Trial of the year over.

[ExFlyBoy5]

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

Or Texas attorneys. I won't get into this too much, but "murder" and the elements that are required to be convicted of it, isn't as simple as "motive" and "premeditation." There are different types of murder and most jurisdictions have varied requirements for *all* the elements to be met. In some cases there isn't a requirement to have motive or premeditation. Homicide was one of the more complex subjects that I covered in law school...it's not easy to understand or apply.

Also, EVERYONE that is familiar with the story has MORE information (like the testimony of the Texas ranger that could have gone a long was to help the defendant but was excluded from the jury) that what the jury had. I watched most of the trial and just don't see that the prosecution proved the murder charge...but it happens A LOT and this is no exception. Jury nullification in reverse, if you will.

Oh yes...and my disclaimer: I am a licensed attorney but NOT in the state of Texas.

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.

Well, that's exactly the opposite of the victim's brother and his reaction. I also thought it was a bit odd that the Judge hugged and gave a bible to her; this just makes me believe a little bit more that the jury got this wrong.

 

[kgtest]

I also thought it was a bit odd that the Judge hugged and gave a bible to her; this just makes me believe a little bit more that the jury got this wrong.

Interesting indeed. Clearly everyone has suffered from the tragedy and will continue to... will be interesting to see when she is paroled.

I think locking your door is something we can all take for granted, but this is a reminder.

I didn't catch a lot of the trial, but it was all over the media so of course I figured it would be a great conversation amoungst ERs diverse community.

Glad we are still 'in-bounds' at this point. Anyone can guess what the next Trial of 2020 might be.

TX does seem to have some interesting cases hit the court room.

 

[kgtest]

Google "game"...

Hah! Well let's hope it wasn't the Yankees. Cannot wait to watch my team crush them! If we can sweep the Yankees and beat the Giants I will let your shot across my bow slide

 

[RobbieB]

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.

Hopefully even broker. Broker than broke.

 

[Teacher Terry]

Money will not bring him back. I do hope she spends 10 years in prison before being paroled. Not everyone is sue happy.

 

[Tiger8693]

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.

Actually, it is reported that the brother said he did not want her to go to jail, so, you are 100% wrong.

I agree with MichaelB on the keyboard warrior comment. Seems a little ridiculous

 

[easysurfer]

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.

This is why there is a jury system. To deliberate different points of view.

 

[easysurfer]

Interesting indeed. Clearly everyone has suffered from the tragedy and will continue to... will be interesting to see when she is paroled.

I think locking your door is something we can all take for granted, but this is a reminder.

I didn't catch a lot of the trial, but it was all over the media so of course I figured it would be a great conversation amoungst ERs diverse community.

Glad we are still 'in-bounds' at this point. Anyone can guess what the next Trial of 2020 might be.

TX does seem to have some interesting cases hit the court room.

From what I read, in TX a person is eligible for parole after having served half the sentence. So, in this case, that's in 5 years. Plus, I also read that the defense plans to appeal.

 

[Gumby]

This woman made a very stupid mistake. It is definitely not premeditated murder.

This conclusion depends very much on whether or not you believe her testimony. She had every incentive to portray it as just a stupid mistake, and given that she is the only living witness to the event, the prosecution had a real uphill struggle to prove otherwise. I don't believe her, and it appears the jury didn't either.

I agree with Silver that the victim's brother demonstrated remarkable grace under the circumstances.

 

[easysurfer]

This conclusion depends very much on whether or not you believe her testimony. She had every incentive to portray it as just a stupid mistake, and given that she is the only living witness to the event, the prosecution had a real uphill struggle to prove otherwise. I don't believe her, and it appears the jury didn't either.

I agree with Silver that the victim's brother demonstrated remarkable grace under the circumstances.

Don't believe or don't believe without a reasonable doubt? I haven't followed the case that closely. Just more so because of the news coverage over the past few days. I'd tend to have reasonable doubt. My gut doesn't think she went home, with gun, thinking "well, I'm gonna murder someone."

