tvc184

You continue with the technology nonsense. You think the police carry handheld devices that point to a home as they are walking up? They read an address on a screen. Most police departments don’t navigate or dispatch by maps. When I saw an address on the screen, I drove to that block and started looking like anyone else. When I was trying to do it covertly (almost always at night), I tried not to use a flashlight at night. On my computer screen there was a single line of information. It had the address, time the call came in, type of call (burglary, theft, vehicle accident, etc.), unit(s) assigned and incident number. I can’t type it on a single line here but….. So I see this: 26731-23 184/251 1405 7th St 1858 accident That is: The 26,731st call for service in 2023 (which would be maybe in May or June), officers 184 and 251 assigned, at 1405 7th St, received at 1858/6:58PM and it is a vehicle accident. If you can look at that string of information and tell me exactly where a house is, please explain it to me. There are typically multiple calls on the screen so they are stacked on top of each other. These officers went to an address ending in 5 where it was supposed to be an 8. 5/8. Glancing at night, it isn’t so easy to distinguish. I believe in the video, one of them even said, isn’t this xxx8. This unfortunate situation came down to one factor. A man for no valid reason came out of the house and raised a gun handgun up into a firing position. Apparently some people in this and other forums think that if you are on your own property, anything is legal. If a kid is taking a shortcut across your lawn and you point a firearm and threaten him, it is up to 20 years in prison. “It’s my property” is not justification for Aggravated Assault.

The only item in the Texas Penal Code that is listed as a deadly weapon is a firearm. Under that law, “anything” else can be a deadly weapon if it was “manifestly designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting death or serious bodily injury or anything that in the was manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury“. So an item has to be specifically designed to inflict serious bodily injury or at the moment it was used, including in a threat, was intended to be used to inflict serious bodily injury. In the police academy we ask questions of the cadets like, if you go into Walmart and buy a Kershaw knife, was that knife manufactured with intent to kill people? The obvious answer should be no. CAN it be a dw? Sure it can. What about a machete with a 24” blade? Again the answer is no. It was designed to cut brush while in the woods, etc. How about a rag stuffed down a person’s throat while trying to kill the person? Was the rag’s intended use to cause death or serious bodily injury? Yes so a machete sitting on a table is not a dw but the rag is because the moment it was used or intended to be used, it became a dw. If a person pulls a knife and threatens to kill someone but never actually cuts the person, is the knife a dw at that point? Yes. In the manner of its intended use, the threat, it was capable of inflicting serious injury. Threatening a person is a class C assault or the equivalent of a traffic citation with no jail time possible and a $500 maximum fine. Threatening a person while holding/displaying the knife and it went from no jail time to a maximum of 20 years. There is no blade length under the definition of a deadly weapon. In fact, a couple of years ago, Texas changed the law that had restricted a knife carried in public to 5.5”….. if the person is at least 18 years old. A place such as a bar or school still has the restriction of the 5.5” blade but a person can now legally carry a sword in public.

By definition, is a knife a deadly weapon in Texas?

What mistake for the police make? Knocking on a door? That is a very good question about lights. Sorry I missed it. The flashing emergency lights is a television or movie deal. It isn’t usually based on reality. Emergency lighting is to move traffic out of the way or to block a roadway for an emergency. It is not intended to, nor legally demanded to notify everybody in the neighborhood that the police are discussing something of a private matter with a citizen or to notify potential suspects that the police are arriving and to prepare. It is often seen as a violation of officer safety in many cases. I believe in the last week two police officers were killed responding to family violence situations. In your previous comment, you mentioned the volatile situations in a domestic disturbance and using lights. That very volatile situation that you are asking about is the reason NOT to use lights. From a police perspective, using lights in some situations is asking for trouble and being killed. We don’t use it anymore but when I first started we had a switch that we could flip that would kill (conveniently called the kill switch) all of the lights on our patrol vehicle. Brake lights, tail lights, turn signals or whatever, were disable to at least try to keep us from being seen. So while from your point of view, it might be great to use a bunch of pretty flashy lights that can be seen from over a mile away, an officer might see as asking for the death sentence. Officers now are at times lazy but I normally didn’t park within a block of a family disturbance and if possible, not even on the same street. I would park on scene around the corner and then walk up cautiously. Because of this, state law specifically allows the police to operate an emergency vehicle in an emergency without using lights or siren, whereas for EMS or the fire department, it is mandatory. Sec. 546.004. EXCEPTIONS TO SIGNAL REQUIREMENT. (b) An authorized emergency vehicle that is operated as a police vehicle is not required to be equipped with or display a red light visible from the front of the vehicle. (c) A police officer may operate an authorized emergency vehicle for a law enforcement purpose without using the audible or visual signals required by Section 546.003 if the officer is: (1) responding to an emergency call or pursuing a suspected violator of the law with probable cause to believe that: (A) knowledge of the presence of the officer will cause the suspect to: (i) destroy or lose evidence of a suspected felony; (ii) end a suspected continuing felony before the officer has obtained sufficient evidence to establish grounds for arrest; or (iii) evade apprehension or identification of the suspect or the suspect's vehicle; or (B) because of traffic conditions on a multilaned roadway, vehicles moving in response to the audible or visual signals may: (i) increase the potential for a collision; or (ii) unreasonably extend the duration of the pursuit; or (2) complying with a written regulation relating to the use of audible or visible signals adopted by the local government that employs the officer or by the department. For safety and apprehension reasons that other emergency services don’t face, the police are exempt from the pretty flashy lights and making noise. This situation was obviously terrible. Let’s face it though, who reasonably walks out of their house and start pointing guns without knowing who is out there. Your own comment was that the guy “clearly made a bad decision”. I agree. Out of literally millions of police calls each week, how many had innocent people walk outside with a gun in hand pointing toward officers? This was an anomaly that will likely never be answered. Why didn’t he peak outside first through a window or the door peephole? Why didn’t he ask who it was at the door? Why didn’t he open the door slightly to look outside with gun in hand but unseen? Again, we will likely never know why he pushed open the door and immediately pointed a gun.

