tvc184

If you have not seen it, this is the entire video…

Most officers are that accurate from that range. The speed with which the officer acted is why impressive that he shooting. .... and that shooting had nothing to do with being a sniper. The precision shooting of a sniper with a rifle, usually as a very long range has very little to do with manipulating a handgun and close range.

Here you go...

Looking at the Facebook comments are either hilarious or sad according to how you look at it. Comments such as, the officer should have tried to talk her down. In the middle of a knife swing? Or, she called 911 so you can’t shoot her. I could list about 100 more examples but that is stupidity at its finest. But I know that people like to play the what if game. So what if it was a white female try to stab A black female? If the officer did nothing, what would the narrative be? Here is my opinion only going to Texas law. 1. it does not matter who called 911. 2. There is no way for the officer to know who made the call or any other circumstances such as bullying (which doesn’t justify stabbing) before his arrival. 3. Presented with these circumstances, there is simply no time for de-escalation or talking anyone down as has been suggested. The person is in the middle of an attack. 4. Under Texas law, any person could have shot and killed the girl with the knife in her hand. All that is required to protect another person, even a person that is not known to you, is a reasonable belief that had you been in the same situation, deadly force would have been justified. So a person can put themselves in the position of the girl against the car who is trying to fend off the knife attack. 5. Age has no relevance in the justified use of deadly force. 6. I see no way anyone can say the officer made a mistake looking at the facts that he saw however, even if the officer might have been technically wrong if some people‘s opinion, it would still be justified under the law. The Texas law on self-defense (for anyone) or the use of force by police officer, is a reasonable belief. 7. The United States Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor said that in viewing force by a police officer, you must place yourself in the position of that officer having to make a split second decision. In Graham the officers used force against a guy who they believe may have just committed an armed robbery and was resisting. As it turned out the person was completely innocent and was having a diabetic crisis. A UNANIMOUS Supreme Court found that the officers use of force was justified even against the innocent person because they had a reason to believe that he was resisting arrest from an armed robbery. They had no way of knowing that he was going into insulin shock and actually needed treatment. In that ruling the Supreme Court said that you have to look through the eyes of the officer who had to make a split second decision and not one made several months later in a judge’s chambers when there is time to look at all the facts. That is why if a person shoots a man in self defense coming at him with a gun and it later turns out that the gun was a toy, it is still justified. The facts are that the person using self-defense was in no danger but there was a reasonable belief of danger when presented with the situation. 8. Also under Texas law, if you claim self-defense or defense of another person, you do not have to prove that self-defense was needed. The state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the self-defense or defense of another was not needed.

There is a lot that I will never forget.

I know it is but one instance as an example but Bullets13 was doing a ride along with me on patrol one day. We went to a loud disturbance that had happened more than once and the neighbors were complaining. Due to the size of the disturbance/crowd and the repeated nature of the call, 5-6 officers showed up including me. We did everything we could to peaceably quiet things down and try to do so without making any arrests. The officers were going to write one man a citation for disorderly conduct (disturbing the peace) and going to let the rest of them go. That’s it, please sign this citation and we are out of here. Nope, it broke out into a fight, resisting arrest and officers being assaulted. I was hit several times by a female who was trying to keep me from arresting her father who ran into the garage, possibly to grab a weapon. I just shove her away and did not arrest her but she could have faced time in jail or possibly even prison. Then as we thought we had things calmed down I believe with only one arrest after that big fight and disturbance, it started again with claims of racism by the police. One guy then charged at the officers who were trying to leave when he wanted to confront them. He was taken to the ground and arrested. That brought out more verbal claims of racism by the police. As soon as I got back in the car Bullets13 talked about how the police caused none of that and I don’t want to speak for him but he probably felt the police handled it fairly well considering we were being threatened, had people resist arrest, fleeing from arrests and in a couple of cases like me, assaulted... yet we were the bad guys. I can assure you that we could have used a lot more force lawfully and taken a lot a lot more people to jail. I know it is been one situation and it does not exonerate officers that make stupid mistakes. These kinds of things happen every day however because people think they know the law when they do not or they feel that once they are in a group they will not be held accountable with the relative safety of numbers.

... And the problem is that they don’t know the law or the rules. If the police used the lawful use of force that they are authorized to use every day, many more people would be injured or killed. I am fairly certain that most police officers who put in a 25 or 30 year career could have lawfully shot more than one person. I can think of three or four times at least that I could have shot someone and would have been cleared of any wrongdoing. I could name plenty of laws that people routinely say that do not exist or misunderstand. All you have to do is watch YouTube for some of the most bogus legal advice available.

The guy’s first shot went through the top of his head (I think he flinched) and knocked part of his skull off exposing his brain but not killing him outright. He then fired the rest of the rounds in his revolver as he was on the floor but they all went into the ceiling. I think he was hurting too much and was too weak. I interviewed him before he passed away and he just used a few words of profanity toward me and said it was none of my business. So he shot himself once in the head and the attempted to do it again but was in no condition to do so. Technically he could have shot himself fatally in the head twice.

I worked a case where a guy almost did that.

DJ’s is the best Texas factory made boudin. I thought Nick’s was great but I know that some people were put off by the texture because it tends to be way more moist and last sausage like. I know that Louisiana has a plethora of good local made but I like Billy‘s when I get over that way.

Oh yeah.... with about three cloves of sliced fresh garlic in that butter. On occasion with time or Rosemary if I have any.On occasion with thyme or Rosemary if I have any.

I do the same.... after I sous vide.

