Dallas cop claims self-defense in apt. mix-up murder trial

[marvin8]

It is a good argument for having a shotgun ready to blast anyone unknown who comes through the door. You wouldn't be mistaking a fact then.

However, one still needs to be acting in self defense.
Excerpt from "Montana Man Sentenced To 70 Years For Shooting Unarmed Intruder:"

A Montana homeowner who killed a German exchange student trespassing on his property last year has been sentenced to 70 years in prison, with no possibility of parole for 20 years.

Markus Kaarma killed unarmed 17-year old Diren Dede after motion sensors in Kaarma's garage detected his presence. As we previously reported, Dede "may have been engaged in "garage hopping" – a local tradition in which teens duck into open garages in search of beer or pot." Witnesses say Kaarma fired at Dede four times. Kaarma was found guilty of deliberate homicide in December.

Seems to me that if an officer felt threatened they would call for back up. I think she made an honest mistake which was followed by many more mistakes. She should be convicted of man slaughter (at least) but I doubt she will.

In defending herself under "mistake of fact," Amber had no duty to retreat. She is either guilty of murder or acted in self defense. By the spirit of the law, manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide does not apply since Amber acted with intent to kill, not without malice or recklessness. However, these lesser charges can still be added to the instructions with her being convicted.

I mean WTF! Could you imagine if she gets off and this becomes the new normal? That cops can knock on your door by mistake, shoot you down and say they simply felt threatened?

I believe cops can do that now, if it's a reasonable mistake. However, they can be sued in civil court.

[Steve James]

However, one still needs to be acting in self defense.

I think you mean one has to say one was acting in self-defense. But, remember the woman in Florida (iirc) who got 20 years for shooting at her ex to get him to leave. She deliberately did not shoot him, but said she was "standing her ground" in her own home.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/us/m ... round.html

There have also been several cases of homeowners shooting people who innocently knocked on their doors to ask for directions or help. I'm not sure they claimed self-defense. In this case, it seems that as soon as she entered she felt in danger. But, remember the recent case of the parking lot shooting? It's not self-defense if the other person is moving back --or unconscious in bed.

I think there may be at least one person who would say that if they walked into (what they thought was) their own apartment and found someone on their couch, it would be reasonable to shoot him. Of course, one can't deny that opinions will change based on "who" was shot. For ex., if it were a 90 year-old suffering from Alzheimer's, or a child, it would seem less reasonable --unless the law specified that those conditions could be put into place. Anyway, there'll be a civil case --unless the law says that one can not be sued based on mistake of fact.

[marvin8]

However, one still needs to be acting in self defense.

I think you mean one has to say one was acting in self-defense. But, remember the woman in Florida (iirc) who got 20 years for shooting at her ex to get him to leave. She deliberately did not shoot him, but said she was "standing her ground" in her own home.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/us/m ... round.html

No, that's not what I mean. One can't just say "stand your ground" self defense. Marissa Alexander was found guilty because she was not acting in self defense. There seems to have been little if any physical confrontation, but whatever might have occurred was of a non-deadly nature.

There have also been several cases of homeowners shooting people who innocently knocked on their doors to ask for directions or help. I'm not sure they claimed self-defense.

Again, you can't just say self defense. They were not acting in self defense.

In this case, it seems that as soon as she entered she felt in danger.

Amber said Jean was coming forwards threatening her, not on the couch eating ice cream. The prosecution has seemed not to disprove "mistake of fact" and self defense.

But, remember the recent case of the parking lot shooting? It's not self-defense if the other person is moving back --or unconscious in bed.

Drejka said self defense but was found guilty. Because, the video showed he was not acting in self defense.

I think there may be at least one person who would say that if they walked into (what they thought was) their own apartment and found someone on their couch, it would be reasonable to shoot him. Of course, one can't deny that opinions will change based on "who" was shot. For ex., if it were a 90 year-old suffering from Alzheimer's, or a child, it would seem less reasonable --unless the law specified that those conditions could be put into place. Anyway, there'll be a civil case --unless the law says that one can not be sued based on mistake of fact.

Right. Amber is 5' 3" and Jean 6' 1" off the couch coming towards her. A person can't just say self defense. Each claim of self defense has to pass the scrutiny of a prosecution and jury.

[Steve James]

Again, you can't just say self defense. They were not acting in self defense.

You mean they can't say it and be believed or considered reasonable. If there's no video of the confrontation, and the other person is dead, how does a prosecutor disprove the case.

Marissa Alexander was found guilty because she was not acting in self defense. There seems to have been little if any physical confrontation, but whatever might have occurred was of a non-deadly nature.

And she got 20 years. Iinm, she claimed to be a victim of domestic abuse and feared for her life. I think the law can be subjectively interpreted.

I think the medical examiner's report, which the jury will see, would indicate Jean's position when he was shot. But, as I said, I don't follow this case. The only mistake I care about is that she pulled the trigger. What do you think should happen to her?

[marvin8]

Again, you can't just say self defense. They were not acting in self defense.

