Going to be interesting to see this one played out. There has to be more than we know to support a murder conviction. As I see it now, all they have is voluntary manslaughter. Thoughts?

They indicted her on the murder charge to appease the masses in Dallas Co. aka Little California...……………...

They indicted her on the murder charge to appease the masses in Dallas Co. aka Little California...……………...

that wouldn't make sense unless they felt they could get a conviction. otherwise your just kicking the can down the road.

She will be convicted of something other wise there will be riots in the BIG D. I bet if it's man slaughter they still get riots

that wouldn't make sense unless they felt they could get a conviction. otherwise your just kicking the can down the road.

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.

This will be the defense case I'm guessing.

if you over charge, that gives you something to plea down to that will be palatable to all and avoid a trial.

I think murder is the right charge. She intentionally killed a man. If she legitimately believed it was self defense or there is something else that negates her culpability, then it's not guilty. I just don't see how you get anywhere in between.

I think murder is the right charge. She intentionally killed a man. If she legitimately believed it was self defense or there is something else that negates her culpability, then it's not guilty. I just don't see how you get anywhere in between.

If a man is in your house, or mine, in the dark, you or I would intentionally kill him also. And would be perfectly justified in doing so. This is Texas, not Great Britain.

I think murder is the right charge. She intentionally killed a man. If she legitimately believed it was self defense or there is something else that negates her culpability, then it's not guilty. I just don't see how you get anywhere in between.

She is a trained police officer. She had training to help her think through the situation that the general population doesn’t get.
When have you seen, with the exception of the idiot at Parkland HS, an officer retreat from a hostile situation to call 911? Only when the threat is beyond their capability. This threat, perceived or real, was not beyond her capability to handle. Right or wrong, the threat was neutralized and a guy lost his life. Doesn’t mean it was murder.

Heck this happens everyday when someone gets behind the wheel after drinking and kills someone. They don’t always get charged with murder.

Prove intent.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

The difference with drunk driving is that the drunk doesn't mean to kill someone. They are reckless and disregard other people's safety, but it is unintentional. She intentionally killed someone.

I'm not saying she is guilty, or even that charges should have been brought, Im not sure she is guilty. What I am saying is that murder is the appropriate charge for these facts, rather than a charge for something accidental yet criminal.

I predict many change their minds once they know the facts.