Actually, I can kind of see that, and I like the idea of the investigation being conducted by an outside agency.I don't think I've heard BUT I did hear on the news a couple days ago that Dallas PD was not going to conduct an internal investigation because they "did not want to interfere with the criminal investigation." What a bunch of hoo-ey ...
If that 'outside agency' has any connection whatsoever, however tenuous, with the DPD, or any brass in the DPD, then I wouldn't put too much faith in the outcome.
I've about had my fill of one gov't agency "investigating" another.
I know that I don't have all the facts, and nobody does (the only other person there is dead), but this looks like a clear cut murder case to me.
I've about had my fill of one gov't agency "investigating" another.
I know that I don't have all the facts, and nobody does (the only other person there is dead), but this looks like a clear cut murder case to me.
I have great respect for the Texas Rangers and believe they will be impartial.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Better than the agency investigating itself; at least there's some separation.
From the reporting, I don't see murder, I see manslaughter (based on Oklahoma definitions; I've not researched the Texas statutes). I could be persuaded, though, depending upon what new facts come out.
I really want to know the results of the tox screen.
Yeah, the tox screen is taking weeks to release. The fact that the victim had pot in his apartment took a couple of days. What's up with that?
If there had been a fist fight, or she hit him with a stick, and he died, I could accept manslaughter. That would be the intent to harm, but not necessarily kill. Incidental, if you will.
However, one doesn't shoot another person without the knowledge that death could very well be the outcome. Especially if the shooter is a trained LEO.
We can argue degree of murder, but I don't see manslaughter.
Keep in mind, it was her in the wrong house, not him.
I agree, but as nearly as we can tell, her being in the wrong apartment was negligence, not deliberate. Negligently going into the wrong home does not rise to the level of "an act imminently dangerous to another person and evincing a depraved mind," nor is simple trespass a felony that would bring her actions into the ambit of the definition of murder 2.
Manslaughter 1 is defined as:
Homicide is manslaughter in the first degree in the following cases:
1. When perpetrated without a design to effect death by a person while engaged in the commission of a misdemeanor.
1. When perpetrated without a design to effect death by a person while engaged in the commission of a misdemeanor.
As reported, this fits that definition perfectly (again based on Oklahoma statutes, which I know I shouldn't really do, but this is an intellectual exercise anyway). Show me that she intended to enter his apartment with other intent and it'd probably slot neatly into murder 2, but so far, I see manslaughter 1.
The misdemeanor was trespassing.
The fight that ensued was not trespassing. Whatever happened after the misdemeanor (trespass) is another crime entirely.
Look at it this way. I know a woman, whose car high-centered crossing a railroad track. It got stuck on the track, and hit by a train.
The insurance company charged her two deductibles. There were two incidents; the high center, and the impact.
The same here. The trespass is a misdemeanor, whatever happened after that was probably not. So, the killing did not happen during the commission of a misdemeanor, it happened after.
Killing someone in a fistfight is manslaughter - the fight was a misdemeanor, and the killing happened during the misdemeanor.
Killing someone after the commission of a misdemeanor, not during, is another matter entirely.
The fight that ensued was not trespassing. Whatever happened after the misdemeanor (trespass) is another crime entirely.
Look at it this way. I know a woman, whose car high-centered crossing a railroad track. It got stuck on the track, and hit by a train.
The insurance company charged her two deductibles. There were two incidents; the high center, and the impact.
The same here. The trespass is a misdemeanor, whatever happened after that was probably not. So, the killing did not happen during the commission of a misdemeanor, it happened after.
Killing someone in a fistfight is manslaughter - the fight was a misdemeanor, and the killing happened during the misdemeanor.
Killing someone after the commission of a misdemeanor, not during, is another matter entirely.
Unless the killer in a fistfight INTENDED to beat the victim to death and predetermined to do so. Then it becomes a felony murder charge.
I'm like Dave in that I would really like to see the results of the toxicology tests. Then again, the lady in this case apparently did not "intend" to kill the occupant of the apartment when she entered. Plus, I've only heard one story of the victim having Marijuana in his apartment. I'll wait for the completion of the investigation to see what is determined. After all, we've all heard stories of people having drugs planted in their homes or vehicles.
Similar threads