You mean they can't say it and be believed or considered reasonable. If there's no video of the confrontation, and the other person is dead, how does a prosecutor disprove the case.

I gave an example of Kaarma who had a shotgun ready to blast anyone unknown who came through his garage door. He claimed self defense but was found guilty, even though the person is dead. This is contradictory to your broad statement, "It is a good argument for having a shotgun ready to blast anyone unknown who comes through the door."

A prosecutor disproves the case by using the police investigation, autopsy report and any other evidence.

Marissa Alexander was found guilty because she was not acting in self defense. There seems to have been little if any physical confrontation, but whatever might have occurred was of a non-deadly nature.

And she got 20 years. Iinm, she claimed to be a victim of domestic abuse and feared for her life. I think the law can be subjectively interpreted.

She said she feared for her life. However, the evidence showed the occurrence was non-deadly in nature. So, her "stand your ground" defense was denied. FL laws are what they are. I don't have an educated opinion on how to change them.

I think the medical examiner's report, which the jury will see, would indicate Jean's position when he was shot. But, as I said, I don't follow this case. The only mistake I care about is that she pulled the trigger. What do you think should happen to her?

"Mistake of fact" laws don't want to criminalize accidents. That's for the civil courts. She pulled the trigger in self defense under "mistake of fact" which apparently hasn't been disproved. I think she should be found not guilty given TX laws. I don't have an opinion on what TX laws should be changed.

[grzegorz]

Yes, I realize a cop walk in and shoot you down but just because you can sue them it doesn't make it right.

The Central Park 5 sued NYC but it didn't give them their lives back.

My point is if you or me went through the same scenario we would be found guilty. I think she should be found guilty from the evidence I have seen but again I doubt she will because it only takes one juror...

There was a time when there wouldn't even have been a real trial so at least there is that. Although in Sacramento there was not a trial when a man was shot down in his own backyard while holding a phone.

[Steve James]

I didn't ask how any law should be changed. I asked your opinion on the decisions. If you don't have one, I will just wait to hear the jury verdict.

[marvin8]

Yes, I realize a cop walk in and shoot you down but just because you can sue them it doesn't make it right.

The Central Park 5 sued NYC but it didn't give them their lives back.

I didn't say it was "right." I was just stating the current law situation.

My point is if you or me went through the same scenario we would be found guilty. I think she should be found guilty from the evidence I have seen but again I doubt she will because it only takes one juror...

Given all the same facts, I believe the outcome would be the same for anyone. The prosecution was trying to hold Amber to a higher standard because she was a police officer. What evidence did the prosecution provide that disproves "mistake of fact" or self defense? The prosecution did not provide any motive for Amber murdering Jean.

There was a time when there wouldn't even have been a real trial so at least there is that. Although in Sacramento there was not a trial when a man was shot down in his own backyard while holding a phone.

In that case, the police yelled similar commands, “Show me your hands! Gun! Show me your hands! Gun, gun, gun!” However, the suspect continued to advance.

I didn't ask how any law should be changed. I asked your opinion on the decisions. If you don't have one, I will just wait to hear the jury verdict.

I gave one multiple times, "I think she should be found not guilty given TX laws. My guess is it will be a hung jury." Which is why I was wondering why you are asking the same question, unless I am misunderstanding.

[Steve James]

"I think she should be found not guilty given TX laws. My guess is it will be a hung jury."

I didn't understand that you were stating a defense. I think you misunderstood that I was saying she should be found guilty. I certainly don't know if she will be found guilty. I don't think anyone has argued that she did it deliberately, or that it was more than an accident. I specifically said that the only real question is the penalty. And, she seems truly remorseful --unlike what we've seen in some cases. So, I'd tend toward leniency. As I said, her conscience will be her prison.

I've been a juror, and I think a group of people can work out things fairly well --when they want to. I don't think it's always a case of the cut and dry "law."

[marvin8]

"I think she should be found not guilty given TX laws. My guess is it will be a hung jury."

I didn't understand that you were stating a defense. I think you misunderstood that I was saying she should be found guilty. I certainly don't know if she will be found guilty. I don't think anyone has argued that she did it deliberately, or that it was more than an accident.

I addressed all of this earlier. Amber's defense is "mistake of fact" and self defense. I didn't misunderstand and wasn't debating. I was mostly giving facts or definitions.

I specifically said that the only real question is the penalty. And, she seems truly remorseful --unlike what we've seen in some cases. So, I'd tend toward leniency. As I said, her conscience will be her prison.

I've been a juror, and I think a group of people can work out things fairly well --when they want to. I don't think it's always a case of the cut and dry "law."

Jurors should not consider penalties or length of sentence when rendering a verdict. A juror's duty is to decide whether a criminal defendant is guilty of murder, manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide.

In defending herself under "mistake of fact," Amber had no duty to retreat. She is either guilty of murder or acted in self defense. By the spirit of the law, manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide does not apply since Amber acted with intent to kill, not without malice or recklessness. However, these lesser charges can still be added to the instructions with her being convicted.

[Steve James]

Jurors should not consider penalties or length of sentence when rendering a verdict.

