TexasCHLforum.com

hondo44 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 9:02 pm

Grayling813 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:40 pm

hondo44 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:18 pm

C-dub wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:07 pm

hondo44 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 12:55 pm The bottom line is that as a LEO she did have the right to be there, technically.

Whoa there cowboy. Why?

The police were not called to that apartment. She was not investigating a crime. She was not in pursuit of anyone. I'm curious about your assertion that she technically had a right to be in someone elses home.

It wasn't a home, it was an apartment. There is a significant difference between the occupant and the owner. The owner of the property probably didn't have a problem with a LEO resident keeping an eye on things to make sure they are safe. In Texas, tenants do not have an absolute 4th amendment privacy right because it's not their home. The apartment owner can enter the apartment or have a PROXY enter the apartment such as a repairman or a security guard.

You must be tired after making such a huge leap. That you believe that an off duty police officer has a right to be in someone else's apartment is Grand Canyon kind of leaping. Not even Evel Kneivel was able to do that.

Well that is one of the defense arguments. That the lease specified the apartment is NOT the property of the tenant and they do not have reasonable expectation of privacy from leasing agency personnel, their contractors (like LEOs), or First Responders, including Fire, Police, and EMTs, including OFF DUTY.

"The owner of the property PROBABLY didn't have a problem with a LEO resident keeping an eye on things to make sure they are safe."
That statement has absolutley zero relevance to the legality of her actions and whether or not a crime was committed. Her actions certainly did not ensure anyone's safety by virtue of the end result.

The defense attorneys can argue any point they want in order to try and paint their client in the best possible light. The fact that the defense attorneys said the tenant did not have any reasonable expectation of privacy does not make it so--that is merely their interpretation of the wording of a lease. The prosecution can throw that out simply by asking the defense to show evidence that the landlord had a "contract" with the officer authorizing her to enter anyone else's apartment at will. That clause in the lease is there for an emergency situation, where someone has called for a response from one of those agencies. It does not mean that any EMT, fireman or policeman just wandering by can enter anyone's residence without a warrant or responding to an actual reported emergency situation.

flechero wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 6:12 pm It doesn't matter if it was 12 or 15 hrs... if able to drive yourself home and carry a gun, you should be able to tell you aren't really home, IMO.

DING...DING...DING !!

RicoTX wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 3:43 pm

Killadocg23 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 3:13 pm This is getting comical. The innocent guy gets shot in his own apartment and they search his apartment lookingnfor contraband? To smear the name of a Dead man unbelievable. They really are trying to throw this under the rug per say. What does him having marijuana in his OWN apartment have to do with this lady shooting him? WOW !

I agree. This will reflect badly on law enforcement. I don't care what he had in his house, he was murdered plain and simple. There are no excuses. Period. They better start handing this better or they will pay a price in the future.

This is unfortunately becoming standard practice in most officer involved shootings (whether on or off duty-which does actually make a difference in terminology used). Think back little over a year ago, when the officer in Minnesota shot and killed the 40yo women who had called the police for help because she was hearing what sounded to her like a women being sexually assaulted next door. She was waiting for the police to arrive and when the two officers pulled up and were sitting in the vehicle, she approached them in her pajamas holding her cell phone, and apparently got within 10-15 feet of the vehicle before the officer in the passenger seat saw her walking toward them, pulled his pistol and shot across his partner out the driver's side window and killed her. The department had her house searched for drugs and/or any evidence that would paint her in a negative manner. It was almost a year after the shooting before the investigation was completed and the officer was charged. He was on paid leave during that time and refused to make a statement or speak with the investigators. The DA stated that it had taken so long to bring the charge because almost all of the officers they questioned, refused to talk to them. He said he had never seen such behavior before in his years as DA.

ELB wrote: ↑Wed Sep 12, 2018 10:29 am

Killadocg23 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:25 am Being tired from working a 14hr shift is no excuse. How many thousands of people work 14hr shifts everyday and don’t go to the wrong apartment and shoot somebody in their OWN apartment. Just wow.

Not an excuse, and jury still out on what exactly happened here, but fatigue is not a trivial factor either.

While it is undoubtedly true that fatigue is not a trivial factor, neither is it an acceptable defense. However that is about the only straw that her attorney has to grasp at from the looks of it at this point.

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 10, 2018 12:45 pm We empower LEO's with the ability to arrest and imprison our fellow citizens. This responsibility should come with a higher standard of acceptable behavior than we have for the citizenry as a whole. We don't yet know all the facts here. But I do know that this officer should be held to at least the same standard that would apply if I (a non-LEO) did the same thing she did.


Obviously a full investigation needs to occur and if there was prior intent that changes everything. But, if the fact is that there was no prior intent, then it sounds like the LEO is being treated in the same way that a non-LEO citizen would be. That was my main point and concern.

I agree with your first statement. However, in this case the LEO was NOT treated in the same manner that you would have been. You would have been placed in custody pending an arraignment and being charged with manslaughter. Almost assuredly that would have happened the following morning at the earliest. You would have had to hire an attorney sometime during the night or early the next morning to represent you, and only AFTER the hearing when a formal charge had been made, would you have had the opportunity to try and make bail. The officer was not placed in custody or required to make bail and was allowed to remain free while charges were pending.