Bastrop Deputy on Trial for shooting

[Jusme]

The statute defining murder in Texas;

Sec. 19.02. MURDER. (a) In this section:
(1) "Adequate cause" means cause that would commonly produce a degree of anger, rage, resentment, or terror in a person of ordinary temper, sufficient to render the mind incapable of cool reflection.
(2) "Sudden passion" means passion directly caused by and arising out of provocation by the individual killed or another acting with the person killed which passion arises at the time of the offense and is not solely the result of former provocation.
(b) A person commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;
(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual; or
(3) commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.
(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.
(d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he caused the death under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 1123, ch. 426, art. 2, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.



The statute for manslaughter:

Sec. 19.04. MANSLAUGHTER. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Renumbered from Penal Code Sec. 19.04 by Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 1123, ch. 426, art. 2, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 307, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. Renumbered from Penal Code Sec. 19.05 and amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


I agree that Murder seems like it would be much harder to get a conviction for, based on the bits and pieces I've see regarding this story. JMHO

[WildBill]

The overreach could have been a tactic - expecting it to come back not guilty because the crime doesn't fit the charges. I've said it before, will say it again, I don't think a hung jury should be a mistrial. You have you answer, there wasn't enough people convinced beyond a reasonable doubt to convict, that is a not guilty verdict. Double Jeopardy should apply on a "mistrial", esp for serious felony charges.

I don't have any skin in the game on this one and IANAL, but is the murder charge really an over reach? Based on the facts presented, if I had come to that house as a concerned family member, and shot this woman 2 seconds after seeing her, while she was unarmed, I would think I might reasonably be charged with murder as opposed to manslaughter.

Well I don't have any skin in the game either as well IANAL - just offering a lay man's opinion. I haven't heard any testimony, just going by some of the comments here in the forum. But for me, Murder = Intent. I don't believe the Cop went to that house intent on killing someone. Did he act hastily or without proper knowledge, to me it sounds that way. So in that way, I think manslaughter might be a better charge then murder.

The overreach could have been a tactic - expecting it to come back not guilty because the crime doesn't fit the charges..

If that was the case, the DA had an out when he got a hung jury. He wants a conviction.

True, with the retrial that would appear to be the case.

DAs build their reputations and careers on convictions, not hung juries.

[ELB]

On Friday the prosecution presented an expert witness whose opinion (as reported by the KVUE reporter) was that the deputy had time to wait and further assess the situation, and the shooting was not reasonable.

This witness also attended the same force science course at the Force Science Institute that the deputy's attorney and the Texas Ranger attended (altho not in same class like the Ranger and attorney were).

The expert witness also testified that he testifies for the prosecution about 70% of the time, defense 30%, charges $175/hour, and has worked about 30 hours on this case so far.

[ELB]

...

I agree that Murder seems like it would be much harder to get a conviction for, based on the bits and pieces I've see regarding this story. JMHO

The defense attorney is quoted in an article somewhere as saying that this case is either murder or it's not, not a lesser charge (like manslaughter). I'm guessing he thinks that is too high a bar for the judge (no jury in this trial) to convict given the situation, whereas the DA obviously thinks the opposite.

[OlBill]

That doc from active response has done his homework. His findings mirror many of ours in the military.

[ELB]

Fired deputy Daniel Willis found not guilty of murder

I have to admit I am surprised. This was a bench trial, no jury, the judge made the guilty/not-guilty decision.

I will be interested to see if the judge's reasoning is published.

[parabelum]

The Texas Ranger that testified yesterday basically said that the deputy had the advantage (distance, cover, darkness and concealment, and body armor) and should have taken longer to assess whether she was armed or not.

I think that probably cooks the deputy's goose.

I agree 100% and I'd say that in my humble opinion, based on what I've read, deputy qualified for murder charge under "Sudden passion" provision.

It's an upside down world. Judge's decision makes no sense at all.

Imagine if this was your mom, daughter etc.

[FCH]

...Imagine if this was your mom, daughter etc.

How many of our Moms and/or daughters would be involved in a domestic violence call?
I don't want to be confrontational, but every time a LEO is called to put his/her life in danger, they have been called because someone else is suspected of committing a crime.

[parabelum]

...Imagine if this was your mom, daughter etc.

How many of our Moms and/or daughters would be involved in a domestic violence call?
I don't want to be confrontational, but every time a LEO is called to put his/her life in danger, they have been called because someone else is suspected of committing a crime.