What jurors "should" do is irrelevant to what they "do." They recognize what they feel is malicious prosecution, and they judge the defendant. They're told not to discuss the case before receiving instructions, but they do. That's why they're sometimes sequestered. However, when what happens in the jury room or among members is egregious, it'll be a juror who blows the whistle. Jurors "shouldn't," but they often make up their minds before the trial has ended.

That's what happens. But, my point is that they're not always wrong, just that their verdicts can often hinge on things that they're not supposed to consider, by law. I have no problem with the "mistake of fact" law or principle. I understand the spirit of the law. I think judging whether it applies to any specific situation is up to the jury.

I still think that, if people are so willing to kill, that this should be an opportunity for the NRA to make the case for guns in homes. I doubt that will happen. I think that's why it seems that the application of laws often seem to be subjective.

[marvin8]

Jurors should not consider penalties or length of sentence when rendering a verdict.

What jurors "should" do is irrelevant to what they "do." They recognize what they feel is malicious prosecution, and they judge the defendant. They're told not to discuss the case before receiving instructions, but they do. That's why they're sometimes sequestered. However, when what happens in the jury room or among members is egregious, it'll be a juror who blows the whistle. Jurors "shouldn't," but they often make up their minds before the trial has ended.

That's what happens. But, my point is that they're not always wrong, just that their verdicts can often hinge on things that they're not supposed to consider, by law. I have no problem with the "mistake of fact" law or principle. I understand the spirit of the law. I think judging whether it applies to any specific situation is up to the jury.

I still think that, if people are so willing to kill, that this should be an opportunity for the NRA to make the case for guns in homes. I doubt that will happen. I think that's why it seems that the application of laws often seem to be subjective.

I addressed that here:

My guess is there will be a hung jury, given there are 10 minorities on the jury in Dallas county and the laws are a little confusing to the layperson. By TX law and prosecution's lack of evidence to disprove "mistake of fact," I believe Amber is not guilty.

The prosecution did not provide evidence or motive that Amber intentionally went to the wrong apartment and shot Jean in other than self defense. Other residents have made the same mistake of going to the wrong floor and apartment. Once someone is in your home, you have the right to defend yourself (castle doctrine).

[Steve James]

Oh, so there's a backstory. I wasn't taking minorities being on the jury into account. So, I suppose you're saying that they won't follow the law, or that the non-minorities will? No joke. I'm a minority who thinks she made a mistake. If you mean that at least one person on the jury may find that she's guilty, I agree. I don't have any idea who that will be. Either way, you're affirming my argument that jurors don't just do what they "should," especially according to observers. Whichever way the decision goes, there will be those who say that the jury didn't come to the right conclusion.

[grzegorz]

I work a hell of a lot so I haven't followed every detail of the case in a much detail as you but it seems that witnesses are say she did not identify herself as an officer which wouldn't surprise me since she thought she was being robbed. If she is also saying he kept "advancing" I am extremely skeptical but it's natural for anyone to try to avoid going to prison.

[marvin8]

Oh, so there's a backstory. I wasn't taking minorities being on the jury into account. So, I suppose you're saying that they won't follow the law, or that the non-minorities will? No joke. I'm a minority who thinks she made a mistake. If you mean that at least one person on the jury may find that she's guilty, I agree. I don't have any idea who that will be.

In general, minorities may vote guilty of murder, non minorities won't. I believe there are plans to protest by minority groups and Jean's family civil attorney, if they don't get a favorable verdict.

Either way, you're affirming my argument that jurors don't just do what they "should," especially according to observers. Whichever way the decision goes, there will be those who say that the jury didn't come to the right conclusion.

Yes.

The attorney videos and podcasts on the first page of this thread said If prosecution does not provide a motive, the jury will not give a guilty of murder verdict. If the jury finds Amber not guilty of murder, then the jury believes she intentionally killed in “mistake of fact” and self-defense. Therefore, the jury cannot convict Amber of manslaughter when a person "recklessly causes the death of another individual" (e.g., Amber shoots through the door inadvertently hitting Jean) or criminally negligent homicide (e.g., speeding negligently and she kills someone). "Mistake of fact" is a defense to all of these. The lesser charges would not be appropriate. Either they find her guilty of murder or find her not guilty to all charges by "mistake of fact" and self defense.

I work a hell of a lot so I haven't followed every detail of the case in a much detail as you but it seems that witnesses are say she did not identify herself as an officer which wouldn't surprise me since she thought she was being robbed. If she is also saying he kept "advancing" I am extremely skeptical but it's natural for anyone to try to avoid going to prison.

I don't believe any witnesses testified to that in the trial. Amber was off duty. She doesn't have to identify herself. The prosecution, autopsy and policy investigation did not disprove Jean was advancing.

Lee Merritt, the Jean family's civil rights attorney, claimed there were witnesses that said Amber knocked on the door and said "open up, let me in" Also, that there were noise complaints from neighbors below Jean (Amber lived directly below Jean). But, I believe people were paid to say these things or found not credible and the claims were bogus. None of these claims/witnesses showed up in court as evidence.