100% every red-blooded American should all be concerned if she gets off.

She was OFF-DUTY, and Texas is a NO-RETREAT state. So no, she did not need to back away, call for back up, and prevent and escape.

Lots of people in here and the other thread are clearly arm chair lawyers and need to spend more time reading penal code and statutes.

Do I believe “mistake of fact” is the correct charge? YES

Do I think she will walk away a free woman? Nope. The lead DA stated when he took office that he is going to prosecute police officers to the highest extent of the law. He proved that with Roy Oliver (I do think he got what he deserved) but I do firmly believe that he is out for blood again. He loves to not prosecute the people that elected him, funny how that works.

SA, no I don’t think she should be held to a higher standard. I just want her held to the same standard we all are held to.

Mistakes have consequences. Her mistake is that she took her gun out and fired without being completely aware of her surroundings and bearing. Should have consequences.

SA, no I don’t think she should be held to a higher standard. I just want her held to the same standard we all are held to.

The on duty/off duty argument means nothing to me either. This guy was not threatening, he was unarmed, and posed to material risk to her as a person or a LEO. So what I am saying is she shouldn’t be held to a higher or lower standard than us non-LEOs, she should be held to a human standard. She made a mistake. There should be some consequences when you shoot someone to death even if it is a mistake. This was no accidental discharge. This was intentional to kill. Her mistake. Her punishment. Should she be sent to jail for life or anything like that? No. But there needs to be some sort of consequence to her recklessness. My father in law has a childhood friend who has been sitting in prison for killing someone while driving drunk. Mistakes have consequences. His was intentional in that he drove while knowingly intoxicated. Her mistake is that she took her gun out and fired without being completely aware of her surroundings and bearing. Should have consequences.

Edit: lol, I didn’t even realize your question was directed at someone else...oh well, I answered too. Hope you don’t mind

If I was in that situation I would plead guilty, and throw myself on the mercy of the court. To try and get off, is chicken chit to me.

So, I am starting to think that the interest is an emotional thing and not related to anything specific.
People are interested because there is a possibility that she can be let to walk free because of a circumstantial mistake.
It is an emotional thing to think about how someone can be killed in their own home and no one held criminally liable.
Someone dies at the hand of another and someone has to pay. An eye for an eye, I guess.
People feel that punishment of any sort will make them feel better rather than trying to rationalize a mistake.

I nor anyone else here knows what really transpired that evening. We only know the outcome. It is clear to me that her conviction is already written and we are going thru the motions to figure out her punishment. Heck, I heard this morning that one of the jurors said during selection that they already know she is guilty of murder but there is a possibility that they might be convinced otherwise. How does anyone get a fair trial with people like that being accepted in the jury?

Heck for all we know she might have been planning this for months and was using her adulterous relationship as a cover. If that is the case, I am all for letting her rot in prison.
If this is truly a mistake, she should walk free. Maybe some sort of civil penalty might be in order though.

The thing is, this happens all the time. SWAT doing “no knock” raids on the wrong house and killing the homeowners.
Police officers killing someone because they mistook a phone or something in the persons hand as a weapon.
People kill or injure others everyday because of mistakes. When those situations are determined to be “mistake of fact” everyone kicks the dirt and we move on. But the person that actually pulled the trigger has to deal with that for the rest of their life.

Most of the people on this forum are LTC and carry every day for our own protection. This circumstance could be anyone of you. What if you felt your life was threatened and you had seconds to react. In that moment it is either you or them. What are you going to do? You have been practicing your draw and marksmanship for that moment and you decide to draw your gun. Once that gun is in front of you all you have to do is make the choice NOT to use it. Again it is them or you.

I feel for the family’s loss of their son, brother, friend.... But what about loss of the other family’s daughter, sister, friend that might spend time in jail because a jury has already convicted her and are just going thru the motions to punish her.
Do two wrongs make a right?? Nope, but it feels good. So let’s do it anyway.

Do you have a link about the juror with pre-conceived "guity of murder"? I cannot imagine that person was seated on this jury.

Do you have a link about the juror with pre-conceived "guity of murder"? I cannot imagine that person was seated on this jury.

Pegasaurus, please tell me how she feared for her life? She was entering an apartment...she could have easily just walked back out

Instead she continued to enter feeling someone was in 'her" apartment (despite nothing looking like her apartment other than the walls maybe being the same color) and so she decided to continue in and attack the "aggressor" who happened to be sitting on a couch eating ice cream. How was this fear of life supposed to take place?

Your example of swat and police going to the wrong house is at least in the LOD and with court granted orders and warrants. This was off duty and she was under no such directive to clear her apartment of aggressors. That was her choice. It ended up being a wrong choice, but not a mistake of fact.

As I mentioned before, if she were the one sitting in her apartment and someone came into her apartment and she fired, its a different ballgame. But the fact she was entering and could have easily exited with no blockage of the exit/entrance, makes a big difference to me.

I am not emotional about this, and I have not sentenced her to any guilt as I don't know all the facts. If I heard the whole case I could judge it based on the facts of the case, but in my mind the mistake of fact defense is flimsy at best and is not helped by the fact I have read she was distracted, it is patently obvious she was unaware of her surroundings, and then fired on an unarmed and apparently non-threatening guy.

Pegasaurus, not sure why you are hung on the mistake of fact issue of this case? Do you feel if your son or daughter was in the couch and got shot dead by someone "invading" their apartment you would feel the same way?

[quote=Texas buckeye]
1. No duty to retreat. Especially in her own home. . Also see #6
2. She believed it was her home, not his.
3. Reportedly...... She gave commands he didn’t follow.
4. She was in full uniform with a gun pointed at him and yet he still continued to approach.
5. Reportedly...... He was shot at a distance of 13’. At that distance a non-responsive male approaching her is a huge threat and also no longer at a safe distance to retreat from. He could close that gap before she could even get out of the way.
6. She has a different mindset than you in that she has had extensive training to not retreat from a threat.

1 - Not in her own home. Had no reason to be in his habitation. See 30.02 of Penal Code if desired as well.
2 - See #1
3 - See #1
4 - See #1
5 - See #1
6 - See #1

1 - Not in her own home. Had no reason to be in his habitation. See 30.02 of Penal Code if desired as well.
2 - See #1
3 - See #1
4 - See #1
5 - See #1
6 - See #1

Ok Counselor..... Can you explain how Sec. 30.02. BURGLARY, applies to this case??
But if you want to play that card..... It further strengthens her defense that she did not commit Burglary. Specially if she believed it to be her own home. Plus “reportedly”..... she did not do so “with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault.”

She’s done. The lead investigator of the Texas Rangers took the stand today, he stated that he does not believe there was an offense committed.

This testimony was not in front of the jurors. The judge decided to not allow his testimony to be presented to the jurors. She’s [censored].