• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Police officer resigns, another is fired after Ferguson incidents[W:76]

Yes, the law in TX allows you to use lethal force to protect property. I have told you that from the beginning.

And it is your opinion that human life is more important than a stereo, even that of a thief.

I didnt say I disagreed with it....I didnt give my opinion...I explained the law.

I seriously doubt that the law in Texas allows you to shoot a fleeing thief, but maybe you're right.
 
Really? So, the military could go into Ferguson and kill the people damaging property, and it would all be perfectly legal?

I don't think so.
The military, specifically, can kill you if you're trying to damage the property that unit is assigned to protect, yes. The military has to use an escalation of force, but if a riot kept pushing it, killing people is an option.

A private person cannot be expected to use the same escalation of force mostly because a private person cannot even buy things like tear gas at all. For home defense I would love to have a paint-ball gun loaded with pepper-ball, but only law-enforcement agencies can get that. I can't.
 
The military, specifically, can kill you if you're trying to damage the property that unit is assigned to protect, yes. The military has to use an escalation of force, but if a riot kept pushing it, killing people is an option.

A private person cannot be expected to use the same escalation of force mostly because a private person cannot even buy things like tear gas at all. For home defense I would love to have a paint-ball gun loaded with pepper-ball, but only law-enforcement agencies can get that. I can't.

They can kill you even if you pose no threat to them, but only to property?

No, I really don't think they can, at least not in time of peace. Perhaps in wartime.
 
They can kill you even if you pose no threat to them, but only to property?
Lethal force cannot be the first option. Military cannot shoot first and ask later. The military is required to use the least amount of force necessary to prevent loss or damage to a "critical asset", but if a riot were to push the situation to the point where only lethal force can prevent certain imminent damage or loss of a "critical asset", then yes the military can fire on you even if you pose no threat to a military person, only property.

No, I really don't think they can, at least not in time of peace. Perhaps in wartime.
Posse Comitatus does not apply to the National Guard. It never did.
 
Really? So, the military could go into Ferguson and kill the people damaging property, and it would all be perfectly legal?
No, and that's not what I said, either.

You never specified what kind of property, who it belongs to, or what previous non-lethal force steps had been taken by the military leading up to the use of lethal force.

A National Guard unit using lethal force is like a nation using Nukes. It's the absolute last resort, but never off the table.
 
I seriously doubt that the law in Texas allows you to shoot a fleeing thief, but maybe you're right.

Yes, you can. And here's the law:

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/9.42.00.html
 
Yes, you can. And here's the law:

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Texas Penal Code - Section 9.42. Deadly Force To Protect Property - Texas Attorney Resources - Texas Laws

I think there is a serious problem with this law, especially after the ruling in Tennessee v Gardner. It basically allows a civilian to shoot a fleeing suspect but not a police officer, which is seriously messed up given that people are much more likely to not have less-than-lethal means of stopping someone than police are. All someone would have to do to legally kill someone is shoot them in the back and put something of theirs in their hand. "He stole my stuff and tried to run away, so I shot him."
 
I think there is a serious problem with this law, especially after the ruling in Tennessee v Gardner. It basically allows a civilian to shoot a fleeing suspect but not a police officer, which is seriously messed up given that people are much more likely to not have less-than-lethal means of stopping someone than police are. All someone would have to do to legally kill someone is shoot them in the back and put something of theirs in their hand. "He stole my stuff and tried to run away, so I shot him."
You think it's that easy to get away with murder, aye?

A better way is to taze them, cuff them, bury them alive, and deny having ever seen them at all, or that yeah they were there and you exchanged words and they left.

lots of people go missing all the time.
 
I think there is a serious problem with this law, especially after the ruling in Tennessee v Gardner. It basically allows a civilian to shoot a fleeing suspect but not a police officer, which is seriously messed up given that people are much more likely to not have less-than-lethal means of stopping someone than police are. All someone would have to do to legally kill someone is shoot them in the back and put something of theirs in their hand. "He stole my stuff and tried to run away, so I shot him."

Police, at least in many jurisdictions, can shoot fleeing suspects. I've posted the link a couple of times but there are so many of these threads.

And since I havent heard of any cases like you described, hopefully it is/would be a rarity. People can do that with a lot of laws, but generally dont. Forensics are pretty good these days....it would require perfect staging.
 
Yes, you can. And here's the law:

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Texas Penal Code - Section 9.42. Deadly Force To Protect Property - Texas Attorney Resources - Texas Laws
I just don't get why Texas banned open carry with a law like this. You can kill someone trying to carjack you but their death has to be a surprise, you aren't allowed to give them the visual deterrence before hand so maybe they won't do it at all.
 
Police, at least in many jurisdictions, can shoot fleeing suspects. I've posted the link a couple of times but there are so many of these threads.