This is the Texas stand your ground law, not the misidentified castle doctrine. Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another: (c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section. Did the officers have the right to knock on the door? If not, what law does anyone claim they were violating? Did knocking on the door provoke the attack? Reading some of the comments, I would not be shocked that some people in this forum think that knocking on the door is a provocation. Were the officers engaged in criminal activity? No, unless you think, knocking on a door is a crime. The phrase ”Is not required to retreat” is the so called stand your ground law. Notice that it never mentions property, ownership, residence or anything similar. It only says have a right to be present at that location. The US Supreme Court in a case has already said that an officer can knock on a door just like anyone else.

That pretty much sums up the entire case.

I have yet to see any reasonable explanation from anybody as to why misreading an address allows a person to threaten you with a firearm. As LR posted the article of a mistaken address and some guy thought that was justification to come out shooting. Where are y’all coming up with these nonsensical theories? This is not difficult. Tragic, yes, but not difficult. The police were called to a family disturbance. They walked across the street to the wrong house. They knocked on the door and announced police. Somebody inside the house heard the knocking and the man walked out without knowing anything, except that was a knock and immediately pointed gun at whoever was standing on his property. The (1) officers were not violating any law, (2) they had the same authority on stand your ground and (3) they had a reasonable belief that their lives were in danger. Can anyone point to where any of that is incorrect?

How do you retreat when a gun is brought up and pointing at you from 15 feet away? You are not going to outrun a bullet to confirm. I am not sure what is to be confirmed anyway. The police don’t usually put themselves in that situation. They are called by someone to be there. Under what legal situation should a person be able to point a gun at someone for knocking on a door? The claim of fear is nonsense. If fear was justification then a person could kill anyone and say the person scared me. “I heard a person walking on my porch and I was scared”. The law says a “reasonable belief” and reasonable will be judged by a jury. I don’t think that almost anyone would feel that a person turning around in your driveway or hearing a knock on your door gives a reasonable belief that you are about to be killed and need to resort to the use of or threat of deadly force. I suspect that if you changed the original story to a neighbor and not the police, people would have a different opinion.

Are you sure? After all it was 10 o’clock at night! Surely that gives people the authority to come out pointing guns or shooting and claim to be scared. Now beyond sarcasm…. Yes it is almost exactly the same except trade a person in a car for a person out of the car. All uses of force use the term “reasonable”. “I saw a car in my driveway” would not be seen as a reasonable justification for deadly force by any reasonable person.

The castle doctrine is a general legal concept and has no bearing in law. There is no mention in Texas law on castle doctrine. There is statutory law that says exactly what is illegal and in some (rare) cases, what is legal. The idea of the castle doctrine goes back to the early 1600s with Sir Edward Coke and late described in more details by William Pitt who said that a man may have a crappy home by the king may not enter. So the concept of castle doctrine from English common law is that the government cannot enter your home without being invited or a warrant. Somehow that has been expanded into the belief that there is an actual law that says castle doctrine and it covers you everywhere you walk. Walking on a public sidewalk is not your home. Your car is not your home unless it is like a motor home. In this particular incident, the police were not inside his home. Statutory or written/enacted law is what matters.

No, a straw man is a false accusation that is easy to tear down. Facts are not a straw man. Emotions usually are. What you call stand your ground law has nothing to do with property. In fact, in this situation, the police have the same right of stand your ground. Being on your own property gives a person no authority to point guns at people, make threats, etc. Perhaps you should read the penal code.

Can a person be charged with any traffic offenses while on private property? Examples are the Walmart parking lot or the same at a mall. I am not referring to a private driveway.

