Dallas officer goes home to wrong apartment, kills man inside

What does sexting have to do with whether or not justice prevailed?

I am surprised that it is "just" 10 years, I would have expected more. Of course nothing would have made the community happy less than close to the maximum. I don't know how quickly she can get out for time served and good behavior and all that, but I think 10 years is a gift.
 
Chuckman said:
What does sexting have
Click to expand...

Allow me to rephrase what I posted to be clearer with my post:

If I were a family member of the victim, I would be way beyond pissed if I heard the testimony that she was sexting with a colleague or anyone else for that matter in the days after she shot and killed my loved one, and then she only got ten years.

I agree, ten years is a gift anyway. But her actions after her crime definitely would have had a detrimental effect on how much time I would have pushed for had I been a jury member. I would have pushed for a sentence that would have essentially put her away for life (60+ years).
 
  • Like
Reactions: SPM
Qball said:
Allow me to rephrase what I posted to be clearer with my post:

If I were a family member of the victim, I would be way beyond pissed if I heard the testimony that she was sexting with a colleague or anyone else for that matter in the days after she shot and killed my loved one, and then she only got ten years.

I agree, ten years is a gift anyway. But her actions after her crime definitely would have had a detrimental effect on how much time I would have pushed for had I been a jury member. I would have pushed for a sentence that would have essentially put her away for life (60+ years).
Click to expand...

I don't understand what anything she did after the crime would have to do with the crime. Honestly I'm not sure why they would be allowed to even present it in court. I understand your feelings but anything she did afterwards would be upsetting if i were family.
 
Cowboy said:
I understand your feelings but anything she did afterwards would be upsetting if i were family.
Click to expand...

That's my whole point. They introduced it in court when it didn't have anything to do with the crime. I'm sure it upset the family and added on to their grief.

She got a light sentence and being a family member hearing testimony about her actions after the crime, would be very upsetting, especially after hearing the jury sentencing her to only ten years.

My apologies if I didn't explain it correctly.
 
Last edited:
Cowboy said:
I don't understand what anything she did after the crime would have to do with the crime. Honestly I'm not sure why they would be allowed to even present it in court. I understand your feelings but anything she did afterwards would be upsetting if i were family.
Click to expand...


It shows a general callousness to what she did. Not that that means anything in a legal sense, but I can see how it might impact a juror. I can also see how a prosecutor might try to slip it in with regards to sentencing.
 
Qball said:
According to the DA, she had sent sexually explicit text messages to another married police officer, Martin Rivera, in the days after she had shot and killed Botham Jean.

That's all I needed to read to agree with his family that justice has not been served. She should have received much more time in my opinion. But the jury judged her and dealt her the sentence they thought was just and I wasn't there so there's that.
Click to expand...

Her after actions makes me think that she thought she was in the clear and had no worries
 
Mike Overlay said:
Her after actions makes me think that she thought she was in the clear and had no worries
Click to expand...

Her after actions makes me think of someones life that is going to shit and knows it is. She then wants to some how bring back a little normalcy and escape the reality.
 
Last edited:
Cowboy said:
Her after actions makes me think of someones life that is going to shit and knows it is. She then wants to some how bring back a little normalcy and escape the reality.
Click to expand...

That too. Good point.
 
Unless there's some evidence that ties her sexting to the crime itself, it's entirely immaterial. And if that's the case then it's prejudicial to the jury, yet another grounds for appeal. But if I understand that the thinking that it is prejudicial and inflammatory, I completely agree. I just also think it's got nothing to do with it.
 
Chuckman said:
Unless there's some evidence that ties her sexting to the crime itself, it's entirely immaterial. And if that's the case then it's prejudicial to the jury, yet another grounds for appeal. But if I understand that the thinking that it is prejudicial and inflammatory, I completely agree. I just also think it's got nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

Well apparently when she took the stand it opens her up to character questions. These questions about messages and life directly afterwards would fall under that line of questioning. So the question would then be why did her legal team allow her to testify as anything but a last ditch effort.

** side note** I asked the smartest person in my bed if it would be allowed And that is were the answer comes from.
 
Last edited:
All I can say is dang, I'm glad I don't live in an apartment.

Some of those my daughter lived in you could easily get screwed up and think you were someplace you weren't.
 
Last edited:
Cowboy said:
Well apparently when she took the stand it opens her up to character questions.
Click to expand...

Speaking under correction, I suspect it isn't so much that she took the stand, but that her attorney must have asked questions of her that touched on "good" character that then opened the door for cross-examination on character, thus making admissible records such as cited above. Does make one wonder why her defense team would have opened that can of worms unless she didn't tell them of potentially damaging statements.
 
GreatGazoo said:
Speaking under correction, I suspect it isn't so much that she took the stand, but that her attorney must have asked questions of her that touched on "good" character that then opened the door for cross-examination on character, thus making admissible records such as cited above. Does make one wonder why her defense team would have opened that can of worms unless she didn't tell them of potentially damaging statements.
Click to expand...