A perfect example. Yes the Koreans were noted in the LA/Rodney King riots for defending their property with firearms. Some states have a must retreat law and others have stand your ground. Also (again location laws matter) like in Texas you can’t use deadly force for theft in the daytime you can at any time to stop arson. In LA where they were burning businesses it might have been murder to protect from theft but lawful defense to stop arson. I see on almost every forum that I read where every time a crime is discussed about the penalty received, someone will almost always ask, why did this case get that penalty when that case got a different one. Then they give an example of a different crime in a different jurisdiction and with different provable evidence..... many times not even in the same state... and except the same answer or it is a conspiracy, a cover up, racism or whatever.

The only time I have had the same tasting steak two times in a row was at a Hilton in Washington DC.... strangely enough. I usually have a good experience at Schooner but only get steak there once or twice a year. I hate when people say, I can make better at home. In most cases.... duhhhh!! No kidding. But you have to go buy whatever, prep it, cook it, cook sides, clean up after, etc. However..... When it comes to steak, I have gotten good enough with sous vide that I go ahead and usually opt for home cooked.

It may or may not be burglary. Depending on location and conditions, for example a 24 hour Walmart it would almost never be burglary. There are likely no police inside the Walmart to use deadly force even if it was lawful. You were asking a question how about a place where police were protecting themselves and other people to another location where they were likely no police at all whether or not deadly force would be justified. And the terminology (legal definitions) and laws absolutely matters. In Texas if it is the nighttime, you could possibly use deadly force to protect property only and in other state is almost never legal. I

Because terminology matters.... in your first post you question why a breach of one location authorizes deadly force without consequences and a breach of another location does not even have the use of force to just stop it. Force could absolutely be used to stop a theft such as at Walmart during looting but that is usually a local politicians call, not the police. That is where a mayor might call the police chief and say pull the police out. Also what do you call the breach of a store it’s just a theft. It’s no different than shoplifting even though it was several people. Entry into someplace like the capital building is probably listed as a burglary and deadly force could be used to stop a burglary in progress. There is also the direct threat to the officers and the people are trying to protect, again giving the authority to use deadly force. So misdemeanor theft as opposed to a felony burglary which may also entail the threat of force against the defenders. It sure is not apples and oranges. They are both crimes to be sure but so is not using your turn signal to change lanes in a car.

Yours is roughly the same answer. They are different jurisdictions, different laws, under different mayors or governors and different prosecutors. It is like comparing apples to lawnmowers. Also usually terms like breaching are news media terms, not legal terms. And example is sometimes I see people in various forums saying that if you carry a rifle in public, it is brandishing a firearm. Texas just does not use the term brandishing in any context. It has no legal bearing and meaningless as far as an argument but I have seen people question why a person wasn’t arrested for brandishing. Terms or phrases like Castle doctrine, stand your ground, extension of your home, etc., are news media explanations of what the media thinks the law might be. Even self defense varies greatly in different states. What is completely legal in one state might be murder in another.

Different jurisdictions. This country was created to allow each state or community to set its own standards. If you don’t like the laws you can vote in new people to change them or move. We get in forums and complain or be happy about the laws in our different states/communities but then complain when the laws are different. A freedom of information law is like any other and depends on location. There is no universal “you have to tell me” law. Maybe more than any other concept, the fact that there are few common laws is not understood by likely a vast majority of people.

They are after a feel good conviction at this point. The sad thing is, they might get it.

Background checks really don’t bother me in theory. In practice they scare the heck out of me. There is only one reason for universal background checks and that is the next step in gun control and eventual confiscation. I don’t think it bothers most people that people convicted of violent felonies cannot legally obtain a firearm. That is just a carrot in front of the horse however. Let’s go out on a limb and suggest that universal background checks passes into law but to do that the federal and state governments have to give up all future gun control legislation. That means no particular weapons ban and no high-capacity magazine ban. If you are not a felon, then you can buy, own, obtain one….period. That is it. I don’t think most people would object to that. The problem is that it would not end there, no matter what the promises. The moment such a law passed, even with promises to not seek any gun legislation in the future, the next step would be on the agenda. It would be, OK, since you don’t mind background checks, then you should not mind registering your weapons. and then the next step… And then the next step… All under, “common sense gun legislation”.

Freedom of information depends on the jurisdiction where it occurs. Just like other laws, each state or the federal government has laws that dictate what may be released, what must be released and what cannot be released. These different depending on jurisdiction.

That is great however the current administration is doing everything they can to take the guns out of the hands of the people. So by state law you can legally carry in IA but I would not doubt if soon, it would be illegal by federal law There are people in this forum and the others that say, the Democrats are not trying to take your guns. if anyone believes that, I just acquired the Statue of Liberty and somebody can make me an offer.

It was a vote for the rule of law. I envision the way it is being talked about like it is William Wallace screaming “FREEDOM!!!”. The governor from what I have read, exceeded his authority. It doesn’t matter what political party he is in, he did something that his state law did not allow. I am glad that the Supreme Court of Wisconsin upheld the law as it is written. That is the way it should be. When a state does have a law unlike Wisconsin, which gives the governor unlimited powers to extend an emergency, I think the same people that cheer the Wisconsin Supreme Court upholding the law will want the Supreme Courts in those states to not go by the law. That is kind of contradictory.

And the article states exactly that. In his state he can only issue a 60 day mandatory order without legislative approval. He did not get that approval so even though he had the authority to order masks, that expired 60 days later. Texas for example does not have that law. I believe the wording of the Texas law says that the governor can renew it until he decides otherwise. Now a mayor in Texas under the same emergency chapter, must have approval from the city council after the initial order.

Actually it was a vote for the law. Apparently in that state the governor has limited authority on what he can declare an emergency. I would be willing to bet that it is addressed almost immediately or whenever they have their next legislative session. The Supreme Court only ruled on statutory law. It was not a vote for freedom.