Yeah, the homeowner was charged. I am not sure where there may be a misunderstanding but being on your own property gives no additional right to assault or threaten someone. There is obviously a right of self defense on your property but the situation must fit a self defense scenario. Merely being on a person’s property is not grounds for self defense. The situation you posted is almost identical to the title of this thread. The homeowner, without apparent justification, pulled a weapon when not justified. “He was on my property” is not a valid reason for pointing or using a firearm. Coincidentally it appears to have happened for someone at the wrong address. But, neither investigation is completed. I can understand releasing the suspect. When an arrest is made the DA has a limited time to accept the accusation charges from the police arrest. I think in Texas it is a usually 72 hour time limit. The police have to file enough information to the DA for the case to detain the person who has not made bail. For a felony there still has to be an indictment later. The investigation is not over, but the police did what we call, busted the deadline. Basically during an arraignment, the judge gives the DA a time limit to have enough information to make it appear that the case will go forward later. If that information is not in, the person must be released by law. The person would be released only to be arreste later on a warrant, when and if enough information is gathered.

By state law (a city might have an ordinance for example, prohibiting a U-turn in a business district) unless prohibited by a sign, a U-turn is legal in Texas except…… Where you can’t see oncoming traffic for at least 500 feet on a curve or grade. So if a person does a U-turn on an overpass or a fairly sharp curve in the road, it might be a violation. Sec. 545.102. TURNING ON CURVE OR CREST OF GRADE. An operator may not turn the vehicle to move in the opposite direction when approaching a curve or the crest of a grade if the vehicle is not visible to the operator of another vehicle approaching from either direction within 500 feet

That is half correct. There is another restriction other than a sign. As a supervisor, on a couple of occasions I got a citizen complaining because an officer did a U-turn. Uhhhh….. they aren’t illegal.

Are U-turns legal in Texas? Y N If so, where?

The “event” was a guy who was wearing a gun and said the laws don’t apply to me. He reached for the gun as officers tried to take him out of the car after talking to him for a few minutes. He apparently got the gun out because the holster he was wearing was empty and the gun was in the driver’s side floorboard.

If “terrified”, why go outside? ”Aggressor” definition: Knocking on a door.

You are talking emotions. I am talking law. I guess you are saying that if you were knocking on another guy’s door and he came out and threatened you with a gun with no justification and you used self defense? If the self-defense was lawful, which it likely would be in your scenario, whose property has no bearing. You can’t legally threaten to kill someone because they’re on your property. Deadly force is unlawful to use to terminate trespassing. If you shoot and kill a person for trespassing in Texas, you will likely go to jail for murder. Again, I can only go by Texas law. Pointing a gun at someone, even without a threat, is a crime unless there is a legal justification for self defense. Pointing a gun and making a threat is Aggravated Assault. So what justification do you think a homeowner has that when he hears someone knocking, he can step out and point a gun at the person? By the way, the police don’t get to side with anyone or file charges. The district attorney does that. The police chief should do what he did. He gave condolences to the family. I guess under your rationale, if UPS knocked on your door late night, you would be justified in threatening to kill him by pointing a gun while in a shooting stance. I would say you may need a good lawyer on retainer.

The fired first is a ridiculous premise. I guess if a robber pulls a knife on you and demands money, you can’t shoot until he tries to stab you? The police have just as much right for self defense as anyone else. Whose property it is on has no bearing. Did you ignore the video of the guy in a two handed shooting stance pointing at the officers… and for no legal reason whatsoever? What, a person knocked? Nothing in any comment that I have made has suggested that there be no apology. I clearly said that an apology has nothing to do with the law.

Certainly. For whatever reason, the homeowner chose to point a gun a someone without any justification. We will never know what he thought. Intoxicated? Kids knocking on his door at night and he wanted to scare them? Who knows but it appears that he made a poor and probably criminal decision.

This is a body cam from a different officer with the chief narrating the slow motion video in a press conference. It appears that the homeowner shoved the door open with one hand and then both hands come together in a two handed firing position and pointed it at officers. If you want to see the explanation and video it starts at about the 3 minute mark. All 3 police body cams are not shown but the chief said on one camera an officer said that he heard a gun rack and officers started backing away. The man then stepped out and brought the gun up into a firing position.

Grieving and apologies have nothing to do with the law. No matter what happened or happens in the future. takes away from the tragedy. It appears that the innocent man pointed a handgun at officers. His wife then came out and appears to have fired shots at officers. You can’t retreat by backing up faster than a bullet. I would not be shocked with criminal charges but I would also but not be shocked with no charges filed.

I can’t imagine being prosecuted for knocking on the wrong door. Remember that the officers were lawfully at the same location.

Fire someone for a typo? What if the caller gave the wrong address? What if he said “next door to” which is common? Why does it matter why the police knocked on a guy’s door? It kind of adds an interesting take when people complain about no knock warrants. With a warrant, giving legal authority to force entry, people say knock and let them know who you are. That will stop any accidents from happening. In this case the police knocked, announced that it was the police. After waiting, they knocked again. Who knows what will happen in NM under their law but I questioned the wisdom of someone knocking on my door and me opening the door with a gun in my hand. On me? Hidden but peaking out instead of simply opening the door? Maybe but not what this guy appears to have done.