dallas cop intruder

[WuDrWu]

I think someday we'll learn that most people can't be cops, successfully, for long periods of time. You deal with awful people, day in and day out, and how anyone keeps from becoming jaded and biased I have no idea.

People ***** and moan about CEOs making millions while the line workers get peanuts. Whatever injustice you may or may not think that is, it pales in comparison to politicians who get rich off tax payers while these women and men in blue put their lives on the line every day to keep the dredges of society out of our hair as much as possible, all for a tiny % of what the politicians are getting paid.

This is not meant to be a defense of this person in Dallas. I don't think anyone believes she wanted to harm an innocent man. But that's what she did. It's most certainly not 1st degree murder. But it's something terrible, and it's a tragedy all the way around. I believe in the right to keep and bear arms, but exercising that right comes with responsibility. I don't think this has anything to do with being a cop (except the training). It's just an awful and sad outcome.

[WuDrWu]

I'd also like to add this. I would like to think we would have learned a little something from the Carson King episode. With social media being what it is, I suspect in the next 10 years or so you could offend someone with something from your social media past on just about 99.99999% of the citizens of this country. What someone says once (or even a few times) on social media, or among friends etc likely doesn't completely define their character. This "cancel culture" that's going on is ridiculous.

I have NO idea what kind of posts Amber made, and I don't care. You shouldn't either. Some of this nonsense has to stop. I'm not perfect, or even close to it, but I am a decent person that puts most everyone before myself. I'm CERTAIN you can find posts here or somewhere on a social media site where in the heat of the moment I may have said something that was casting the net a bit wider than was called for, if not completely offensive. It does not define the person I am. It doesn't define the person you are. Your actions do. Stop the insanity.

[Kung Wu]

I'd also like to point out that it is not criminal to be dumb.

Unless you accidentally walk into someone else's apartment and blow them to smithereens. Or tell the media that the NCAA has created a false narrative about you when there is publicly available evidence that proves you are a cheater.

Then it's definitely criminal, just not sure to what extent.

[jdshock]

I’m not a lawyer but I think that the judge can set aside an unfair sentence and w/o a motive and evidence to prove her guilt. Her lawyers will say there was no proof of her planning the murder and all of the evidence points to her confusion of being in her apartment.

I feel the need to point out a common misconception about murder. People tend to think "malice aforethought" means that a person planned the killing days in advance. We picture someone with notes and tools and plans that would suggest this was well thought out. That is not what is required. Obviously, this is a 30,000 foot view, but Wikipedia actually has a pretty decent explanation of the intention needed for malice aforethought:

This does not mean that the accused made a plan far in advance, but it could even be in the moment of the crime. If the person did the action knowing it would hurt or kill the other person, there was express malice involved, which is a form of malice aforethought.

From the reporting I have seen, she admitted that she intended to kill the guy. Regardless of anything else, it would appear that's a tough admission to overcome. Her best argument may have been self-defense at this stage, and then she will obviously argue the same issues at sentencing. Texas has some unusual murder laws and actually breaks it into "Murder" and "Capital Murder," but it appears to state that "anger, rage, resentment, or terror" can be considered at the sentencing stage.

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

I'd also like to add this. I would like to think we would have learned a little something from the Carson King episode. With social media being what it is, I suspect in the next 10 years or so you could offend someone with something from your social media past on just about 99.99999% of the citizens of this country. What someone says once (or even a few times) on social media, or among friends etc likely doesn't completely define their character. This "cancel culture" that's going on is ridiculous.

I have NO idea what kind of posts Amber made, and I don't care. You shouldn't either. Some of this nonsense has to stop. I'm not perfect, or even close to it, but I am a decent person that puts most everyone before myself. I'm CERTAIN you can find posts here or somewhere on a social media site where in the heat of the moment I may have said something that was casting the net a bit wider than was called for, if not completely offensive. It does not define the person I am. It doesn't define the person you are. Your actions do. Stop the insanity.

What does telling female employees that they shouldnt take maternity leave make you?

[Shockm]

I feel the need to point out a common misconception about murder. People tend to think "malice aforethought" means that a person planned the killing days in advance. We picture someone with notes and tools and plans that would suggest this was well thought out. That is not what is required. Obviously, this is a 30,000 foot view, but Wikipedia actually has a pretty decent explanation of the intention needed for malice aforethought:



From the reporting I have seen, she admitted that she intended to kill the guy. Regardless of anything else, it would appear that's a tough admission to overcome. Her best argument may have been self-defense at this stage, and then she will obviously argue the same issues at sentencing. Texas has some unusual murder laws and actually breaks it into "Murder" and "Capital Murder," but it appears to state that "anger, rage, resentment, or terror" can be considered at the sentencing stage.