And since I havent heard of any cases like you described, hopefully it is/would be a rarity. People can do that with a lot of laws, but generally dont. Forensics are pretty good these days....it would require perfect staging.

Police will be scrutinized and have to justify that the fleeing suspect was a threat to the public. They simply cannot shoot a suspect for running away if they cannot verbally articulate why the suspect was a potential threat. This is why Wilson is on shaky ground when it comes to shooting at Brown while he was running away from him (even if none of them hit and assuming he did), because the SCOTUS has already ruled that police are not allowed to shoot a suspect for simply stealing property in Tennessee v Gardner. The police cannot simply say "that guy stole this guy's stuff, so I shot him because I couldn't foresee any other way to retrieve the property", but a regular citizen can say "he stole my stuff so I shot him as he ran away" and be justified.

Texas justifiable homicides rise with 'Castle Doctrine' - Houston Chronicle

This type of law does lead to the cases we see that someone simply sees someone on their property, even if it is for an innocent purpose, and they end up killing that person. I just wish there was a middle ground. This allows a person to literally run after someone who has stolen from them and shoot at them so long as the person is within range. I would hope that if they ended up shooting someone else, that they would get charged, but it does increase the possibility of them shooting an innocent bystander in their mad rush to protect their property.

Luckily, these incidents, although increasing, are still rare in themselves.
 
Yes, you can. And here's the law:

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Texas Penal Code - Section 9.42. Deadly Force To Protect Property - Texas Attorney Resources - Texas Laws

I must say, I'm surprised that there would be laws like that in the USA. Valuing property over human life is more of a part of the culture of certain other nations.

Maybe Texas is different.
 
Police will be scrutinized and have to justify that the fleeing suspect was a threat to the public. They simply cannot shoot a suspect for running away if they cannot verbally articulate why the suspect was a potential threat. This is why Wilson is on shaky ground when it comes to shooting at Brown while he was running away from him (even if none of them hit and assuming he did), because the SCOTUS has already ruled that police are not allowed to shoot a suspect for simply stealing property in Tennessee v Gardner. The police cannot simply say "that guy stole this guy's stuff, so I shot him because I couldn't foresee any other way to retrieve the property", but a regular citizen can say "he stole my stuff so I shot him as he ran away" and be justified.

Texas justifiable homicides rise with 'Castle Doctrine' - Houston Chronicle

This type of law does lead to the cases we see that someone simply sees someone on their property, even if it is for an innocent purpose, and they end up killing that person. I just wish there was a middle ground. This allows a person to literally run after someone who has stolen from them and shoot at them so long as the person is within range. I would hope that if they ended up shooting someone else, that they would get charged, but it does increase the possibility of them shooting an innocent bystander in their mad rush to protect their property.

Luckily, these incidents, although increasing, are still rare in themselves.

Now you sound like Boddisatva....ALL such incidents are closely scrutinized....for cops and for citizens. this is why anyone, esp. the citizen would be foolish to use their firearm unless they absolutely have no choice. Which is pretty much the law(s) surrounding the use of lethal force.

(The legal costs (for citizens) can lose you your house even if you were found innocent.)

It ALL has to be justified and it all will be scrutinized. Every shoot. Every shot fired.
 
Re: Police officer resigns, another is fired after Ferguson incidents

If you've seen some outpouring of respect or concern for or even just an attempt at understanding the people behind the badge, you've been hanging out where I haven't. Maybe it's the uniform that leads people to believe cops are no longer to be regarded as human and should be discarded with no more concern than one would have over a defective dishwasher.

Or maybe its that they in fact lack humanity.. The training process teaches them to remove emotion and follow protocol. Perhaps the outbursts of rage, is just the human condition breaking through the artificial training.
 
Re: Police officer resigns, another is fired after Ferguson incidents

Soon, there will be no police officers in these neighborhoods. No one will apply.

That'll help, I'm sure.
 
Re: Police officer resigns, another is fired after Ferguson incidents

Soon, there will be no police officers in these neighborhoods. No one will apply.

That'll help, I'm sure.
If that actually happened, it might be interesting (from an intellectual perspective, not an emotional one) to see what developed.
 
Re: Police officer resigns, another is fired after Ferguson incidents

Yep, any displays of humanity while wearing a badge makes you a worthless waste of oxygen. Maybe if we're lucky, they'll do the honorable thing, right? When was the last time someone expressed sadness over a cop losing his/her life or acknowledging a job well done? Actually, getting away from law enforcement is probably the best thing to happen to them. I swear they should all just walk off the job since almost nobody gives a **** about what happens to them anyway.

I recognize and applaud the good things that they do whenever I see, read or hear it. My father was a CO for over 2/3 of my life, I have a deep respect for the police. Nevertheless, that does not stop me from criticizing them when criticism is needed. It's called integrity.
 
Back
Top Bottom