I'm still surprised of the jury's decision. Especially since lesser verdicts than murder were options. I'm glad though that they took about 6 hrs to deliberate instead of clock watching on their watches (or phones) in a rush to get home for dinner.

 

[Tiger8693]

Don't believe or don't believe without a reasonable doubt? I haven't followed the case that closely. Just more so because of the news coverage over the past few days. I'd tend to have reasonable doubt. My gut doesn't think she went home, with gun, thinking "well, I'm gonna murder someone."

I'm still surprised of the jury's decision. Especially since lesser verdicts than murder were options. I'm glad though that they took about 6 hrs to deliberate instead of clock watching on their watches (or phones) in a rush to get home for dinner.

Not having been on the jury and hearing the evidence presented, I can't say whether the right verdict was found or not. However, having served on jury's of significance to impacting someones future, I can say I don't feel 6 hours was enough deliberation.

I think much like on here, in today's hyper sensitive climate, and the complete availability of opinions and information online, it would be hard to find 12 people that will work to have a just outcome. You have to have at least one or two strong people to make sure the ones that are ready to ruch out can't sway the group to follow.

 

[easysurfer]

Not having been on the jury and hearing the evidence presented, I can't say whether the right verdict was found or not. However, having served on jury's of significance to impacting someones future, I can say I don't feel 6 hours was enough deliberation.

I think much like on here, in today's hyper sensitive climate, and the complete availability of opinions and information online, it would be hard to find 12 people that will work to have a just outcome. You have to have at least one or two strong people to make sure the ones that are ready to ruch out can't sway the group to follow.

I would have to agree with you that 6 hours is a short time. Better than 1 or 2, but still short. I'm surprised that a high profile case didn't extend to more than one day of deliberation.

 

[Teacher Terry]

I can say that if I was on a jury no one would convince me to vote a certain way if I was convinced of the opposite. I hope they really were in agreement and not pushed into it .

 

[Time2]

I agree that I'm surprised it was murder instead of manslaughter. BUT, the fact that she was a police officer is totally irrelevant. She was not on duty - she was a civilian who killed a person.

That's not the training the officers get. Anytime they see a crime, they automatically become on duty. Correct response would have been to call for backup, she should not have went in the apartment.

I watched a good deal of the trial (CourtTv), it was interesting and I thought she might get just the 5 years. Also I was as shocked as most when the brother ask if he could give the defendant a hug.
Clearly she was very sorry about what she did and it was a mistake, but she did cause someones death for no reason.

 

[NW-Bound]

This conclusion depends very much on whether or not you believe her testimony. She had every incentive to portray it as just a stupid mistake, and given that she is the only living witness to the event, the prosecution had a real uphill struggle to prove otherwise. I don't believe her, and it appears the jury didn't either.

I agree with Silver that the victim's brother demonstrated remarkable grace under the circumstances.

If the woman wanted to kill the victim due to a prior dispute or animosity, I think she would find another way to assassinate him without being caught red-handed.

She would not use the fact that his apartment is coincidentally exactly one floor above her apartment to make the excuse of getting off at the wrong floor, and then that day going home from work to find his door ajar to push it open to shoot the victim while standing at the door.

There are too many things left to chance, if she was planning this as a murder.

 

[Gumby]

If the woman wanted to kill the victim due to a prior dispute or animosity, I think she would find another way to assassinate him without being caught red-handed.

I would think so too, although intent to kill can occur in an instant, say with an argument that escalates. You don't need to plan for days in advance to be convicted of murder. I don't know what really happened that night, but I don't believe it happened precisely as she testified.

 

[NW-Bound]

I would think so too, although intent to kill can occur in an instant, say with an argument that escalates...

I see. Suppose the victim was upset, and swore at her for barging into his apartment...

I did not watch the court proceedings, and only some small parts of her testimony. I did run across a segment of examination, where the prosecutor was doubting that she commanded the victim "Show me your hands... Show me your hands..." as she claimed, in order to be sure that he did not have a weapon.

The prosecutor's point was that as an officer, she would yell in a loud voice, but said no neighbor recalled hearing anything like that.

