tvc184

Which part?

In some cases, yes. For the police it is lawful to shoot someone running away who has committed a violent crime and there’s a further danger to the community or the officer. For a citizen under Texas law, deadly force is justified in stopping someone from escaping with property from a burglary, robbery or theft during the night time if there is a reasonable belief that the property would not be recovered by other means or would endanger of the person trying to cover the property. The use of deadly force to recover such property is absolutely not authorized for a police officer.

In Texas, stopping an arson in progress is justification for using deadly force as is theft in the nighttime.... but not for the police unless it is directly endangering someone’s life.

Yes, a mob could potentially justify deadly force if a serious threat to officers or someone beyond the officers that they were trying to protect. Like always, we have to look at the facts or reasonable beliefs known to the officers at that moment. Where were are the people who are being protected? Where are they trapped and nearby? Did they have a means of evacuation (which I thought they did) such as through a passageway or tunnel so therefore not in an immediate threat? Was the small window on the door that she was crawling through the only means of entry rather than the reenforced doors themselves which could not have been breached at that moment? Looking at these likelihoods which was surely known to the capital police, why did apparently only one officer feel threatened enough to draw a weapon? There might be some very reasonable answers to justify the use of force however they are not very forthcoming in explanation, which police agencies and governments normally do in other similar situations. This one has been marked by silence including not even discussing policy, which I find very strange.

You have way more right of self defense under state law to protect your home than the government (in this case; police) does both under state law, federal law and US Constitution by way of Supreme Court decisions. Your use of deadly force to protect your (or your neighbor’s) home is regulated by state law. A police officer cannot use deadly force to prevent crimes as by state law and the Constitution. The police can only use deadly force to stop a risk of serious injury or death. So someone coming through “your” window and protecting your home is not even in the same discussion as the police use of deadly force to stop a crime. Can an officer use deadly force for someone going through your window? Yes if it is to prevent the criminal’s use of force against you and there is a reasonable belief to back that up. For example, a criminal going into your home with a weapon or who might be about to kidnap someone can justify the use of deadly force by the police to protect the victims inside of the home. It is not to prevent the crime but to prevent injury or the threat of serious injury. State law however gives a person the right to protect his home almost without question from a burglary (called breaking and entering in some states). In Garner v. Tennessee from the Supreme Court, an officer shot and killed a burglar who was committing the crime of Burglary of a Habitation (in TX at that time A first-degree felony or equal to murder in penalty) at night, fleeing with property in his hands. There is no doubt the crime was at night, that it was a felony in progress, that the police were not likely to catch him and he was escaping with property. With all of those established facts, The Supreme Court ruled and it was unlawful for the officer to use deadly force to stop the crime. At the time the suspect was not endangering anyone and even though a homeowner could have lawfully shot and killed a suspect to get the property back, it was completely unconstitutional for the officer to do so. So when you ask, what would you do when someone is breaking in your home with a mob behind have them, it does not even matter if it’s a mob. A single person entering your home could lawfully justify the use of deadly force. That in no way translate to a police officer standing his ground and using deadly force against an unarmed person to prevent a crime. Add to that the fact that if an officer is standing with several other officers, even the use of deadly force to protect themselves must be taken into consideration the reasonableness at that moment. An unarmed 250 pound man coming at a lone 120 pound female police officer is much more likely to justify deadly force than the same 250 pound unarmed man coming at three 200 pound male officers. The Supreme Court has said you have to look at what is reasonable at that time. In this case, if there are several police officers and at the moment being approached by an unarmed 130 pound female, is deadly force justified under the circumstances? I think that would be tough to prove however if it is or if it is not, it has nothing to do with a person coming through “your” window. As far as the police shooting a person who is fleeing, that can be justified if the person has committed a violent crime because there is a reasonable belief that the person will commit another violent crime in order to escape or possibly grab a hostage. And example from this area about 15 years ago, a man had just shot his ex-wife and her current boyfriend. One of them died and the other was seriously injured. After a high-speed car chase the suspect ran on foot it was shot and killed by the police. That was ruled to be justified by the grand jury because of the violent crime that was just committed and the likelihood of another violent crime. It is the violence or threat of violence that justifies the government/police deadly force intervention, not because there was a serious crime in progress. That was stated in Garner. In Garner the Supreme Court through out the police use deadly deadly force to even stop a fleeing felon. To make sure that is clear, the Supreme Court said that the police cannot use deadly force merely to stop a felony.

