Dallas Police Officer goes home to the wrong apartment, kills man inside !!

For manslaughter to apply, she doesn’t have to discharge the weapon accidentally, but rather, recklessly. Like if she peaked around the corner, heard a noise in the dark and fired blindly into the room resulting in Jean’s death.

For murder, her actions need to be intentional, which they seem to have been. She intended to shoot the person who stood before her.

Legally, if she goes to trial, she might be in a better position if she is charged with murder because then she has a better defense. She can argue “mistake of fact” and basically say that she mistakenly believed an intruder had unlawfully entered her home intending to cause her harm (physical or financial) and she shot him in self defense, rightfully, under the Castle Doctrine.

If the jury believes she truly thought it was her apartment and Jean was a burglar, they could acquit her. Charging her with manslaughter basically denies her this defense, but puts her in a better position if she pleads guilty.

But weren’t you trained *not* to walk into a situation like that? Originally Posted by TinMan

Piss poor execution of training. The front door was the choke point...and illuminated. Volumes to speak of in how her actions negate her right to carry a weapon. But I’ll leave it at that. Originally Posted by Ronin3

Oh, yes, without a doubt she exercised poor judgment (at a minimum).

Not that her actions should in any way impact her Constitutional right to carry a firearm...

If the jury believes she truly thought it was her apartment and Jean was a burglar, they could acquit her. Charging her with manslaughter basically denies her this defense, but puts her in a better position if she pleads guilty. Originally Posted by B Three

You don't think that if we assume the facts were that she reasonably believed she was in her own apartment, and that she was defending herself, that she would be innocent of manslaughter?

I'm no lawyer, but I hope that if I'm in my home, and I have to defend myself using deadly force, that I can't be convicted just by switching the charge from murder to manslaughter.

She is guilty, no need for a trial.

You don't think that if we assume the facts were that she reasonably believed she was in her own apartment, and that she was defending herself, that she would be innocent of manslaughter?

I'm no lawyer, but I hope that if I'm in my home, and I have to defend myself using deadly force, that I can't be convicted just by switching the charge from murder to manslaughter. Originally Posted by Crock

It’s not what you or I believe, it’s what the elements of the crime are and properly charging her. The jury instructions tell the jury what they are required to decide. Hopefully, if this goes to trial, the State will charge her with both and give the jury the ability to decide. But don’t be surprised that when she’s charged with murder, her defense attorney argues not to allow the lesser charge.

People don’t defend themselves by acting recklessly. They defend themselves by acting intentionally. So using the Castle Doctrine for manslaughter really does not make legal sense.

She’s a victim? She Killed An Innocent Man! The fact that she’ll likely get off in large part because she happens to be white still does not make her a victim. It makes her lucky in today’s America. Originally Posted by Barrymccockinner

Clearly, you missed my point. While Simultaneously, making my point. I said nothing about the brother not being innocent.

For manslaughter to apply, she doesn’t have to discharge the weapon accidentally, but rather, recklessly. Like if she peaked around the corner, heard a noise in the dark and fired blindly into the room resulting in Jean’s death.

For murder, her actions need to be intentional, which they seem to have been. She intended to shoot the person who stood before her.

Legally, if she goes to trial, she might be in a better position if she is charged with murder because then she has a better defense. She can argue “mistake of fact” and basically say that she mistakenly believed an intruder had unlawfully entered her home intending to cause her harm (physical or financial) and she shot him in self defense, rightfully, under the Castle Doctrine.

If the jury believes she truly thought it was her apartment and Jean was a burglar, they could acquit her. Charging her with manslaughter basically denies her this defense, but puts her in a better position if she pleads guilty. Originally Posted by B Three

This is an incredibly accurate, coherent summation of the facts. I'm impressed.

Evidence showed shot from doorway 12-15 feet no indication of weapon , So why didn't she Back out , Not shoot into a dark apartment, at a shadow. Very reckless/ unreasonable at best.
I'm not that smart but what kind of defense could you have based on the facts so far?

People don’t defend themselves by acting recklessly. They defend themselves by acting intentionally. So using the Castle Doctrine for manslaughter really does not make legal sense. Originally Posted by B Three

And is there not still an affirmative defense to prosecution for defending oneself in certain situations?

The new revelations about the victim should not matter to the case, but 10 grams of reefer and a Gucci Mane autobiography sitting out, can't help his afterlife reputation

Evidence showed shot from doorway 12-15 feet no indication of weapon , So why didn't she Back out , Not shoot into a dark apartment, at a shadow. Very reckless/ unreasonable at best.
I'm not that smart but what kind of defense could you have based on the facts so far? Originally Posted by rexdutchman

You come home and find a stranger in your apartment, in the dark. You draw your firearm and order them to show their hands, they refuse and start yelling back at you. You fire two shots. I'd say that doesn't sound unreasonable or reckless.


Her defense is that she thought she was in her apartment. A mistake of fact, which is a defense in Texas law.

You are assuming the Cop's affidavit is fact, that the Rangers gave her 3 days to put together. Why we having an investigation and Grand Jury if you know she innocent?

And is there not still an affirmative defense to prosecution for defending oneself in certain situations? Originally Posted by Crock

There are defenses to manslaughter, just not mistake of fact. She could argue self defense, for example.


Although, there's no reason the charges couldn't be changed to murder before the trial.

And is there not still an affirmative defense to prosecution for defending oneself in certain situations? Originally Posted by Crock

I’m working with the statement she made. If she had stated that she saw something moving about what she mistakenly thought was her apartment and fired a warning shot into the dark room, that resulted in his death, that’s about the best I can think of. But she didn’t state that.

I think she'll be charged with murder, eventually.


I don't know how you point a loaded gun at someone, pull the trigger twice, intending to shoot them, and are charged with manslaughter.