Same here.

Duck you and I always disagree on these, but at least we keep it civil . I should preface all of these discussions by saying I’m not arguing so much his guilt or innocence in a court room, more my problem with the way the law is. When I say it’s not murder that is in my personal definition of murder. I think the legal definition is dumb.

(b) A person commits an offense if he:

(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;

(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual; or

(3) commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.

Based on (2). A MMA fighter chokes a guy out in a sanctioned fight at the AAC. Choked out fighter dies. Did he intend to cause bodily harm? Of course he did that’s the entire point of the sport. Did he commit an act that is clearly dangerous to human life? Most reasonable people would say choking someone is dangerous to human life. So by the definition of this dumb [censored] law he is a murder. You can substitute a boxing match as an example if that’s more your style or a DE taking a head shot on a QB.

H town when I went through the academy in 2004 there was a shooting of a officer by a store clerk. She is now paralyzed and clerk not arrested or even race of the two mentioned. This was an incident of officer not identifying. Her name is Lisa Ramsey interesting read on just how media has changed. I think sometimes they just try to pit us against one another.

I agree with the media comment wholeheartedly.

Never heard that story. Thanks for bringing it up. I found an article and from what I read she was undercover, entered a gas station with a mask on to make an arrest on someone and the clerk just shot her. Had she died I would not say murder is appropriate, just like I don’t in this current case.

I agree based on what we have so far but I think there are a few more pieces to the puzzle.

I found this cool story about Lisa Ramsey from https://www.fox4news.com/news/paralyzed-fort-worth-officer-walking-with-help-of-new-technology

yep, we don’t see eye to eye on these and that’s ok. It is always civil and I appreciate that. We actually do agree that it isn’t murder the way we see it, and I think it’s fair to say that the way the law reads is different than what you and I mean. The legal definition is weird in Texas, no doubt, and I don’t do a great job of differentiating between my personal definition and the law’s definition. We agree on that, so cheers again. But when an officer is charged with murder, I’m basing my comments on how I read the legal definition, and also the opinion that innocent people should not be shot by people in their homes (especially by police officers) by “mistake.”

Half of me thinks this officer intentionally caused the death of the victim. The other half thinks it was a negligent discharge. Either way, I think he should be charged and not allowed mistake of fact or qualified immunity as a defense. I just don’t think it’s OK for this to happen (unless we’re missing key facts, aside from her holding a gun towards the window). He made a mistake, but that’s not a defense to killing someone else officer or not, in my opinion. Murder? I’m not sure, but punishment is required.

I think you brought up MMA fighting in the Guyger thread. The difference is, sanctioned fighters aren’t charged with murders just like NFL players aren’t charged with crimes when they injure opponents (such as paralyzing in football, or throwing at a batter in baseball). They are willing participants in an activity.

The difference between MMA fighters (or NFL players) and victims of police shootings in the case of the woman in this situation is, there is no agreement to fight. To me, that’s obvious. MMA fights are sanctioned by the state the fight takes place in. They’re professional fighters training for a specific fight. Three boxers have been killed in the last month as a result of their bouts. That clearly different to me.

And I’ll go ahead and say it: police have training citizens do not. They have qualified immunity and other protections. The victim was unaware police were called to her house. The officer made mistakes. She had every right to defend herself, as the chief of police alluded to in his press conference and as is state law.

It’s just not the same as a sanctioned fighter killing his opponent in the ring.

The murder laws in Texas could use some work, but that does not mean he didn’t murder her, and the chief alluded to that fact. He committed a crime and citizens should not be gunned down in their own homes when not committing a crime (at the very least).

We don’t have a beef, we just have a different feeling of the interpretation of the law. I feel like, given what I’ve read and watched on the body cam so far, he committed a crime. Once again, I’m not OK with police killing innocent people in their own homes for doing nothing wrong.

If this was a criminal who was shot under questionable circumstances by law enforcement in their own home, we could debate further, but I just don’t think this is ok, and the chief of police has been explicit in agreeing with that, despite the weird murder laws in Texas. Mistakes are prosecuted everyday under the law. But I reserve the right to change my position when more facts come out, however, at this time, I side with the chief of police.

