TexasCHLforum.com

Watch the cross - notice the DA's approach, and again, something to keep in mind if you're ever on trial for shooting somebody. He kept repeating "you COULD have..." You COULD have taken cover, and she answered "I could have." You COULD have called for backup... and so on. So he paints a picture of all these things she COULD have done, but didn't, and as a result, an innocent man is dead, etc. etc.

This is 30 minutes, but it's worth watching if you're interested. It shows the prosecution introducing the case to the jury. Pretty damning, before the trial even starts. One other thing useful about this video: if you ever end up in court for a self defense shooting, this gives you a taste of what you might be up against.

I just have a hard time with her not understanding she was on the wrong floor and wrong apartment.

Other aspects of the case notwithstanding, this is completely understandable. I've made this mistake myself in the past, in apartments and hotels where all the floors, hallways, doors, etc. are identical. After 5,000 times, walking to your door just becomes automatic, especially when you're exhausted from a 14 hour shift. The elevator door opens, you step out, turn left, walk to the third door and go in. You could do it blindfolded. If the elevator HAPPENS to open on the next floor, it's very easy to not notice.

As far as not looking sharp on the witness stand, I'm sure it's been awhile since she had a good night's sleep. Here is her during her cross:



She got 10 years, eligible for parole in 5.

I agree, the race-baiting is ridiculous, but not unexpected. As usual, of course, the media is feeding into it.

This incident provides an interesting view of the law and how it works. Technically, yes, she "murdered" him and is guilty. In reality, the charge isn't valid - it's a foregone conclusion that she didn't come home from work, then deliberately decided to detour into a stranger's home and slaughter him while he "sat on the sofa eating ice cream."

The conversation about this will probably go on for a while, while everybody sifts through all the "what about" questions. But it's done. Sad story, indeed.

Did she walk INTO the apartment and shoot, or did she shoot him when he answered the door? Lots of contradicting details here. She said the door was open, but those steel fire doors automatically shut, tight as bank vaults. And if the door was open, why was she, according to neighbors, yelling "let me in!"?

jerry_r60 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:09 am Another thought, I thought this was manslaughter, if there were no other facts that came out to contradict the story that she mistakenly entered that apartment. It makes me wonder if how that was presented was not believed by the jury. If they didn't believe that then I'm curious what was believed to be the motive.

Did the Jury really believe she entered the apartment thinking it was her own and encountered what she believed was an intruder and shot/killed that intruder and they still found her guilty of murder?

My thoughts as well. What happened to the principle of introducing "doubt"? Did the jury really believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that she deliberately, knowingly walked into his apartment and slaughtered him?

There is certainly a race component in this case, no question about it. I was watching the prosecutor yesterday; he was blaring into the cameras, "This is for Michael Brown!" "This is for Eric Garner!!" "This is a victory for all black people!!!" It reminded me of the cheering when O.J. Simpson was acquitted.