My wife said that once she takes the stand as a witness, it opens her up to character questions. Basically it opens her up to all kinds of questioning. Did the defense open those doors earlier? Yeah it's possible but even if they hadn't once they are done with direct and cross begins I'm pretty sure it's fair game. I saw exactly 0% of the trial so I don't know. But my wife has actually tried two murder cases as an ada so I believe her even if it was with one eye open on her pillow.

I know in NC district court anytime someone takes the stand if they have ever served more than 60 days iirc they are allowed to ask the person based on character of the witness. The question you hear is, "Sir/ma'am what if anything have you ever been convicted of that you have served more than 60 days in custody or jail?" Which allows the persons record to come into the proceedings.
 
Last edited:
Cowboy said:
My wife said that once she takes the stand as a witness, it opens her up to character questions. Basically it opens her up to all kinds of questioning. Did the defense open those doors earlier? Yeah it's possible but even if they hadn't once they are done with direct and cross begins I'm pretty sure it's fair game. I saw exactly 0% of the trial so I don't know. But my wife has actually tried two murder cases as an ada so I believe her even if it was with one eye open on her pillow.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I had thought cross could only touch on topics raised by defense, but I certainly defer to a professional opinion.
 
Jury members are human beings subject to persuasion no matter how many times the judge instructs the jury on the law or how many times he tells the jury that a certain piece of evidence or statement(s) by a witness, attorney, or defendant is to be ignored as inadmissible and stricken from the record.

In this case, as Mrs. Cowboy explained via Mr. Cowboy, the sexting was admissible because the defendant took the stand. The jury convicted her of murder and then sentenced her to 10 years.

That is one of the reasons why I was surprised she only got 10.
 
Last edited:
12151791 said:
Was there a motive established in this murder?
Click to expand...

I'll lead this off by saying I was figuring manslaughter up until she testified.

She testified that she intended to kill him. And the prosecutor got her to say that multiple times on the stand. She's an idiot to say that. Or stupid enough to think that it played into the Castle Doctrine defense somehow. Add to that she went through the door with her gun drawn. The forensics shows that the bullet went in the chest with a downward trajectory when he is significantly taller than she is. Then instead of rendering aid, she was texting her BF and walking around.

It does not take long to establish malice aforethought, and I did not think they had a case for it. Until she handed that to them by admitting she intended to kill him. If she had been in her apartment, OK. But she was not. And I'm glad they didn't get the jury to buy the mistake of fact line and twist it into the Castle Doctrine defense. That would have been a disaster for the castle doctrine. I'm pretty confident in saying you would have seen immediate attacks on it across the US if that had been successful.
 
Howland said:
While it's good to see it didn't get broomed completely, but when you stop and think about it, at ten years, life is cheap.

I wonder what the victim would trade to get the 40 or 60 years she'll have left when she gets out back for himself.
Click to expand...

Amen.

Not to mention the festering wound Botham Jean's family will carry until the day they shuffle off this mortal coil: your son/friend/lovedone's life was only worth 10 years (doubtful all of that will be served) of this murderous, adulterous whore's time.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: NKD
For perspective, a man was convicted and sentenced to 99 years for kicking a police officer. (Yeah he had a rap sheet. And?)

Not maiming him. Not killing him.

Kicking him.

All animals are equal. Some are just more equal than others.

The irony of the statement in context with this murder is both fitting and poignant.
 
chiefjason said:
She testified that she intended to kill him. And the prosecutor got her to say that multiple times on the stand. She's an idiot to say that.
Click to expand...

I don't understand this statement. How often in home defense scenario discussions do we talk about "no warning shots" or "you don't shoot to injure" or "don't shoot to disarm." If the threat is immediate and, in NC at least, perceived as a risk to life or of serious bodily injury, one exercises lethal force to stop the threat (euphemistically put). One might only injure/wound the threat, but that is not the actual intent: stopping the threat is.

What was she supposed to say? "I was only intending a flesh wound, but missed?"

I suppose her attorney might have suggested that she say "stop the threat" and never use the word "kill" as a euphemistic bit of rhetoric.

PS Don't intend this as "salty" as it may sound - I am just actually curious what it is supposed she ought to have said (if anything at all of course). :confused:
 
Last edited:
GreatGazoo said:
I don't understand this statement. How often in home defense scenario discussions do we talk about "no warning shots" or "you don't shoot to injure" or "shoot to disarm." If the threat is immediate and, in NC at least, perceived as a risk of life or serious bodily injury, one exercises lethal force to stop the threat (euphemistically put). One might only injure/wound the threat, but that is not the actual intent: stopping the threat is.

What was she supposed to say? I was only intending a flesh wound, but missed?
Click to expand...

This is were the aspects of her being a police officer comes into play. If she weren't an officer taught to stop the threat not kill. Also the prosecutor hit hard on the Dallas police policy of backing up and calling for back up when you interrupt a Breaking and Entering.
I fully believe that if she wouldn't have been a police officer this would have only been manslaughter if convicted at all.
 
Cowboy said:
This is were the aspects of her being a police officer comes into play. If she weren't an officer taught to stop the threat not kill. Also the prosecutor hit hard on the Dallas police policy of backing up and calling for back up when you interrupt a Breaking and Entering.
I fully believe that if she wouldn't have been a police officer this would have only been manslaughter if convicted at all.
Click to expand...

