Cops can't shoot a fleeing suspect unless there is an imminent danger to them or someone else, why should civilians?
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Gun laws question
- Thread starter villanelle
- Start date
- Status
Cops can't shoot a fleeing suspect unless there is an imminent danger to them or someone else, why should civilians?
Exactly. I wouldn't think that we want to encourage executions before trial. If you are defending your life, by all means have at'em. Otherwise, call the police.
The fact that this guy wasn't actually a rapist and wasn't guilty of any crime at all only underscores why allowing this is a bad idea.
Unless, of course, Texas Laws allow me to shot anyone prosthetizing on my doorstep as punishment for coming on to my property uninvited and stealing 3 minutes of my life each time I foolishly answer the door without looking to see who is there. In that case, how could you fault me?
Because most "fleeing suspects" are recidivists???
A legally armed civilian is MUCH more dangerous to a criminal (and professional criminals know it) than a sworn LEO. I know, I know ... that won't pass muster in today's kinder, gentler society .... but maybe, someday, far, far away in a perfect world.
I LOVE Texas. When I moved back down there after exiting the NAV ... some miscreant (a career criminal) had a State Trooper down on the side of the road w/ the cop's pistol out in his hand -- shot the cop several times, killing him.
A Texas good ol' boy w/ a gun rack in the back of his pickup was happening by -- saw the thing going down -- stopped @ 100 yards up the road -- dismounted w/ his rifle and drilled the miscreant through the head.
Game over. Result: no more recidivism in this case.
The cops and the local DA told him: "Don't do that again ... you are free to go ... "
True story. @ 1978 or so .... DFW area.
You say it doesn't "sit well" w/ you???
Yet just a little prior you posted:
Make up your mind -- you can't have it both ways. People who are confused and double-minded are part of the problem. Let us hope you get it "straight" someday. Let us hope you and your loved ones are never faced w/ a situation like this ... while you're confused.villanelle said:
Cause they're in TEXAS BABY!!!
THREADJACK:
I have a student who is moving to Texas after the school year is over. He isn't excited about it and was making fun of Texans. In my most paternally concerned voice I let him know that this was a bad policy. If there is one things that Texans love, it's Texas; that is somthing I always liked when I lived there. He is probably 120 soaking wet and the idea of him getting his ass whipped by some big boys from Houston doesn't sit well with me. I dunno, maybe a smart-ass freshman would be well served by a good old fashion ass-whippin. If he is wise he will heed my words, if not, he may become wise the hard way. Worse things could happen than becoming wise the hard way.
END THREADJACK
And, because if someone steals carnal knowledge from my wife they have earned a meeting with The Almighty Old Testament style. And, because we have a precedent here establishing Old Testament justice for the rapist. The fact that she lied is totally irrelevent to the question. Dude should have considered the fact that a women who would screw around on her husband may not stand up for the guy she is doinking for kicks.
It's like I tell my son about fighting; we are strong to defend those who cannot defend themselves. If we do not fulfill that duty, then we don't deserve the strength we are given.
It seems that you are the one who is confused. In the first post you quoted, I said that the shooter thought the man had raped his wife. In the scond post, I said that it doesn't sit well with me that Texas law allows you to shot someone who is not a direct threat to you at that moment (even if you are under the impression, correct or otherwise, that they are a rapist). Even if he had been a rapist, this guy was running away and not threatening the husband or the wife. Please explain to me where the contradiction that you seem to be accusing me of is? I can understand if you disagree and I would be shocked if you didn't but the 2 statements are in no way contraditory or indicative of any confusion on my part.
I will agree with your statement that you hope I am never faced with this kind of situation, and I hope the same for you and your family. I also hope neither of us ever have unarmed loved ones who get shot in the back because someone mistakenly think they are criminals.
How do you know?
That is why he is a 'suspect' anyways, nothing proven at all. Shooting someone in the back when they are running away, sounds cowardly to me.
Well, here's the dealio:
Your hopes and dreams are a little too late for me -- I've already "faced" what you fear for all of us ...
I'm not "accusing you" of anything. I'm mere saying that you don't know jack shit about lethal force laws nor the deadly use of firearms. I could care less "what sits well" (or doesn't) w/ you -- nor does anyone else, save your little social circle of family and friends.
At least you are trying to learn -- I guess and one would hope -- otherwise ... why are you even on this forum ?? .... and I give you points for that...
I read the FBI stats & stuff, Flash. I've been doin' this and instructing it for a couple of decades. Do your homework. Use your liberal head for something other than a hat rack.
I am having a hard time taking seriously someone who is married to TWO pilots!! The Navy is a small place and they might know each other. I can't believe that the 60B and 60R communities are that distant.
Seriously though, can't you see that a rapist should not be allowed to flee back into society? Is it because they "might" be innocent? That does not sit well with me. If my wife was violated and I found out someone had the drop on him previously but chose not to act I would be sorely tempted to relieve him of his ability to act as a man because he obviously doesn't deserve the power.
Steve
Doesn't matter how it sits with you, that is the law almost everywhere in this country. Shoot a fleeing man in the back somewhere else than Texas, you might have the opportunity to think it over in jail for a few years. Deservedly so.
Gosh, A4s, are we butting heads again? The more things change....
And I realize you don't care what sits well with me. Mutual, I assure you. But you repeatedly said I was confused, so I am asking what it is about those 2 statements that you quoted as evidence that suggests any confusion. If you are going to call me out, at least do me the courtesy of explaining.
I did come here seeking out reliable sources of information on this because I realized I had no idea how varied states are on their laws WRT lethal force. I got that infomation and learned a great deal, so that to those of you (including you, A4s) who pointed me in the right direction.
You need to read some case studies -- non Texan -- instead of just talking ... you're just plain ol' wrong.
I'm NOT saying what I'd do -- I KNOW the law -- I'm just sayin' what is ... and probably what will be ...
I am having a hard time taking seriously someone who is married to TWO pilots!! The Navy is a small place and they might know each other. I can't believe that the 60B and 60R communities are that distant.
"Pilot", as in the sigular form of "pilots." I assure you that if I were to have a second spouse, I would get myself a wife. Someone needs to do some decent cooking around here!
Horsehocky! If you can name the person who made that statement I will be impressed
Texas is enlightened in this case. The lawful citizen deserves the benefit of the doubt in this case, not the criminal. How much better would society be if every citizen was armed and used those arms to protect society.
Steve
- Status