I still do not believe most of what she says. If she is so unaware of her surroundings that she cannot recognize her own apartment and is willing to kill before she assess a situation, give he the max.
Regardless of the outcome, I think there is more to this story.

Are you saying someone has to physically harm you to be considered under attack?

I don’t think that’s what he is saying at all.

He could have spit ice cream into her face.

If it was her own apartment, are you saying it would not apply?

I'm saying she was not under attack.

Lol sounds like the judge is putting everything but the kitchen sink in and and letting the jury sort it all out.

Well yeah, but...it wasn't...

I cant break into your house with a gun and then use the castle law as a defense when I kill you. That's not how the Castle law works.

You have to be under attack for the castle law to apply?

That is what I thought, but does the judge think differently?

But she thought she was, that is why they are allowing it to be considered.

I get that, but its confusing. I would not want to be on that jury.

If my aunt had nuts, she'd be my uncle.

The point you and others are missing, if it was her apartment, did she act reasonably?

I'm just trying to help you rednecks understand.

The point is IT WAS NOT HER APARTMENT.

Duh

It does work that way to some extent with mistake of fact. If the jury buys the mistake of fact defense, the question then becomes whether or not her actions would have been justified had she been in her apartment. That's how the castle doctrine gets it's foot in the door.

Calling it now....Going to be a hung jury. There is nothing black and white about this case (no pun intended)

I don't know how tired she was....but I've been that tired....I'll let the jury decide....regardless....many, many lives are horribly affected by this event....prayers for all involved and most especially for the DPD who will feel the brunt of the jury's decision....

Well said Snake. Hopefully it does not get to that point.

She thought she was in "her" apartment,,she thougth holy F*** there is a burglar in "my" apartment, she shot the burglar, he died. In her mind she was justified. Horrible, horrible accident,,,,,,,nothing else to this. Should she be punished, yes. But its not murder. I dont think 12 stupid people from Dallas county are going to be able to agree to this. Hung jury, start all over next year. The police shot and killed a man in his garage not long ago, forgot where. It was white officer on white home owner, we never heard shi! about it. Its a race thing in great ol Dallas county. It is what it is.
Dallas county : Black police chief, Black Sheriff, Black DA, Black city manager, Most Judges in Dallas county-Black. Democrat county. The only fair in Dallas county is the STATE FAIR. Trial should have been moved far, far away. Every single day of the trial, there was TV coverage of Botham, she was never given a chance. But, she should face the consequences. Only the right consequences though.

No matter the out come no one will be happy. I really think this was a perfect storm and feel that there should be some punishment I just don’t know what.

Also if the jury follows the letter of the law the manslaughter shouldn’t stick as the definition manslaughter is “recklessly caused the death of another person”. She has admitted that she purposely shot him it was not reckless! I also think that there will be a appeal to not allowing the jury to hear the Texas Ranger who was the lead investigator state that he felt there was “No crime committed”. The reason for the judge not allowing them to hear it was because he was not certified as a expert witness.

I heard a lawyer and former prosecutor talk and they said they couldn’t believe that the case even went to trial. This is a hard case.

The case where the homeowner was shot and killed in their garage was in aft Worth and the officer was not going indicted.

I’m open to listening to anyone, how her actions match the penal code.

§ 6.03
DEFINITIONS OF CULPABLE MENTAL STATES
Code - PENAL CODE
Title 2 - GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
Chapter 6 - CULPABILITY GENERALLY
Version || 83rd Legis. 3Rd CS. || Update Available
(a) A person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.

(b) A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.

(c) A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

(d) A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.