Do we know from a report that he was stoned at the time?
We can only go off of what’s been reported. We know he had 33 marijuana cigarettes in his house. We also know that he responded to an unknown assailant in his apartment in such a way that made the officer feel the need to shoot him dead. That sounds like he was high.
So what did the officer say he did that caused her to feel that shooting him was the only option? All i read was he didn’t respond to commands but nothing like “looked like he was reaching or something” or “he was lunging at me”.
You seem to be adding and assuming facts that are not there right now.
You caught me.
Wzasn’t about catching you.
I’m looking at the facts we know and something seems off and missing and maybe that missing element is what you are assuming - he was stoned and did something threatning that caused her to feel she needed to shoot him but right now we don’t know that either of those things are true.
I have a hard time with the jump from “he didn’t obey me” to “I shot him” and so far that I have seen she hasn’t explained that jump though I could have missed something.
I was just trying to say that If he had a firearm at his ready, and he was not impaired to the point where he couldn’t use that firearm, he would still be alive today.
It doesn’t really matter if he was stoned, if he also didn’t have the means of shooting the home invader.
A fair trial doesnt hyper focus on her defense and assign blame to the other person being killed like you are
You dont know anything about his mental state.
We don’t know if he was impared but he didn’t have a firearm at all so that isn’t an option. Even if he had a gun would he win a shooting match with a cop? I would assume she drew her gun as soon as she realized somebody was there. Would he/should he have immediately fired before she could draw her gun? He she drew her gun first I think he’s still dead before he can shoot her and now she had plausible reason for the kill of “he was reaching for a gun”
I’m a big 2nd amendment supporter but I’m not sure in this case how much a gun in the hands of somebody totally sober would have helped.
well, unless it’s a girl who shot and killed a guy in Chicago.
wait…
If you actually are making an attempt at humor you’re missing badly as you have throughout this thread.
A fair trial starts with the appropriate charge and requires all the evidence be heard and weighed without emotion.
The state of mind of each of the parties is essential for both the prosecution and defense.
What on earth is this even supposed to mean?
I know that the only way her story makes any sense is if he was altered due to creative chemistry or in a fog having been startled awake.
You can’t possibly know that to be true. What he would have had was a fighting chance.
It’ll probably be 6-8 weeks yet before the tox report comes in. Unlike what we see on CSI and similar shows where they do it in a few hours it’s usually a 2-3 month wait.
Perhaps it was a mercy killing.
Did you just come to that conclusion? That has been the unanimous opinion since the start of this thread.
I don’t think if matters whether she can explain that jump or not; she is criminally culpable regardless. All it would do is help explain to us how on earth such a tragedy could occur.
I’m assuming toxicology was done on autopsy, but it takes weeks to get the results back.
I’m glad the officer was fired, at a minimum she showed terrible judgement and should never be a cop again. And she should never own a gun again either, which she won’t if convicted of a felony.