So, that would also rule out a loud and heated argument between the two before the shooting.

PS. I think the prosecutor just tried to convince the jury that the woman killed a man in a reckless manner. She was not too tired after the 13-hour shift, because she was planning to change, then drove to a gym somewhere (not within walking distance) to exercise. She was texting someone while going home, etc...

 

[Gumby]

The prosecutor's point was that as an officer, she would yell in a loud voice, but said no neighbor recalled hearing anything like that.

So, that would also rule out a loud and heated argument between the two before the shooting.

The fact that no neighbor testified that they heard yelling does not mean that no argument occurred (i.e - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). I would note that: a) not every argument requires yelling; and b) yelling could have occurred and the neighbors may have not noticed.

Yes, I'm aware this latter point could be a problem for the prosecution, too, in the case of the "show me your hands" testimony you cited, but based on my reading over the last several years, this is something police do after they shoot someone - they say "I told him to show me his hands and when he didn't, I thought he might be reaching for a gun and feared for my life. So I shot him." In many cases, the victim did NOT in fact have a gun, but this statement got the police officer off the hook. I'm sure every police officer in the country knows that they should always say they yelled "Show me your hands " whether they actually did or not.

Again, I'll admit I have no knowledge as to what actually happened, but I find her tale to be so objectively unreasonable as to be simply not credible.

Finally, as someone above noted, she actually testified that she intended to kill him.

Anyway you slice it, this is a tragedy all around. For him and his family, as well as for her and her family. I don't know what we can do as a society about trigger-happy people who have a badge and a gun. I wish I did.

 

[NW-Bound]

Again, I'll admit I have no knowledge as to what actually happened, but I find her tale to be so objectively unreasonable as to be simply not credible.

Finally, as someone above noted, she actually testified that she intended to kill him.

I on the other hand believe her testimony to be truthful, particularly as she admitted to not consider the option of retreating, to take cover, and to call for backup. She admitted to making a lot of mistakes.

About the intention to shoot to kill, she was truthful too, when she answered the prosecution question on whether she intended to kill. Yes, she said, because she falsely feared getting attacked.

PS. There have been many cases of law enforcers shooting unarmed and innocent people. And afterwards they steadfastly maintained that they would do it again under the same circumstances. This woman was not one of them.

 

[Gumby]

Well, it is said she will appeal, so this will get sorted out by people more in the know than I am. I will not be surprised if the verdict is reversed on appeal.

 

[NW-Bound]

I do like the fact that this case is well publicized. Perhaps it will keep law enforcers from being too trigger-happy.

Now, only if they get after drivers who text and kill. Or even grandmas who drive when they are no longer able to. Get them too, as I suspect that they kill even more innocent people than cops.

About cops shooting unarmed people, there's a local case here that disturbed me greatly. I will share this case later.

 

[NW-Bound]

I forgot to add that the one thing about her testimony that I questioned was about her fearing being attacked. That would justify her shooting in self-defense.

She was at the door, and could have easily retreated. The victim was inside, and I am not sure that the apartment had a back door. He was trapped, while she was not.

It could very well be that she was upset to be burglarized and intended to kill the intruder, even if her life was not threatened.

For that, the murder charge and conviction would be correct. But I do not doubt that she mistook the apartment as her own.

 

[Teacher Terry]

I know someone that at 74 had her license suspended for seizures and continuing to drive. I really don’t get it. She lives alone but there are other options. Personally I don’t look good in orange. I hope the verdict stands and she is in prison during the appeal.

 

[Moemg]

I felt she was a little too trigger happy.Unless you are texting and not looking at your surroundings wouldn't something clue you that you were on the wrong floor . I assume the apartments were numbered . She then goes to the wrong apartment . I 've gone to the wrong room on cruise ships and known immediately it was wrong .

 

[Montecfo]

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.

oh really? scaredy-cat trigger happy?
Despite wall to wall publicity, such shootings are quite rare. And of course these "scaredy cats" respond to calls and get ambushed. Several cops have died that way recently.

I think your comments are way out of line.