Las Vegas chase and shootout
- Thread starter oldag
- 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:
Just FYI, John at ASP added the video and breaks it down pretty well. Apologies if this was the original video posted (I never clicked it). Pitting popularity started after I left. Our agency still doesn't do it but I don't think you can pit on a residential street.
His driving could have been better but then again, he was chasing murderers and they were shooting at him. We can what if a lot of risks but most of those folks have not been what that officer went thru. 9 years in patrol and I never saw anything like that. I still say kudos to him. Sometimes the will to succeed makes up for some actions.
Sent from my SM-T380 using Tapatalk
His driving could have been better but then again, he was chasing murderers and they were shooting at him. We can what if a lot of risks but most of those folks have not been what that officer went thru. 9 years in patrol and I never saw anything like that. I still say kudos to him. Sometimes the will to succeed makes up for some actions.
Sent from my SM-T380 using Tapatalk
Defense law has nothing to do with this, police are not constrained by laws regarding self-defense. They operate under a different standard of "objective reasonable standard". The standard of "reasonableness" is one to be determined by the cops themselves and can be based on feelings and hunches, whereas civilians have to prove their actions with hard evidence, plus with hindsight taken into account.
Then there is qualified immunity, where police can claim ignorance of the law in all but the most egregious cases of malfeasance. No civilian will be afforded that kind of leeway.
So are you a defense lawyer in TX or just an internet/street lawyer? You know enuff to be dangerous. So police are not constrained by Chap 9 of the penal code? If no, what standards do police use for their ROE?
So is it - what would a "reasonable person" do given the same set of circumstances or is it - "what would a reasonable cop do?
I never saw qualified immunity being used in my 20years and we sure didn't use it in my trial. You did leave out that police can be sued civilly in both state and federal court and can be charged criminally in both courts which of course civilians do not face. Lawyers mainly go after agencies for the deeper pockets anyway and then trainers mist be aware of vicarious liability.
You make it seem like officers are somehow treated with kid gloves. Maybe that WAS the case but it sure isn't now and because of that, you see a lot of LEO openings (that and applicants can not clear a BGI). DPD is a prime example.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
OH HELL YES MR. SHARKEY!! Well stated Sir!!
I have had the opportunity to do some training with this. It was about 14 years ago, so it has been taught for at least that long.
Anyone else notice the officers thumb behind the slide?
I stayed at a Holiday Inn a few times.
Why would you bring up codes related to self-defense when the topic at hand is police use of force during law enforcement? Those codes don't apply to police actions while on duty and you know it.
For police, the legal standard would be the latter. A civilian jury is told what is considered reasonable for a cop: leave your brains at the courtroom door.
Yes, that's because government employees have the additional responsibility of not depriving people of their civil rights. Terrible, right? Note the source of funds in said deeper pockets is from taxpayers, not the cops themselves, and the punishment for deprivation of civil rights pales in comparison to the years in prison that a regular civilian would face for a manslaughter or murder charge. How is that not a double standard?
Really? Did SCOTUS not gut the provocation rule in Los Angeles County v. Mendez? Can you name a single Supreme Court ruling in recent history where rules regarding police use of force was curtailed instead of expanded? 14 states have passed police bills of rights codifying yet more legal privileges.
Besides, underneath the kid glove is a helping hand. In this country, the DA and the police operate in a symbiotic relationship. That is a clear conflict of interest.
The police in Travis don't feed the prosecutorial machine? The DA does not take money from the police union? Come on now, don't be naive.
In Texas, Chapter 9 of the Texas Penal Code most certainly applies to use of force incidents in law enforcement work. In addition to the law, officers must also maneuver within departmental policies regarding use of force. Those policies don't have the force of law; however, they can be used against the officer for disciplinary action or even dismissal from employment. But the fact remains that Chapter 9 is in full-effect for officers using use of deadly force and/or threat of use of deadly force while on the job.I stayed at a Holiday Inn a few times.
Why would you bring up codes related to self-defense when the topic at hand is police use of force during law enforcement? Those codes don't apply to police actions while on duty and you know it.
For police, the legal standard would be the latter. A civilian jury is told what is considered reasonable for a cop: leave your brains at the courtroom door.
Yes, that's because government employees have the additional responsibility of not depriving people of their civil rights. Terrible, right? Note the source of funds in said deeper pockets is from taxpayers, not the cops themselves, and the punishment for deprivation of civil rights pales in comparison to the years in prison that a regular civilian would face for a manslaughter or murder charge. How is that not a double standard?
Really? Did SCOTUS not gut the provocation rule in Los Angeles County v. Mendez? Can you name a single Supreme Court ruling in recent history where rules regarding police use of force was curtailed instead of expanded? 14 states have passed police bills of rights codifying yet more legal privileges.
Besides, underneath the kid glove is a helping hand. In this country, the DA and the police operate in a symbiotic relationship. That is a clear conflict of interest.
You forgot to mention there is an entire section dedicated to police and the more lenient standards they operate under.
Ah, cops might be fired if they unjustly kill someone. If only the same devastating consequence is the only punishment faced by civilians for doing the same.
Respectfully, the poster /above\ is full of doodoo.
You’re not from around here, are you?
OK man from Cornell, I will play along. What section in the PC or CCP are you referring to with the lenient standards?
Uh, you have seen the uptick of Leo's charged for homicide right? Hell, it happened to one of our guys back in 98 and YES, race definitely played a factor. Guess who charged him? Yep, the DA we are supposedly in bed with. You also really Can't compare a LEO effecting an arrest to a civilian SD shooting even though BOTH MOST certainly fall within Chap. 9 OF the PC. You might wanna get a refund back from Cornell Law School.
Sent from my SM-T380 using Tapatalk
