noticed if the decor changed. Even if I was at the right address it would make me pause and take a second look at the address. Apartments are no different and the guy had a bright red doormat.

I don't believe she thought that was her apartment. I think she probably had a beef with him because of noise or a parking space and thought she was smart enough to get away with murder. She didn't render assistance to the wounded guy but had the presence of mind to tell the 911 operator 9 times that it was a mistake and she thought the apartment was her apartment.

I'm more forgiving about possibly getting the apartment mixed up than the not giving assistance part.

The possibly forgetting part, I can see similar to how usually responsible parents forget and leave their children in the back seat of a car. People aren't always rational.

Not saying that I don't disagree with the verdict. Just a bit surprised.

 

[Tiger8693]

To convict for murder.....

there has to be motive although it appears not in this case, so I think will be grounds for appeal.

She "may have had a grudge or something and thought she was smart enough to get away with murder", if not proven by the prosecution, doesn't prove motive.

I have served on a couple of jury's, one of which was for manslaughter. What I learned from these jury trials, is you should plead out if possible. Several of the people that were on the jury with me were more worried about getting home to cook dinner or take care of other matters that they were "reeds in the wind" with what others thought the verdict should be, instead of thoughtfully thinking things through. Based on my experience, and some of what I hear on here where pre-determined opinions are driving comments, I certainly "intend" to never be in that situation.

 

[bolt]

I can tell my house just by the smell as soon as I open the door. I can tell when our cleaning lady has been there, because it smells a little different that day.

I bet every similar honeycomb apt. complex unit each has different decor & different furniture too.
Seems like murder imo.

Unless of course while she was out or working her S.O redecorated. EVERYTHING, even the paint scheme.

 

[Gumby]

I bet every similar honeycomb apt. complex unit each has different decor & different furniture too.
Seems like murder imo.

Unless of course while she was out or working her S.O redecorated. EVERYTHING, even the paint scheme.

Now that I think about it, even if it were pitch black, I could tell my house by the sound as well. My kitchen is large, granite and empty, and sounds have a particular echoing quality to them as soon as I open the door. It is most noticeable to me when we first come home from two weeks in Maine, where it is small and cluttered and the sound is easily absorbed by furniture.

So unless I were impaired in some fashion, I think I could tell my own house/apartment just by smell and sound, let alone the visual evidence. I could see mistaking a hotel room, say, where you have never been before and the rooms all look alike.

In fact, that actually happened to me once in a Pittsburgh hotel. I had been taking a shower and walked out of the bathroom to find a guy standing in my room. I guess I had not closed the door securely. In any event, as I came strolling out of the bathroom and saw him, we both jumped and said "whoa!" at the same time. He said "oops, wrong room" and I said "I think so." Then he left and that was that. Even though I was particularly vulnerable, being buck naked at the time, it never occurred to me that I should shoot or otherwise attack him (not that I had a gun).

 

[NW-Bound]

This woman took the witness stand, and a video of her testimony is on Youtube. Last night, I watched part of it.

I do not believe she killed the victim with premeditation. She said the light was not on in the apartment when she opened the door. She shot the guy, seeing only his silhouette. Only after shooting him, and walking across the room and stumbled on an ottoman, that was when she realized it was not her apartment.

I think it's another case of a jumpy, trigger-happy cop. We have seen already too many scaredy-cat cops who shoot first and ask question later. People who cannot keep calm should not be allowed to be a cop. Some will say that their job is dangerous, and they are trained to be on their toes, which leads to jumpiness.

About "shoot to kill", yes, I agree with ERD50 that cops are trained to shoot at the center of mass, in order to maximize the chance of disabling an attacker. Against a moving assailant, you are not going to shoot for his hands or his legs. That only happens in movies.

Her fault was that she should not have entered the apartment if she thought someone was inside, and put herself in that imagined danger. The prosecutor asked why she did not retreat, take cover, and use her walkie-talkie to call for reinforcement as she was trained. She admitted that she did not think of that.

All in all, a very very stupid mistake. And the poor victim was so unfortunate that his door was not slammed shut. If the woman was not able to push it open, she would not be able to unlock it with a wrong key, and would have realized that she was at the wrong door.

PS. The woman shot the victim while just standing at the front door, or barely inside it. And the light was not on.

PPS. The prosecutor asked why she did not notice the red mat in front of the victim's door, something that she did not have. She said she failed to see it.

 

[NW-Bound]

If you want to see a model cop, watch the video below.

While writing a traffic ticket violation, this cop was ambushed by a thug that happened to walk by. After surviving the attack, he resumed issuing the citation to the waiting motorist.

He did get a flesh wound from being shot, and went to the hospital afterward. He was later honored with an award.

