Unless the prosecution can establish a prior relationship between them there’s no plausible answer other than an accident on her part.
My point is taking them to the hallway and asking if they’ll notice the rug seems like a questionable tactic. The idea of whether or not you’d notice something relies on whether you’re looking for it.
I wouldn’t trust such an idea.
Not without establishing a prior relationship between them.
Say for a moment that she realized she was in the wrong apartment after entering and being confronted was in a state of confusion still fearing for her life.
That would still be manslaughter.
Judgement of facts is left to the jury and every juror on the panel has a duty to try to put themselves in her mindset and see things from her perspective when determining what level of guilt she carries.
No one in this thread anything you said… Stop making things up
Legally present isn’t the only requirement. You have to be legally present, acting in a lawful manner, have a reasonable fear of imminent/immediate grave bodily harm or death, and the key here is acting in a lawful manner.
She had no legal right to enter his home or to fire into it.
They wouldn’t have to do it that way. Don’t even mention the rug.
Take them to the 3rd floor and have them walk down the hall to her apartment.
Then take them to the 4th floor and have them walk to the corresponding apartment. After they’ve found the apartment, mention the rug. They’ll get the point. Nothing wrong with that.
But we all see the steady drumbeat the left and media put out that cops are racist.
Several of you have been trolling out the claims of racism and pro cop bias throughout this thread and of course you all have long posting histories doing the same in virtually every thread in which a black person is killed by a cop.
Again, what if she didn’t enter the home? How would she otherwise been acting unlawfully.
I’ve already explained that.
She could not lawfully enter or fire into his apartment.
Whether she physically entered or not she unlawfully broke into his domicile.
Only one person in this scenario has a legal use of deadly force and he was the victim.
Unless she observed a 3rd party being subjected to possible death or grave bodily harm or arson, or a kidnapping etc.
Correct but we’re not discussing lawful self defense of a third person or stopping an aggravated felon in progress, no sense confusing the matter.
Show me where I mentioned race… Thanks
Gender hasn’t been a factor at all in this discussion, the shooting, or the investigation.
She’s female, he’s male, one is black, the other white. There’s zero evidence to suggest either was a factor.
A lot of nights, I’ll be sitting on the couch playing a video game or reading something on my laptop with something on the TV and will just doze off and wake up 30 minutes or an hour later and go to bed-and my TV has auto shut off, and my computer has gone into sleep mode.
To me, however, the why is largely irrelevant.
Correct. That is picking at nits that don’t need to be picked.
1 Like
That’s what I’m saying. What if she didn’t enter. [quote=“WildRose, post:337, topic:12156”]
fire into his apartment.
[/quote]
That’s what we are trying to determine.
Broke in? Supposedly the doo swing open because it was ajar and she merely put her key into it. Doesn’t sound like breaking in to me.
My concern is the only living person who knows what actually happened is the defendant. No witnesses.
Since I’m not inclined to go through all 340 odd posts again just clear it up for us.
Are you saying clearly that you do not believe race has played any part in this case?
If the facts are as reported she opened his door. It doesn’t matter if it was locked or not, she broke in.
Only one person had a lawful use of deadly force here and it wasn’t the shooter.
