tvc184

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.

For the last several legislative sessions (once every two years) at least one member of the Texas legislature has submitted a bill commonly called “constitutional carry” or basically carrying a handgun without any kind of license required. It normally does not get much traction however it has pushed Texas from the no handgun allowed to open carry with a license. Going back in history, basically since the Civil War Texas has not allowed the carrying of handguns in public. In the early 1990s the Texas legislature passed a concealed handgun license bill however Ann Richards vetoed it. That was significant. The significance of it was that she was defeated in the next election because of that and it ushered in the era of George W. Bush. That in turn propelled him to the presidency. Thanks Ann!! But back on topic… I believe in 1995 the legislature again passed a concealed handgun license and this time George Bush, as promised, signed the law. Texas for the first time since The Civil War allowed civilians to carry handguns in public. That original law required about a 16 hour class and a $240 license which like a drivers license had to be renewed every few years. The handgun had to be concealed and there were other limitations on locations such as not in hospitals, large amusement parks, racetrack, etc. For the most part however, a person wishing to take the class and pay the fees, could carry a handgun for protection. Over the years they have slowly eased up on the requirements and fees. Then they passed the license to carry which now allowed open carry a handgun as well as concealed. They have eventually reduced the licensing fee to I believe $40 now and reduce the class from two days to only four hours. Basically if you had four hours and a very few dollars, you could openly or concealed carry a handgun in Texas. The Texas legislature is back in session which began in the first week of January and ends in about 10 days. Like normal for the last few sessions, a bill was submitted to carry a handgun without a license or constitutional carry. It is just my opinion but I believe this year was different because of the national Democrats making such a move to get rid of gun rights. I believe that spurred some legislators to move forward where in past sessions they have not. The Constitutional carry bill (HB1927) went through the House of Representatives fairly easily (with no Dem support) and was then sent to the Senate. There it met some opposition even from the Republicans. It wasn’t so much opposition as it was wanting to tweak the bill by adding amendments. The Texas Senate then passed the bill however they added several amendments to it. I’m sure everyone knows the procedure but when the two houses pass similar bills, it cannot become law. Both houses must pass a Word for Word same bill for it to go to the governor. What happens if they are not exactly the same? It then goes to a committee and has conferees from both houses to see if they can work out a compromise that both will support. So the Senate Bill with its amendments went back to the House and they rejected Senate version of the bill. Eight days ago it was sent to the conferees to try to work out a compromise however the session is going to end in a few days. Well, late yesterday afternoon they reached an agreement that they believe they can get through both houses. I have not seen the final version yet because they have not posted it but I am assuming that some of the Senate amendments will remain (and having read them, I think that is a good thing). HB1927 is scheduled to be brought to a vote next week in both houses and I believe there’s about a 98% chance of it passing. The bill can still be killed but I think this is the year it will finally pass. The governor has already said that if the bill passes, he will sign it. Meaning?? Probably on September 1 of this year, people in Texas who are at least 21 years of age and have not been convicted of a felony or domestic violence or are ian illegal alien, can carry a concealed handgun or openly carry one as long as it is in a holster and can do so with no license, permit or school required.

Yes it is. Almost 4 decades of almost unimaginable sights that the public can only guess at and a frequency most most people did not know exists. In a department that averages 8-9 officers per shift, I have been to over 1,000 death scenes from all causes (several children), in the hospital maybe 6 times in the line of duty, 5 shooting incidents where I shot at someone, was shot at up close enough to actually see the gun pointing at me or my partner killing a guy about 10 feet from me, talked to people as they were dying, a few high speed chases including drive by shooting suspects, undercover operations, probably over 50, 000 contacts with the public, participated in more than 10,000 arrests, 10 years on swat, 30 years of teaching at the police academy............. I could go on but yes it becomes ingrained. A couple of weeks before I retired I ran into this post on Facebook. It was completely accidental but almost appropriate. Another officer in a police only forum was asking what it was like to retire because he had a couple of days to go or something like that. I was only a few days behind him and there were plenty of usual responses such as congratulations, you will love it, it will take a while but you will “eventually” wonder why you didn’t do it earlier, welcome to the club and so on. One said this however and I saved it..... >>>>>Author unknown; When Cops Retire When a good cop leaves the 'job' and retires to a better life, many are jealous, some are pleased and yet others, who may have already retired, wonder. We wonder if he knows what he is leaving behind, because we already know. We know, for example, that after a lifetime of camaraderie that few experience, it will remain as a longing for those past times. We know in the law enforcement life there is a fellowship which lasts long after the uniforms are hung up in the back of the closet . We know even if he throws them away, they will be on him with every step and breath that remains in his life. We also know how the very bearing of the man speaks of what he was and in his heart still is. These are the burdens of the job. You will still look at people suspiciously, still see what others do not see or choose to ignore and always will look at the rest of the law enforcement world with a respect for what they do; only grown in a lifetime of knowing. Never think for one moment you are escaping from that life. You are only escaping the 'job' and merely being allowed to leave 'active' duty. So what I wish for you is that whenever you ease into retirement, in your heart you never forget for one moment that 'Blessed are the Peacemakers for they shall be called children of God,' and you are still a member of the greatest fraternity the world has ever known. There are those that think they understand. And then . . . There are cops.<<<<<

Thanks. It is tough to walk away from.