 

[Silver]

I'm more forgiving about possibly getting the apartment mixed up than the not giving assistance part.

The possibly forgetting part, I can see similar to how usually responsible parents forget and leave their children in the back seat of a car. People aren't always rational.

Not saying that I don't disagree with the verdict. Just a bit surprised.

I agree with all of this. I also thought about the similarity with adults "forgetting" a child in a car and letting them die from heat exhaustion.That seems to be happening (or at least is being reported on) a lot more often.

Situational awareness is just lost in most of these cases. It's hard to understand.

 

[NW-Bound]

About cops trained to be on their toes at all times, there was this incidence in Flagstaff, AZ, where a cop responding to a family dispute call was shot and killed in a matter of a second when he least expected it.

 

[Just_Steve]

Only ten years, eligible for parole after five. She got off easy.

 

[ponyboy]

Only ten years, eligible for parole after five. She got off easy.

Dang, really? I was hoping for 20 year sentence.

Accident or not, she ended someones life...and it was her screw up. There is no way around this, it was her fault. She got off really easy...what a shame.

And what a wonderful justice system we have. People are sitting in cages for life for a joint, people are sitting in a cage for 10+ years for burglary...ending someones life gets some people 5 years...and yes, she will be out in 5 years.

 

[CardsFan]

Only ten years, eligible for parole after five. She got off easy.

I disagree. Anywhere from 5 to 15 would be more than enough. This was NOT a premeditated murder. It was a stupid accident. The lady is not defiant, but remorseful.
JMHO

 

[easysurfer]

Just saw on the evening news that the brother of the victim and the ex-cop hugged in court. Reported that he said he loves her as a person and doesn't want any harm to her and they both sobbed.

 

[RobbieB]

I hope the brother files a gazillion dollar wrongful death lawsuit tomorrow. Should be an easy win.

 

[Jerry1]

I hope the brother files a gazillion dollar wrongful death lawsuit tomorrow. Should be an easy win.

But to what end? I doubt the convicted has a gazillion dollars. Her actions were that of a private citizen, not the municipal police department. She's probably already broke from her attorney fees.

 

[bolt]

Dang, really? I was hoping for 20 year sentence.

Accident or not, she ended someones life...and it was her screw up. There is no way around this, it was her fault. She got off really easy...what a shame.

And what a wonderful justice system we have. People are sitting in cages for life for a joint, people are sitting in a cage for 10+ years for burglary...ending someones life gets some people 5 years...and yes, she will be out in 5 years.

A Dollar values for ones body is more than I expected as scrap- $160.00
If Mr/Mrs $$$$$ needed a matching organ of ones body probably more.
What is your body worth?

Life's worth different things to different cultures.

Life*sentence, in a state facilite doing 20s+ is a fashionable adjudication around my area for similar charges/settlements.
She was not working. No lawsuit except to her resources. She declares bankruptcy. She's released w/fresh credit yrs later.

 

[NW-Bound]

I disagree. Anywhere from 5 to 15 would be more than enough. This was NOT a premeditated murder. It was a stupid accident. The lady is not defiant, but remorseful.
JMHO

This woman made a very stupid mistake. It is definitely not premeditated murder. What punishment would be appropriate? I don't know.

And talk about killing people, we often see drunken drivers killing multiple victims in a traffic accident. Recently, it's drivers who text on their smartphone.

Every so often, we read about an elderly woman driver running over pedestrians and killing them.

I have been thinking perhaps only public execution would deter such people from driving.

 

[Silver]

I am so impressed with the victim's brother asking to hug the police officer after her sentencing. Empathy and kindness are hard to come by these days. His ability to care about her after what she did is truly amazing.

 

[easysurfer]

I am so impressed with the victim's brother asking to hug the police officer after her sentencing. Empathy and kindness is hard to come by these days. His ability to care about her after what she did is truly amazing.

Yes, truly forgiving those who trespass against us. Also, his way of honoring his brother's life saying that not wishing ill will is what his brother would have wanted.

 

[ponyboy]

I always find it amusing how everyone views events like this. Some think the punishment shouldnt have been that bad. Others think she got off easy. I have to wonder how much attitudes would change if this was one of your family members. I can imagine saying, "it was a mistake, things happen." If this was your family member, you'd want this person to sit in a cage the rest of their life. We all have a little keyboard warrior in us, lol.

 

[MichaelB]

I always find it amusing how everyone views events like this. Some think the punishment shouldnt have been that bad. Others think she got off easy. I have to wonder how much attitudes would change if this was one of your family members. I can imagine saying, "it was a mistake, things happen." If this was your family member, you'd want this person to sit in a cage the rest of their life. We all have a little keyboard warrior in us, lol.

No, we all do not. In this you speak only for yourself.