A convincing rebuttal is for the accused to declare that he did find them a threat. He noticed that they were armed. That by itself is sufficient basis upon which to feel threatened. Police also feel threatened when they have to deal with armed people. One officer protects himself and his partner while the partner disarms a suspect, even if all they wish to do is talk to the suspect. Police will often shoot a suspect who is armed, but not an immediate threat to the officers, if the suspect doesn't comply with the police officer's orders to drop their weapon.
If you are armed and trespassing on someone's property it is quite reasonable for the property owner to assume that you are a threat. What the police are "arguing" is that the suspect was not an immediate threat. That's irrelevant. Non-immediate threats have a nasty way of becoming immediate threats very quickly. Police don't let suspects that they've stopped on the street keep their weapons on their body as they deal with police. The suspect doesn't need to be brandishing a weapon and threatening police, all the suspect needs to do is be in possession of a weapon and the police consider him a threat.
This report from the police is basically speculation on the state of mind of the accused and it tries to second guess on how the threat assessment should have been decided by using standards of risk assessment that police don't even use themselves when dealing with suspects.
TX law allows for the use of deadly force in the defense of property - both your own and that of someone else.
The killing was legal; the fact that the people defending said property were penalized is beyond pathetic.
Last edited by PzKfW IVe; 08-29-11 at 02:57 PM.
You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo
Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
If a paranoid schizophrenic believes that you are a CIA assassin who is about to garrot him on the street, his subjective belief does not give him the legal right to stick a knife in your heart.