tvc184

NEWSFLASH: All charges against Alec Baldwin dropped. One of the rare occasions where Big girl agreed with me. The DA could have saved a lot of money and time had they just consulted me first….

Yes. You can watch about a 10 minute YouTube video of multiple NASA(and formerly NACA) test rockets exploding on the pad or soon after liftoff. Certainly they wanted a completely successful flight but flying true for several minutes probably more than accomplished their testing goals.

As a point from some of the silly sarcastic comments, it is plausible that the guy had no clue it was the police. That is criminally irrelevant in self defense. The question that will be asked is if the officers reasonably thought they were facing possible serious injury or death. If a guy squares off at a person in a two handed shooting stance (shown on video) from 10-15 feet away, is it reasonable to be in fear of serious injury or death? A person in another sports forum that I participate in asked, did the guy just crack the door to peak out and the police shot him. I am assuming that he was implying that the police acted to hastily and shot at an opening door. I posted a photo I screenshot from the released video of the man with a completely opened door and the gun raised. I never saw a response. I assume that wasn’t the answer some people were hoping for.

The only thing more to the story is why the guy chose his actions. We will probably never know. Everything else except what was going through his mind is on camera.

Your continued ask him supposition is nonsense. The guy caused his own demise so he can’t be asked. Bringing it up multiple times doesn’t change his actions.

If you think they were screaming and beating then you either didn’t watch the videos or are easily scared by knocking. Your straw man (a true straw man) of “armed to the teeth” is nonsense. He could not have known that whoever was knocking was armed. How can he claim a defense of your family of someone armed to the teeth when he didn’t know who or what is on the other side of the door? If a person was in fear, why would any rational person open the door completely and step into that doorway? I guess anything is possible but the law says “reasonable” and a jury, if such a case sent to court, would determine what is reasonable. Even the Supreme Court addressing what is reasonable in Graham v. Connor, where the police broke the foot of a completely innocent man who was having a medical crisis, unanimously ruled that the police didn’t violate Graham’s rights. Graham was acting irrationally due to insulin shock but the police didn’t know that and only acted on what they witnessed, even though try were completely wrong. Again, a unanimous Supreme Court said that the police must make “split second” decisions and looking back at it at a more calm time in hindsight is not valid.

Yes, the man’s actions were irrational, unprovoked and probably a crime although that is irrelevant at this point. Looking at the last few days and a few incidents of innocent people being gunned down by homeowners, you might be correct.

In response to his unprovoked pointing a gun at them from 15 feet away.

There are plenty of police Computer Aided Dispatch/CAD programs. They have to match security including FBI protocols including each individual vehicle computer and tablet. If you have friends who will to donate $500,00 - $1,000,000 for programming, secure operating system which has to link with a secure body cam system, I’m sure a city would appreciate it. It isn’t like building a database and putting it on a dell computer and plugging it into a vehicle. Finding an address isn’t hard but mostly it’s done the old fashioned way, by driving to a block and start looking at addresses… in many cases while trying to be safe and maybe unseen. The officers in this case appeared to have parked at the correct location but went to the wrong side of the street. I think the address was 5308 and an officer saw 5305 which in the dark probably looked the same. What if the guy’s daughter had called the police and the man did not know about it? The police could’ve then been at the correct house and likely had the exact same result. Why would a step out of his house and start pointing a gun without a valid reason? And no matter how someone tries to spin it, there was no valid reason for the man to do what he did.

I should have been a TV cop. DNA results don’t take 6 months… Your computer tells you if you are at the wrong house… Witnesses usually cooperate…

I said access to it. Police calls aren’t dispatched on iPhones. I showed you what a typical call looks like on the computer screen. It doesn’t use a map and there is not a voice saying you’re arriving in two more houses on the right. If you can look at this and show us where the location is, please educate us. 3581-23 331 1201 7St 1757 Dist I have a couple of drones that will land within a couple of inches from where they took off and will do it on its own if the battery gets low or I lose contact with it. A lot of good that does in a patrol unit……

The only hard part about technology is getting a city/county to decide what there priorities are and where they want to spend the money. It usually isn’t the police until something big happens and public pressure gets it done. Body cameras existed years before they were mandated in most states. If not, most police agencies still probably would not have them. All of the technology in the world won’t help if you can’t access it.

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.