No. There is no evidence of any crime except trespassing which is a misdemeanor. A citizen, not the police, have the defense to prosecution in Texas that they were stopping a burglary (breaking and entering) in progress IF deadly force was reasonably needed. The police absolutely do not have that authority as demonstrated by SCOTUS in Garner. The police can use deadly force to stop a threat of deadly force. In Garner SCOTUS said there had to be a violent act or the threat of violence for the police to justify deadly force. Maybe she had something that looked like a weapon in her hand and was screaming “I am going to kill you #%£{@!!!”. If that is true, they need to release at least the claim and an explanation. At least from what I have seen, the officer doing the shooting was the only one with a gun drawn. Why with several officers with him trying to stop a small and likely unarmed woman coming through a window, was he the only one to even draw a weapon? According apparently to their prosecutors, it does not even warrant a trial which means it had to be so clear-cut it it was obviously self-defense. It should not matter but again, swap the roles and see what the outcome would be. A white cop, surrounded by other officers, none of who feel threatened enough to draw their weapon, shoots an unarmed small black female coming through a window.

Breaking and entering is not a violent crime. In the US Supreme Court case of Garner v. Tennessee they ruled that the police could not use force to stop by non-violent crime. In fact Garner was a breaking and entering case. The police are not allowed to use deadly force to stop a crime.

This one would again cause riots and more calls to defund the police if the roles were reversed.

Defund the police comes from an overthrow tactic used since Marx. If you say something enough times, people will start to believe it. You can call it brainwashing, indoctrination, re-education or whatever. In some ways it is almost like the Stockholm Syndrome where hostages start siding with the criminals that take them hostage and threaten their lives. The police are not the problem in any neighborhood but they are portrayed to be such for political gain. Like in the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, MO. It was put out as a story that he was surrendering on his knees. The facts, witnesses and physical evidence completely refuted that claim. The US Department of Justice and the FBI spent a year and a few million dollars and ended up with the same conclusion that the county DA did in a few days. That was there was no evidence of wrongdoing by the officer. The police were not the problem there either yet it caused nationwide riots. Even with this defund the police mantra we need to ask ourselves, does the Black community feel the same way as they are portrayed? Do the protesters represent the entire Black community? Let’s see what the Gallup Poll survey says about that in a poll released in August 2020. [Hidden Content] According to Gallup 81% of Blacks want as much police presence “or more”. Compare that to 88% of Whites and 83% of Hispanics. That seems like very similar options especially considering the beating that the police receive in the press in the Black community. Maybe even more telling is that 20% of Blacks and 24% of Hispanics want “more”’ police in they neighborhoods as opposed to 17% of Whites. So the minority communities (who the narrative is that hate the police), actually wants more of them than the White population. I can guarantee from experience, those minority communities in most cases already have a larger police presence and yet they want more. I am glad that they want more but that isn’t the narrative put out by the media who gets clicks and money by controversy and some segments that promote their own political status. From Gallup I believe it shows what I think, that there is very little differences in communities but there is no benefit to saying that in some people’s opinions. In fact it hurts some political opinions to say, we are pretty much all the same. If you look at the Gallup survey, you will find what I believe. People have very little differences and want the same things regardless of race or community including a police presence. The problem comes from people that go to great lengths to try and convince others that they are different and that “they” (elected or unelected political figures) are the answer. The only thing they are the answer to is their own power. In my opinion....

From what I just read on the Texas legislature website, both houses passed the amended bill which means it now sits on the governor’s desk.

I “think” that I read the final version of the bill and most of the Senate amendments stayed put. When I read them several days ago I didn’t understand the uproar other than just politics. Some people said that the Senate was trying to KILL THE BILL with these horrible amendments! I read them and thought that most were good or needed and others could go either way but weren’t bad Here goes with the Senate amendments that stayed... 1. The free online classes on gun safety that are NOT mandatory stayed. 2. A felon in possession of a firearm penalty was increased from a 2-10 year sentence (3rd degree felony) to 5-20 (2nd degree felony). 3. In addition to a felon in possession or a person convicted of family (domestic) violence from being prohibited from carrying, they added assault with injuries, terroristic threat or disorderly conduct with a firearm (if within the previous 5 years) from lawfully carrying. 4. Removed the House prohibition from having an officer question a person based solely on the open carried handgun. 5. Kept the Senate amendment of the wording of trespassing on a business property... "Pursuant to Section 46.03, Penal Code (places weapons prohibited), a person may not carry a firearm or other weapon on this property". This doesn’t leave it to the discretion of an officer but spells out what a warning is So basically almost all of the Senate amendments stayed if I read the correct final version. The bill also changed the language of a shoulder or belt holster like under the LTC to simply a “holster”.