Doesn't matter (to me) how many moms or daughters are involved in a DV situation as it relates to this case.
What does matter (to me) is whether being involved in a DV situation is an automatic death sentence by some knee jerk person who happens to be a LEO.
I have family and friends in LE community, and I know darn well there are far more excellent LEO's who are professional in every regard then knee jerk over-reacting officers who have no business being a LEO. They disgrace all other honorable officers and it's sickening.

[WildBill]

I can understand a judge arriving at a different verdict than a jury.
I would think that a judge would base his decision on the evidence and the law.
IMO, a jury is more likely to be swayed by sympathy and emotion.

There appears to be quite a bit of wrongdoing on the part of the PD.
I would think the supervisors should have been fired and charged with a crime.

The family of Yvette Smith settled a lawsuit against Bastrop County last April for $1.2 million. The lawsuit claimed the county was negligent in hiring Willis.
An investigation following the shooting found that supervisors within the department had altered Willis’ training records.
A lieutenant and sergeant were both suspended and demoted for those changes.

http://kxan.com/2016/04/07/closing-argu ... th-murder/

[MechAg94]

I don't know what to think about this case. I do believe we are seeing more and more cases where cops are shooting way too quickly. I don't know if that is training or a holdover from having to also deal with some pretty dangerous people.

http://www.700wlw.com/articles/local-ne ... -14576919/
Here is an unrelated case where I also think the police shoot too quickly. There is a video linked in the article.

[Pariah3j]

I think Leo's should be held to the same standard as citizens for justified shootings. I don't think a badge gives them any extra 'authority' to take someone's life. Maybe the only difference for LE would be, being the aggressor, because they would often times be required to engage a situation that a reasonable civilian should/would be expected to walk away from. However I would like to see additional charges added to LEOs who break laws, something along the lines of an Article 15 or Conduct Unbecoming like the UCMJ has. I think destroying the publics trust and the trust in law enforcement should carry some extra weight when they do step out of line.

[WildBill]

I think Leo's should be held to the same standard as citizens for justified shootings. I don't think a badge gives them any extra 'authority' to take someone's life. Maybe the only difference for LE would be, being the aggressor, because they would often times be required to engage a situation that a reasonable civilian should/would be expected to walk away from. However I would like to see additional charges added to LEOs who break laws, something along the lines of an Article 15 or Conduct Unbecoming like the UCMJ has. I think destroying the publics trust and the trust in law enforcement should carry some extra weight when they do step out of line.

I believe that, legally, LEOs are held to the same standard for justified shootings.
I don't know of any other law that says otherwise.

Most people will never be in the same types of lethal force as an LEO might encounter.
So most people will never be in the position of being investigated or second-guessed as often as LEOs.

I am not saying that abuse doesn't occur or that LEOS aren't always prosecuted according to the law, but that is the reality.
It shouldn't be. That is why people are sensitive to the situation and sometimes overreact without knowing all of the facts.

In the case of the Bastrop Deputy, I wonder why his fellow officers would doctor his training records to show that he might not be as competent as he really was.
To me this is as serious an offense as perjury if those records were used as evidence in a criminal or civil lawsuit.

[C-dub]

Fired deputy Daniel Willis found not guilty of murder

I have to admit I am surprised. This was a bench trial, no jury, the judge made the guilty/not-guilty decision.

I will be interested to see if the judge's reasoning is published.

From what I've read in the past, if one wants their case to be judged on the law go with the judge. If one wants their case to judged based on the facts go with the jury trial. It appears as though the DA could not make the case for murder and that's how the judge came to the not guilty conclusion. I think that if it had been another jury there would have been a higher possibility of a conviction.

[WildBill]

Fired deputy Daniel Willis found not guilty of murder

I have to admit I am surprised. This was a bench trial, no jury, the judge made the guilty/not-guilty decision.

I will be interested to see if the judge's reasoning is published.

From what I've read in the past, if one wants their case to be judged on the law go with the judge. If one wants their case to judged based on the facts go with the jury trial. It appears as though the DA could not make the case for murder and that's how the judge came to the not guilty conclusion. I think that if it had been another jury there would have been a higher possibility of a conviction.

The original jury trial resulted in a hung jury with eight jurors voting to convict.
I guess the defense lawyer thought that the defendant would have a better chance with a judge.
Apparently he was correct.