Ok, if that alone were the only weird anomaly I could understand. But leaving aside the fact that it wasnt dark in the hallway outside her door-where she was-its just one too many hard to swallow things that must be taken in concert for her story to jibe.
I apologize if this has already been established but was she actually inside the apartment when she shot Mr. Jean? Or was she still in or right outside of the doorway? And would that fact substantially change things re a Castle Doctrine defense?
The incident has fuck all to do with castle doctrine or gun control. You do keep trying, though. Is there anything else you’d like to try to piggyback on the case? Gay rights? Income inequality? Global warming? Oh, it’s Riemann - you probably do.
Ok, let’s suppose the door was ajar. She finds that suspicious, suspects an intruder. She opens the door and the apartment is dark. Although she’s off duty, she’s in uniform and has drawn her weapon, and is presumably following a combination of police training and instincts as a resident of the flat.
Presumably there’s a light switch inside the front door, and I’m trying to work out in my mind if it’s reasonable that she would not turn the light on at this stage? What would police training dictate? Would turning on the light be against training because it would make you visible as a target?
If she thought something was awry, she could/should have backed out through the same door she came in and summoned assistance. The training I received is that one doesn’t clear dwellings alone absent a very pressing emergency.
Standing in the doorway of a darkened (?) room, in a lighted hallway, has already made you a large highly visible target. You would not do that in any tactical situation.
And no matter what, you don’t shoot if you don’t know what is going on. Even if it were her apartment, and even if some guy had broken in with criminal intent, if he’s not threatening you, you don’t get to shoot him!
Ok, I concede that if you have convinced yourself that people getting shot in general has no conceivable connection to gun control, that by similar reasoning you can probably convince yourself that someone who believed that they were in their own home shooting a supposed intruder has no conceivable connection to castle doctrine laws.
You don’t get the legal right to shoot someone just because they’re in your house, not even in Texas.
Sure, but any law that weakens the required justification for shooting someone, or that lessens the burden to retreat, is likely to make people more trigger happy.
You do insist on ignoring that she is a cop, for some reason. Is there a city in the US, even among those with the absolute strictest guns laws, where cops don’t take their guns home? Even if everybody else in Dallas was disarmed, I expect Dallas PD officers would still be armed. Did she or her lawyer offer Castle Doctrine laws as a defense? It seems that Castle Doctrine is under discussion here only because you brought it up back on page 1 of the thread.
You pointed out that we don’t do the “unarmed cops” thing. You also say that this has nothing to do with gun control. Pop quiz: why don’t we do the “unarmed cops” thing? Here’s a hint: It has something to do with the lack of gun control in this country.
You yourself just said that she acted contrary to police training, by which you would not “clear” an apartment alone except under exigent circumstances. How is that you are now asserting that her knowledge of her legal rights as a civilian to defend what she believed was her home could not possibly have been relevant to her state of mind in deciding to enter, and more importantly in her decision to open fire rather than retreat? (Obviously it’s not relevant to any legal defense, or I would hope not, given that she was mistaken in her belief.)
Is your solution to disarm everybody? Cool. Let’s start with the cops.
Dude, did she or her lawyer offer Castle Doctrine as a defense? No? Then this is just you riding a personal hobbyhorse of your own and we are done.
Is your solution to arm everybody? Cool, lets start with people who are angry irresponsible drunkards.
Seriously, can you read for comprehension? Disagree with what I said if you like, but if you expect to be taken seriously in a discussion, at least read and acknowledge that I have commented on your point already. I never raised the castle doctrine as a potential defense here, I raised the issue because it may have affected her state of mind, the likelihood of her opening fire rather than retreating. It’s not that difficult an idea to grasp, unless your state of sobriety is similar to someone who can’t tell what apartment they are in.
Someone shot a guy thinking he was an intruder in her own home. Which would only be alowable under the castle doctrine. It has everything to do with the castle doctrine. If you lived in a place that didn’t have a castle doctrine, you would think twice before shooting an intruder; your first reaction would be to get away from the intruder.
And obviously every crime or accident caused by a gun has something to do with gun control.
Even if this was her apartment and there was someone in it, that doesn’t seem sufficient justification to shoot on that alone. There are many other people who can legitimately enter her apartment without prior notification. If there is an urgent maintenance issue (water leak, smoke, etc.), someone from the apartment staff will go in to check on it. If this was during normal hours, there could even be people doing pest control or routine maintenance, although that would typically require a notice to be posted some days before hand. So I would think there would need to be some threat established in the situation. From what we’ve learned about Jean, it’s highly doubtful he was threatening in any way.
I’ve been following this case closely ever since the news broke last week, and I find this whole tragic event heinous & sickening. And, this just further illustrates that LE ALWAYS gets preferential treatment in cases like this.
I also don’t think we’re getting the true story here re: what actually happened:
#1 Scenario: When this story first broke late last week, the details were that the woman was trying to get into the wrong apt. & her door key wouldn’t work, and then she was knocking on the door & yelling, trying to get in - apparently witnesses heard this yelling, which corroborates this story. Apparently, that’s when the resident of the apt. opened the door (due to her trying to get in), and then she killed him - due to her thinking he was an intruder - despite the fact that she apparently couldn’t get in the door, which should have been an indication to her that she was @ the wrong apt. Also, apparently the resident had a red door mat, which she did not have - that again should have clued her in to the fact that she WAS AT THE WRONG APT. If that’s the way it happened, then I don’t see how this could be anything other than murder in cold blood.
#2 Scenario: However, the 2nd scenario that’s been presented (a couple of days after the first story) was that she entered the apt. due to the door being unlocked, yelled at the person she saw there (who she allegedly couldn’t see well due to it being a dark room), he didn’t comply with her commands (makes perfect sense, since who would comply if someone you didn’t know suddenly burst into your home at night), and then she killed him as a result of her thinking he was an intruder. In this case, the charge should also be murder due to her going to the wrong apt. & killing the resident there, who was in his own home. However, I find this scenario EXTREMELY UNLIKELY, since I don’t see that someone living in Dallas (a high crime city) would leave their apartment door unlocked - especially at night. Bullshit.
That being said, Scenario #1 above makes the woman look like a trigger-happy killer, while Scenario #2 “softens” this somewhat, especially IF she claims she didn’t see the race of the person in the apt. before firing on him. However, I think Scenario #2 is a load of bull crap - I think she made Scenario #2 up in order to make her seem more like a victim.
My take is this: Scenario #1 is what actually happened, but Scenario #2 was made up by the woman so that it would make the killing seem more justified.
Will we ever know what happened? Probably not - unfortunately, the one person who could tell us the other side of the story is dead.