Same request.
Lol I walked myself into that.
No, I won't explain. I'm leaving it at that.
Jack Booted Thug or justified?
- Thread starter peeps
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Lol I walked myself into that.
No, I won't explain. I'm leaving it at that.
I imagine the speed of the motorcycle when the shots were fired was taken into consideration. If you watch the video they are coming to a stop for the left hand turn. That's when the Trooper fired. The danger is the rider falling of the bike at speed with no protection. It's possible the Trooper used the opportunity of the slow/no speed manuever of the left hand turn to try to disable the bike via flat tire (or even lucky engine/transmission shots) before he could get up to speeds again.
Blind Sniper
Well-Known
True, but that's not what I asked. Regardless of why, my question was whether or not he went against official policy. From what I've read, he did.
Yup.
eta.. eeerr wait.
Need to double check that, shooting at motorcycles. I recall motorcycles fitting the definition of a vehicle in the context of the felony fleeing statute. In such case, the motorcycle(now a vehicle for the purposes) can be shot at. (this also applies to watercraft)
But like I said, that needs doublechecking.
Last edited:
Saltyag2010
TGT Addict
I agree. I'm not marching for shit tho. I don't feel like taking any stands here.
Saltyag2010
TGT Addict
Both.
If there's a fight with 2 participants, both participants are fighting and both are guilty.
Who started it was the cyclist. The cyclist was the criminal.
The policeman made a few bad decisions- 1 bad decision for each shot fired, and maybe one for the kick. That being said the LEO shouldn't be punished to the same measure as the runaway criminal. If the LEO damaged property from another third party (didn't happen or wasn't listed) then he should be disciplined for those damages also. No one was harmed except for the criminal.
No one should get the benefit of the doubt. They're both wrong. The officer wasn't as wrong as the criminal, but he should be held responsible for each stray shot fired to the property owners in that area.
Mike1234567 said:
That's completely untrue. There are houses well within handgun range in every direction.
Most of us here are supporters of laws and law enforcement. I definitely am, but .................. officers are human and they can make mistakes in judgement, etc., just like the rest of us. In this situation, I think the officer over-reacted and didn't use good judgement whether from excitement, adrenalin, inexperience, etc. Yes the biker was breaking several laws and he needed to be stopped, but shooting at him or his motorcycle was very poor judgement. Bullets can go a long way depending on their trajectory, velocity, etc. Does he (the officer) need to be fined, jailed, fired, etc., I don't think so. He's probably already been talked to by his superiors. Situations like this need to be learning experiences. I hope the officer has found some alternate ways to handle this similar situations in the future and hope the guy on the motorcycle has also (especially when he gets out of jail, etc.) These are just my opinions, the are not codified in law, overseen by city councils, etc., etc.
zincwarrior
TGT Addict
AS noted, there's an officer on murder charges who acted similarly.
zincwarrior
TGT Addict
Agreed, although I disagree strongly with shooting at a moving motorcycle, absent that suspect meeting the same requirements as being able to shoot at him on foot. Its effectively the same thing.
Saltyag2010
TGT Addict
I agree with you. The suspect wasn't killed, but the officer should be disciplined for taking those shots.
Link?
Point well taken.
I am passingly familiar with the area, having a subcontractor who has a shop further down S Post Oak. I'm pretty sure those are not "warehouses" as stated, and are not necessarily unpopulated at any hour.
IIRC, they are shops, and storefronts for small businesses that need shop space, and like many small businesses they are liable to be populated at all hours by owners and workers burning the midnight oil.
Might not be a "residential area" but an assumption that you could safely discharge a firearm in that direction would arguably not be a wise one.
Is the area completely absent of houses in a 360* radius? No.
The Trooper didn't discharge in every direction, he discharged to the east while at the intersection of S Post Oak and Brookston. I've yet to hear information regarding the damages, if you've heard something different I'm all ears.
You didn't look at google maps and if you did you didn't zoom out.
Semantics.
The officer used excessive force.
Running a stop sign is not a capital offense.
The cyclist's prior record is not at issue here.
The punishment should fit the crime.
Shot in the leg and kicked to the curb is for domestic violence offenders.
The officer used excessive force.
Running a stop sign is not a capital offense.
The cyclist's prior record is not at issue here.
The punishment should fit the crime.
Shot in the leg and kicked to the curb is for domestic violence offenders.
He didn't get shot because he ran a red light. He got shot because he led the Police on a 130 mph chase while disregarding traffic laws. If not stopped he would eventually cause a collision with a good chance of seriously injuring or killing an innocent party.
Again, they had the guy's license number and could have arrested him at his home. There was no need to continue a dangerous high-speed pursuit. The trooper was just as stupid as the cyclist if not more so.