OF course she meant to kill the guy. The alternative would have been that she would have tried to wound him and shoot him in the LEG? That would make no sense. If she actually THOUGHT she was in HER OWN apartment (this happened in the exact apartment one floor above her own apartment) she would have had some type of fear for her safety. She was a trained policewoman and would be trained to shoot to kill. I have heard no other reason for her entering his apartment. She didn't appear to know him ahead of time.

This is a tragedy with extremely strange circumstances. She may have been impaired, confused or something else. She didn't seem to know Botham Jean prior to this incident. She may have been a bad cop and/ or bad person and been morally wrong in a lot of ways, but malice and forethought doesn't seem to have been a part of her actions. That is my view as a non-lawyer which sometimes can be a strength I think. LOL

[pinstripers]

What does telling female employees that they shouldnt take maternity leave make you?

opinionated?

[jdshock]

OF course she meant to kill the guy. The alternative would have been that she would have tried to wound him and shoot him in the LEG? That would make no sense. If she actually THOUGHT she was in HER OWN apartment (this happened in the exact apartment one floor above her own apartment) she would have had some type of fear for her safety. She was a trained policewoman and would be trained to shoot to kill. I have heard no other reason for her entering his apartment. She didn't appear to know him ahead of time.

This is a tragedy with extremely strange circumstances. She may have been impaired, confused or something else. She didn't seem to know Botham Jean prior to this incident. She may have been a bad cop and/ or bad person and been morally wrong in a lot of ways, but malice and forethought doesn't seem to have been a part of her actions. That is my view as a non-lawyer which sometimes can be a strength I think. LOL

Just passing along the actual law. To be clear, you can't just say "malice and forethought doesn't seem to have been a part of her actions." My point is that "malice aforethought" is a legal term of art, and it isn't as tall of a hurdle as you might have otherwise thought. The entire point of my post was to show that if the "person did the action knowing it would hurt or kill the other person," then there was "express malice" which meets the definition for "malice aforethought."

A lot of these types of questions aren't "in your gut, do you think she was ill-intentioned prior to the killing?" It is a check box of "did Person A intend to kill Person B?" And then you work your way down the list. As I noted, self-defense may have been the best option at this point because--as you eloquently established--of course she meant to kill the guy.

In many instances it is helpful to view things as a non-lawyer. It is rarely helpful when thinking about jury instructions.

[pinstripers]

None of this Dallas story makes any sense to me

[WuDrWu]

What does telling female employees that they shouldnt take maternity leave make you?

Not much of anything. I have no context, background, details or forethought to draw any conclusion at all. I don't know who is saying that, to whom they are saying it (if anyone) and if it's a comment that was solicited or not. And that's just a few points.

So thanks for proving my point. A few words shouldn't cancel anything or anyone anymore than a few good words does the other way.

[abdullah_sharif]

got ten years... probably about right. i don't think she went home with the idea of peeling someone's cap back, but you have to pay for your actions.

hope she'll recognize anyone in the food line at the new inn.. sleep tight sunshine.

[revenge_of_shocka_khan]

I was in Dallas when this happened. It was pretty clear to me that she was guilty of criminally negligent homicide, she didn't mean for this to happen, but boy was she careless.

Someone asked me a couple of days ago how many years I thought she would get, I speculated 10-20, which is roughly the range for criminally negligent homicide.

I believe the reason she only got 10 was that she showed incredible character for a person in her situation. Even though she broke down on the stand, she did not ask for a recess to compose herself. It had to be rough for her. I would speculate the jury probably related well to her.

Unfortunately, her show of character is not able to overcome her recklessness and poor judgement.

[abdullah_sharif]

doesn't this look convenient. hardly looks random.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2019/10/06/slaying-joshua-brown-botham-jeans-neighbor-draws-widespread-speculation-details-police/

[Kung Wu]

doesn't this look convenient. hardly looks random.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crim...etails-police/

Why would someone kill him after the trial is over, if they want to stop him from being a witness? Or you are thinking revenge? Maybe we are learning that these folks live in a really, really rough neighborhood? Maybe that's why Amber was so on edge? I really have no clue, but murdering a witness after a trial is over doesn't seem like a reasonable motive.

[Kung Wu]

I was in Dallas when this happened. It was pretty clear to me that she was guilty of criminally negligent homicide, she didn't mean for this to happen, but boy was she careless.

Someone asked me a couple of days ago how many years I thought she would get, I speculated 10-20, which is roughly the range for criminally negligent homicide.

I believe the reason she only got 10 was that she showed incredible character for a person in her situation. Even though she broke down on the stand, she did not ask for a recess to compose herself. It had to be rough for her. I would speculate the jury probably related well to her.

Unfortunately, her show of character is not able to overcome her recklessness and poor judgement.

What kind of area is that apartment complex in? Low/high crime? What is the apartment complex itself like?