Interesting. So then would her defense have been that her actions were consonant with her thinking (mistakenly of course) that she was in her own home/apartment and thus responding as a homeowner and not as an investigating officer called to a location?
 
GreatGazoo said:
Interesting. So then would her defense have been that her actions were consonant with her thinking (mistakenly of course) that she was in her own home/apartment and thus responding as a homeowner and not as an investigating officer called to a location?
Click to expand...
When your an officer you don't get that choice unfortunately. You know the whole higher standard thing. I've never been a cop but I have never understood the thought process that they shouldn't be able to make human mistakes.
 
The defendants actions after the crime, sending sexually explicit text messages could be viewed as a complete lack of remorse for their actions.

I won’t pretend to be aware of all the facts in this case but for the life of me I can not understand how a 10 year sentence could be handed down to anyone who entered another persons home and killed them.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SPM
Cucamonga said:
I won’t pretend to be aware of all the facts in this case but for the life of me I can not understand how a 10 year sentence could be handed down to anyone who entered another persons home and killed them.
Click to expand...
Looked at that way 10 years sounds light, however, from a practical standpoint her life is over anyway.
 
After additional reading I *think* one reason the sentence was so light was based on wishes of the family.

OK, I get once she is on the stand and the defense opens the door to character it's fair game. What my issue is, is how this will be interpreted in future cases regarding things that happen after the crime. Now you disregard evidence (the crime is over), and you are forced to divine thoughts, feelings, and nuances: "well, he didn't act like he was sorry...." or "he only slept for 5 hours so that means he must have had a guilty conscience...."
 
GreatGazoo said:
I suppose her attorney might have suggested that she say "stop the threat" and never use the word "kill" as a euphemistic bit of rhetoric.
Click to expand...
For me, this isn't euphemistic. If I'm shooting at a human being, it's because I, or another innocent person I am protecting, am in imminent and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or great bodily harm. My concern is preventing those effects. It may well be that my use of lethal force leads to the death of the bad guy(s), and given the circumstances I'm OK with that happening. But killing them is not at all my intention. Neither is wounding them or scaring them or any other such nonsense. My intention is to stop the death or grave injury of myself of another innocent person.

I heard James Yeager say something that really stuck with me--shoot only to save a life, never to take one, and there will be no regrets. Y'all are obviously welcome to your opinions about Yeager, and I'm hoping I haven't just started a major thread drift by mentioning him, but I really liked the way he put that.
 
Cowboy said:
His brother gave her a hug afterwards and told her he forgave her.
Click to expand...
premise said:
Amen.

Not to mention the festering wound Botham Jean's family will carry until the day they shuffle off this mortal coil: your son/friend/lovedone's life was only worth 10 years (doubtful all of that will be served) of this murderous, adulterous whore's time.
Click to expand...
MostWanted said:
. Forgiveness is a gift to the forgiver, not the forgiven.
Click to expand...
From her history she would probably have been glad to throw in a Blow Job.
 
Cucamonga said:
The defendants actions after the crime, sending sexually explicit text messages could be viewed as a complete lack of remorse for their actions.
Click to expand...
I'm calling BS on that.
Was she supposed to wear sackcloth and join a nunnery?
People need to get into "their" normalcy after a traumatic experience.
Her wearing a scarlet A has no bearing on the shooting.
 
GreatGazoo said:
I don't understand this statement. How often in home defense scenario discussions do we talk about "no warning shots" or "you don't shoot to injure" or "don't shoot to disarm." If the threat is immediate and, in NC at least, perceived as a risk to life or of serious bodily injury, one exercises lethal force to stop the threat (euphemistically put). One might only injure/wound the threat, but that is not the actual intent: stopping the threat is.

What was she supposed to say? "I was only intending a flesh wound, but missed?"

I suppose her attorney might have suggested that she say "stop the threat" and never use the word "kill" as a euphemistic bit of rhetoric.

PS Don't intend this as "salty" as it may sound - I am just actually curious what it is supposed she ought to have said (if anything at all of course). :confused:
Click to expand...

When you are on the stand for murder, it's just not a good word to use for your actions. If someone dies from being shot in self defense it comes across as a different context than "I meant to kill him." When I talk to folks I tell them that if I have to shoot somebody I'm shooting to stop them, if they happen to die that's on them. If the prosecutor did not get her to say that I was figuring manslaughter. The moment she said that she put murder on the table as a legit outcome.

The idea of threat plays into this too. He was not a threat. He was in his own home. And allowing a mistake of fact to confuse that idea would be a travesty of justice for the victim.

Everyone is talking about the sexting after, she was doing that all day and up to the point where she was getting to his door. She had horny brain, just like they talk about men getting. And she was paying zero attention to what she was doing, just looking forward to the D. And he ended up dead for her lack of paying attention. That's what the lead up to her getting to the door sounds like. Continuing that behavior afterwards just shows a lack of understanding of the seriousness of what you did IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom