What's scary is the Castle Doctrine doesn't seem to require a reasonable belief or inquiry. Not in TX.
Just "reason to believe" there's an intruder in her home.
And while politics and other issues aren't supposed to have to anything to do with this case and shouldn't, I now believe that depending on the make-up of the jury, this could very well be hung. Because based on posts today, we can sort of see on here that those who lean a certain direction tend to view AG as either not culpable or as minimally culpable.
I'm scared it will be impossible to convict in TX.
Hope I'm wrong.
bbm
I cannot believe anyone thinks she is not culpable. May she never darken the door of another innocent again.
Every day she had a phalanx of officers proudly escorting her in.
I am pro LE, but this is very disturbing to me.
Not necessarily reasonable to assume. But it creates a presumption that the threat of harm exists from that intruder. Armed or otherwise. I mean someone big enough could overcome a woman and beat her to death with nothing but their hands.
Regardless, after listening to the jury instructions the doctrine seems to state she simply had to have reason to believe an intrude had entered. Not a reasonable belief.
That's super concerning.
The Castle Doctrine is what scares me about this case--- it is absurd that it should be allowed to be used by the defense,---it makes no sense because it wasnt her apartment
^^^This, and gitana1's. Very concerning. She was not at or in her apartment.
And you will never convince me that she honestly made a mistake about where she was. I think she was on the fight, mad about where things were with the married man, feeling invincible in her uniform, and looking to lash out.
She's a disgrace all the way around.
IMO