I gotta say if you aren't a mean drunk you would be fun to talk to at happy hour about this. The judicial system shows deference to police? What state do you practice defense law in??
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.
OH HELL YES MR. SHARKEY!! Well stated Sir!!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
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.And a question to all the LEO types out there. Since when has it become SOP to shoot at a bad guy through the windshield? This video is the fourth or fifth one where I've seen a cop do that.
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.
More the exact opposite for LE here in Harris County.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.
More the exact opposite for LE here in Harris County.
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.
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.
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.
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.
ROFL. Naive? Ok. Honestly your bloviating has me believing you're trolling, rather than actually believing the nonsense you're dumping all over this thread. Makes for some fun reading though, so there's that.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.