Duck agree on all parts. I’m just saying the law of murder doesn’t say both agreed to the fight. I’m guessing there’s somewhere else that you know about that I don’t feel like researching that covers it. All I know is what (2) says. And that’s considered murder in Texas.

I’m guessing then if two guys at a bar decide to both fight, and they go outside and start at it, one pulls out a knife and slits the others throat it’s not murder. Because they both agreed to fight but didn’t get into the details of what kinda fight it was going to be. Both were willing participants.

This was the hangup a few weeks ago. Amber Guyger intentionally pulled the trigger to kill Jean. That’s all that mattered once she said it on the stand. Everything that took place before that wasn’t in question once she testified to that.

If this officer, under section two of the quoted murder law above, intentionally pulled the trigger on the woman standing in her own house investigating flashlights and men walking around her property, no matter how many mistakes or points of protocol the officer made or violated, he qualifies under section two of the murder law quoted above.

If it is was a negligent discharge, I don’t know how it will be interpreted under the law. Probably not murder, and I could agree with that. But, he isn’t talking and has lawyered up, which is not what Guyger did. She talked and admitted to entering the wrong home and intentionally shooting an innocent man.

This officer either intentionally shot an innocent woman because of a mistake, or negligently shot an innocent woman because of a series of mistakes.

That’s it, in my opinion. That’s the only question. We will see what a grand jury and possibly regular jury says, further details pending. But the fact remains, as of now, he shot an innocent woman in her own home who had a right to defend herself and her nephew from unknown people and he made a series of mistakes, as admitted by his chief of police. Whether that’s murder under Texas law or not, we will see. But he screwed up, was fired (or resigned before his chief oiled fire him - chief’s words) and the chief said the officer screwed up. Either the chief is a liar or the officer screwed up or there are more facts.

And you’re confusing sanctioned fights with laws and rules and a bar fight. Not the same thing at all.

I’m not confusing anything, I just don’t have the knowledge. I assume there is some law on the books that make a sanctioned fight exempt from the murder laws. I just haven’t seen them. I’d be interested to read them if you have the time to research it.

It comes down to consent, contracts and a minimum level of regulation defined by the federal government.

The fighters agree to participate (consent and contract) under a minimum level of rules, but can vary state to state. As long as the violence is deemed acceptable under the rules, and no laws were broken, the winner would not face charges.

If an MMA fighter pulled a dagger out of his shorts and sliced his opponent’s neck while he had him in a hold on the ground, that would be deemed illegal, obviously, and excessive. He would be arrested.

If an opponent is kicked just right, or a ref fails to stop a fight and the fighter has brain damage and dies, then that’s deemed to fall within the rules and part of the deal.

I’m not a lawyer, but that’s my understanding. And it makes sense to me why consenting adults who are professionally trained participating in a sanctioned fight under the minimum rules of the government is different than a police officer shooting a homeowner who is innocent. I just can’t do a very good job of explaining it.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/1...-jean-william-choslovsky-sun-times-op-ed

From a Lib no less....

Is it murder in the way most think, no. Professional malpractice is an interesting way to think of it. That said simple loss of job and a law suit that will result in the individual paying nothing basically cause the will file bankruptcy doesnt seem nearly enough. These type situations need to stop. I think it's in large part up to the police department's to review process and make some changes in them. This lady was doing exactly what she should be, defending her home, a small child and herself from a potential threat. Is it an accident, almost 100 percent yes but too many accidents. I have heard the phrase "the police have a right to make it home at night" thrown around. Yes they do but no more than anyone else. If their actions are gonna put law abiding citizens in danger in their own homes some stuff needs to change. The idea that nobody can judge these situation other than Leo's is silly. Every other profession in the world is judged by the public, city managers, mayors, city council, voting public, etc fall in that chain. Our system is set up for jurors which I would expect rarely have any LEO or legal experience to sit in judgment every day over all types of things they have no experience in. The court of public opinion exists, it is real and can apply tremendous pressure. Instead of ignoring it the time may be here to accept it and act and adjust behaviors accordingly. I am a law and order guy, locking criminal up and throwing away keys is fine by me, I support the death penalty, I support LEO defending themselves, I support the 2nd amendment. All that said I'm a huge supporter of innocent human life and people's right to it.