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

[billyjames]

B Three, I agree with you..It would've been a lot better had she retreated, being that he had no where else to go.. they were on the fourth floor. she could've backed into the hallway and called for help..and then, if he came out and confronted her,they could've had a conversation from far away, where they were both kinda safe.It sucks anyway you put it..

[Guest083119]

^^^. Yes. Tragic and 99% avoidable regardless of the mistake of fact. I’d be interested in what other cops (honestly) say they’d do. I truly think most would’ve pulled their weapon and backed out and kept their gun aimed at the door. Like you said. Where the fuck would the alleged intruder go???

I can almost guarantee that’s what a federal agent would be trained to do. Especially since the Castle Doctrine is not federal.

[bandit007]

I am gonna throw some real law out here. Actual Texas Penal Code


Texas Penal Code 8.02 – Mistake of Fact. (a) It is a defense to prosecution that the actor through mistake formed a reasonable belief about a matter of fact if his mistaken belief negated the kind of culpability required for commission of the offense.


She pulls in, all the floors are identical, goes to the same apartment as her's just one floor up. Put's key and door opens. As she steps in and male figure appears in what she believes is her apt.



Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation









So she believes she is in her apt(habitation). Use of force is covered by chapter 9 of the Texas Penal code. Any person in the State of Texas may use force to protect themselves in their habitation.


So it boils down to a Mistake of Fact. As long as she reasonably believed she was in her apartment her actions were legal. It doesn't make it any less of a tragedy it just doesn't make it a crime. There is no way I would have a jury trial. I would have a trial by court. A judge will be more bound by the actual law.



There are no winners. Just tragedy and losers.

[billyjames]

I agree there are no winners.. And I think common sense says to get out and think about what is going on.. There could've been Four people in "her Apartment". then what? empty your gun?..She should've Backed out and waited.It's a bad deal all around.

[Guest083119]

You’re completely correct on having a bench trial.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by dark3419

Why?


Forget about the particular case this thread started on. Suppose for the sake of argument that you bump or jostle someone at a store who is having a really, really bad day. This person starts shouting and yelling at you, maybe even shoving you. You back away. The person keeps on advancing at you. Should you have to let yourself be backed into a corner first? Or maybe risk tripping on an unseen obstacle and becoming helpless for that brief time?


Anyone who has taken training for a concealed handgun license knows that it's always best to de-escalate situations, avoid fights, and try to withdraw if possible. It's simply prudent, and the intelligent thing to do ( you don't win arguments with screaming idiots - it just doesnt work). But why should a peaceful, law-abiding person have ANY duty towards a violent person, a criminal, etc?


Your duty is to YOURSELF, and your family - not towards the criminals.

So fucking gun nut don’t kill more people. You want to do everything you can to keep a fire arm, or any deadly weapon, from being used.

[TexTushHog]

It was entirely avoidable if she didn’t have a gun.

[dark3419]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

It was entirely avoidable if she didn’t have a gun.

??? She's a cop. Are you suggesting that police should only be armed while on duty?

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

You want to do everything you can to keep a fire arm, or any deadly weapon, from being used.

Well, we could do that, and ensure that criminals will have the upper hand on innocent victims 100% of the time. Hope you're comfortable with that much innocent blood on your hands.


And yes, I've been in combat, and have been in at least one gunfight as a civilian - I know what it's like.

[Chung Tran]

my reading of the law posted above, leads me to believe that if you find an Intruder in your house, one who has unlawfully entered.. you can shoot to kill, regardless of any other surrounding circumstance.. am I interpreting correctly?

[dark3419]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

my reading of the law posted above, leads me to believe that if you find an Intruder in your house, one who has unlawfully entered.. you can shoot to kill, regardless of any other surrounding circumstance.. am I interpreting correctly?

"(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation"


Coming home to find an intruder probably means that the home was unoccupied when he broke in. A judge or jury might view this differently than if you were occupying your home when it happened.


But yeah, if you're in your home in Texas and someone breaks in, the presumption is that the criminal means to harm you.

[Crock]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

my reading of the law posted above, leads me to believe that if you find an Intruder in your house, one who has unlawfully entered.. you can shoot to kill, regardless of any other surrounding circumstance.. am I interpreting correctly?

"Shoot to kill?" No. That sounds like murder.

But you can utilize force, including deadly force, to protect yourself and your home.

Words matter. Especially in situations like this.

[Scribe]

Originally Posted by B Three

I think Scribe’s point was that people get suicidal and have PTSD for far less.

...thank you "Voice of reason following the conversation"

[Scribe]

Originally Posted by bandit007

I am gonna throw some real law out here. Actual Texas Penal Code


Texas Penal Code 8.02 – Mistake of Fact. (a) It is a defense to prosecution that the actor through mistake formed a reasonable belief about a matter of fact if his mistaken belief negated the kind of culpability required for commission of the offense.


She pulls in, all the floors are identical, goes to the same apartment as her's just one floor up. Put's key and door opens. As she steps in and male figure appears in what she believes is her apt.



Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation









So she believes she is in her apt(habitation). Use of force is covered by chapter 9 of the Texas Penal code. Any person in the State of Texas may use force to protect themselves in their habitation.


So it boils down to a Mistake of Fact. As long as she reasonably believed she was in her apartment her actions were legal. It doesn't make it any less of a tragedy it just doesn't make it a crime. There is no way I would have a jury trial. I would have a trial by court. A judge will be more bound by the actual law.



There are no winners. Just tragedy and losers.

bandit +100 = thanks for the statute. Good refresher!
dark +10 = good points, all.

Reading it as written, the "Mistake of residence" is the real factor. Remove that, under any hypothetical, and it's a different story and she would be exonerated.

However - I'm going to get back to the political situation, psycho-social pressure, and desire by (I believe it will be the Dallas Mayor's office, and the Texas Governor's office) to place some onus on the Department to show "aggressive investigation", and set precedent.

I also think you're right - they will avoid the circus by her pleading "No Contest" to whatever way they charge it - and leave the matter to a bench decision. But they will balance all this (unfortunately) against the possible damage and uproar which would arise over a straight dismissal (Based on the code you just quoted).

The matter could become; "We (City of Dallas) hold our Officers to a 'higher standard', and as such believe the onus falls on our Department."

It's going to depend on the interpretation of "Is an off-duty officer, actually a civilian - or does the job transcend the working hours. (Which, those of us who know cops - know it pretty well does). I'm leaning that - if they view her as a civilian... she'll get off. But, if they view her as a working representative of the DPF, she's going to get charged and (some kind of) sentenced.

[Tsmokies]

You would think a well trained officer would take a step back and request an officer needs assistance. The cops would have been there in minutes and an innocent life would have been spared. She would just be an idiot instead of a killer.

[Scribe]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

It was entirely avoidable if she didn’t have a gun.

And I'm sorry TT, I forgot ... you actually get +1 here.

Yes - entirely avoidable is she had no gun. (True)

Also entirely avoidable ifs:

• She parked on the right floor,
• Went to the right apartment
• The guy wasn't home when she went in
• The guy quickly followed her (supposed) commands
• She forgot to load her gun
• If she worked at a Krispy Krème and instead of a gun, had a box of donuts
• The guy WAS a criminal, and he shot her immediately (then, yes - he'd be alive)
• There was a dog, who jumped in and "took the bullet for his master"

But you're correct - she didn't have a gun, it wouldn't have happened as it did.
You're logic is sound.

I also like that you're obviously looking at all the angles, and that's a sincere "kudo"