Not to me either. It sure looks like they are hiding something.

Awesome. It is always great to see someone make it to the finish line!!

I wish these big cities would completely do away with the police or that the office themselves would walk off the job. I have talk to police officers all over the country and most of them would however obviously, they need a paycheck. I have been on a forum with almost 60,000 police officers and just say there was an attempted mass exodus from certain areas would be an understatement. Most of the officers have families and obviously cannot simply quit but if we don’t think they are looking to go elsewhere, we are sorely mistaken. Officers in Washington, Oregon, California and other places are looking to go to the south or the west I am doing so in droves. we might have all seen news articles where a particular police department has lost so many officers in the last year for retirement and resignations. What the news reports do not cover and they simply cannot find out the truth (because individual officers aren’t making it public) is how many ounces would leave if given the opportunity. I know at my police department and I’m sure most, there is always information on which officers are seeking employment elsewhere. At certain times it can be a fairly significant percentage. The officers are not wanting to give up the job but the location and public support of a particular location. So I wish that the cities that claim they don’t need the police or need way fewer of them, get their wish. I am positive that they are not going to like the results. Some cities have already found that out.

The problem is that there is no inherent right to information. It has to be written into the law. The federal government and each state has its own laws on freedom of information. They are definitely not the same. In Texas there are things that must be released upon request, things that may be released upon request but not mandatory and things that cannot be released. i’ll give you an example on Texas law. Under Texas civil service law The only thing that the state recognizes as punishment for police officers is a suspension. Punishment (suspension) is part of a public record. All of the corrective actions are sealed and private. Even when a police officer is terminated it is called an indefinite suspension. So if an officer gets a letter in his file of a reprimand, it is not public. If he has his duty assignment changed or the shift that he works changed because of a discipline issue, it is not public and is protected information. If it rises to the level of a suspension, then it becomes public. That is an example where the law says you cannot release information but under certain conditions you must release the information. Another example under Texas law is the making of a police call for service. If a person calls the police, if the police make a traffic stop or any other type of official police contact, it is public record. How far that public record goes is the issue however. The fact that a person called the police is public including the person’s name (if known) and the address the police went to and the general complaint. An example would be a person calling the police to report his home had been broken into over the weekend. What the police did there if they made a police report can be protected however. If the police made a report or investigation, the public part would be the location, the accused crime or incident and the victim’s name. The details of the report however can be protected. That is why the news media in many cases cannot give details of a crime being reported by them because the police do not have to release the information and in most cases will not. Releasing such information tends to hamper the investigation and by law can kill a confession or the information used at a criminal trial. So while it is not illegal to release the information to the public, it could make the investigation very difficult particularly in the area of confessions. Those are just examples of how the law differs according to where you were at. Apparently the federal law covering Washington DC has not yet required the police release that information. I am sure that media sources have filed legal issues in reference to this to see if the government is complying with the law. I know in my Police Department (and probably all) we get freedom of information requests all the time and turn it over to the legal department to see if The information can be released.or if we have the option of privacy. I don’t see how policy is protected but without knowing the law in Washington DC, I simply do not know.

This was all orchestrated in the old smoke filled room scenarios from the old days to get Harris into the presidency.

I don’t know but I wish they would. You would think that merely written policy is under freedom of information.

But getting away from the media’s misrepresentation which is normal, they are interesting articles.

Headlines and reporting… The subheadlines in their first article says that the Spanish flu did not originate in Spain. Then you read the article and it says… Well, it may have originated in Spain but we don’t know. If you don’t know, why the headlines? could the headlines have read… Spanish flu is of uncertain origin? Nahhhh..... that might get less clicks..

I am not going against your opinion which is OK but the current license to carry law has no firearms training either. If the premise of this bill being bad is it there is no training, well… there is none before this.

It is an interesting deal but reading it, it would be hard to enforce or will not be enforced in most cases.

But again, the current LTC has no firearms training. While training may not be a bad thing, it is currently not required and a couple of million Texans have the LTC and most have no firearms training. What does this law change other than the tax to carry?

1. They have been charged in a crime and it is therefore public information. The officer in the shooting has not. 2. Epstein died a year and a half ago, not in January. Comparing apples to broccoli.

For the people that you speak of, and they definitely exist, do you think a four hour gun class will actually change anything? The current mandated training doesnot cover the handling or shooting of firearms.

This is just my opinion from talking with police officers face-to-face and on social media. An overwhelming percentage of police officers are for gun rights, period. An overwhelming percentage of police administrators (sheriffs, chiefs, etc.) are against gun rights.