TexasCHLforum.com

Two (at least) news outlets are covering live the re-trial of a former Bastrop Sheriff's deputy who shot and killed a woman who turned out to be unarmed. He is charged with murder. If you are interested in these type of events, the reporters are tweeting running commentary from the court room (you don't need to be on Twitter to read them).

http://www.kvue.com/news/crime/former-b ... /110109064

http://crime.blog.mystatesman.com/2016/ ... der-trial/

The deputy responded to a domestic violence scene one night, and was told by 911 dispatch (who was on the phone with someone in the house) someone inside had a shotgun. He was not told the gun had been laid down. He retrieved his rifle when he got to the scene. A woman came to the door and he shot her twice, one a grazing wound but the other ultimately fatal. He said he thought she had a gun or weapon, but she was unarmed. The sheriff's office conducted their own internal investigation, results unknown. However after a grand jury indicted him, he was fired.

He was tried once for murder, and the jury deadlocked 8-4 in favor of a guilty verdict. The second trial began this week.

You might find it educational to compare the event described in the trial with Greg Ellefritz's summary of a Force Science Research Center’s course on Dynamics of Police Shootings course that he went to: http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/d ... -shootings

Interesting factoid: The Texas Ranger who investigated the shooting attended a Force Science Research Center "certification" course of some kind, and one of his fellow students was the defense attorney who is representing the former deputy.

Whoops, as I posted this, the trial adjourned for the day. Picks up again tomorrow at 9 a.m.

Did the woman have anything in her hands that he could have mistaken for a shotgun? It seems strange that he would have made that mistake if she actually wasn't carrying anything.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:Did the woman have anything in her hands that he could have mistaken for a shotgun? It seems strange that he would have made that mistake if she actually wasn't carrying anything.

Not according to the articles and testimony I have seen. The testimony of the Texas Ranger, as filtered through a reporter's tweets and interpreted by me, seems to indicate the Ranger thinks the deputy was mentally prepped to see a deadly threat and reacted when the woman appeared. There is video of the event, and from the time the woman appeared in the door way and the time she was shot was about 2 seconds. The deputy that fired the shots and another deputy said they gave commands, but the only word recorded on the audio was "Police!" shortly followed by two shots.

There was some previous history at this same address, both for domestic violence and for other things. That may have played into the mindset going it.

By the way, this time the defendant waived his right to a jury. The judge is hearing the evidence and will make the guilty/not guilty decision.

Is the deputy up for first degree murder or one of the lesser charges? I am almost surprised it isn't manslaughter.

Does anyone know if he had a light on his rifle?

MechAg94 wrote:Is the deputy up for first degree murder or one of the lesser charges? I am almost surprised it isn't manslaughter.

It is a murder charge, not manslaughter. The DA was quoted as saying, paraphrased, the evidence supports only a murder charge (as opposed to manslaughter I suppose).

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.

ELB wrote:By the way, this time the defendant waived his right to a jury. The judge is hearing the evidence and will make the guilty/not guilty decision.

No doubt influenced by the current mood of many against LEO's. Just imagine if a Black Lives Matter supporter ended up on the jury....

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

ELB wrote:By the way, this time the defendant waived his right to a jury. The judge is hearing the evidence and will make the guilty/not guilty decision.

No doubt influenced by the current mood of many against LEO's. Just imagine if a Black Lives Matter supporter ended up on the jury....

Then that LEO would need a new attorney if they were to allow a BLM member to remain on the jury unchallenged.

There is a picture of the rifle here. It's not a great picture, but it appears there is at least one object attached near the muzzle, looks like a light.

ETA: If you click on the picture and expand the tweet, it shows more of the rifle.

https://twitter.com/KoskionFOX7/status/ ... wsrc%5Etfw

Pariah3j wrote: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.

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.

Pariah3j wrote: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.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

Pariah3j wrote: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.

ELB wrote:

Pariah3j wrote: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.