Bad-Cop shoots at truck tires, kills illegals

This is a discussion on Bad-Cop shoots at truck tires, kills illegals within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; I say that it is unfortunate that that anyone was killed and feel that no one deserves to die because they want to pursue a ...

Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 4567891011 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 160
Like Tree189Likes

Thread: Bad-Cop shoots at truck tires, kills illegals

  1. #106
    VIP Member Array mprp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,909
    I say that it is unfortunate that that anyone was killed and feel that no one deserves to die because they want to pursue a better life for themselves. I also say that their deaths shouldn't be in vane and the word should be spread. Something about stupid things with stupid people. Bad things can happen even by making good decisions in life. But much less likely to die coming across the border legally.
    Vietnam Vets, WELCOME HOME

    Crossman 760 BB/Pellet, Daisy Red Ryder, Crossman Wrist Rocket, 14 Steak Knives, 3 Fillet Knives, Rolling Pin-14", Various Hunting Knives, 2 Baseball Bats, 3 Big Dogs and a big American Flag flying in the yard. I have no firearms; Try the next house.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #107
    Member Array Miamieddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Miami,Fl.
    Posts
    225
    Theres a couple of guys here that are so against the military taking action here, it went over my head im missing something here, would it had made a differance if the law enforcement would have stopped the alien by shooting out the tires ?? And senario ended in the same fashion? ....or it costs us tax payer money when utalizing the military for protection??. Just curious !!! What differance does it make, the important thing is the alien was stopped, one less threat to our citizens (us) !!!

  4. #108
    Member Array Miamieddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Miami,Fl.
    Posts
    225
    We need to give credit where credit is do, and its do here.

  5. #109
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,837
    Quote Originally Posted by Miamieddie View Post
    Theres a couple of guys here that are so against the military taking action here, it went over my head im missing something here, would it had made a differance if the law enforcement would have stopped the alien by shooting out the tires ?? And senario ended in the same fashion? ....or it costs us tax payer money when utalizing the military for protection??. Just curious !!! What differance does it make, the important thing is the alien was stopped, one less threat to our citizens (us) !!!
    It was a LEO that shot out from the helo...not someone in the military.
    atctimmy likes this.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  6. #110
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,642
    Quote Originally Posted by Miamieddie View Post
    Theres a couple of guys here that are so against the military taking action here, it went over my head im missing something here, would it had made a differance if the law enforcement would have stopped the alien by shooting out the tires ?? And senario ended in the same fashion? ....or it costs us tax payer money when utalizing the military for protection??. Just curious !!! What differance does it make, the important thing is the alien was stopped, one less threat to our citizens (us) !!!
    What in the world are you talking about? There was no military involved here. This was an ordinary
    law enforcement effort which ended with two people dead. There was no intention for them to be
    dead, because their existence was unknown to the police. And even had they been known, there is no law
    that would have justified them being shot.

    The driver of the vehicle might have deserved to be shot, we don't know. Too little information.
    Please look at the US Supreme Court ruling I mentioned in an earlier post. It is their opinion
    that counts on when lethal force may be used to effect a "seizure," and they defined an arrest
    as a "seizure."
    suntzu and atctimmy like this.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  7. #111
    Member Array Miamieddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Miami,Fl.
    Posts
    225
    I missed understood noway2 on section 7 my bad.

  8. #112
    Distinguished Member Array Arborigine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Calaveras County, California
    Posts
    1,665
    Quote Originally Posted by CaveJohnson View Post
    "Didn't want to get shot? Shouldn't have ran!" type of mentality is sickening to me really.
    Normally yes, but running across an international border can get you killed in most of the world. Ours should be secured with severe penalties and risk to those crossing illegally. The problem will not stop until illegal entry is stopped, and whiffle-bats and frowny-faces ain't gonna cut it.
    atctimmy likes this.
    I don't always have nothing to say, but when I do, I post it on Facebook.

  9. #113
    Distinguished Member
    Array oldnfat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,421
    Yeah,Oldvet, but the indians lost the war.

  10. #114
    Senior Member Array SFury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    757
    This is so far from a scenario of a rogue LEO making a bad choice.

    This situation dealt with an actual crime taking place in a region where the crime is so bad they had helicopter support on hand...

    Giving leeway to LEOs?!?! What leeway? I'm all about letting them do their job when the situation is so blatantly obvious that a crime is being committed. There was no wrongdoing. Just an assumption made based on PRIOR CRIMINAL ACTS. Sometimes when something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck it is not actually duck on the rare occasion.

    When do we let people do their jobs? Are you people saying the wrong decision was made implying that running from an officer is the best course of action?

    I'm seriously missing something in the thought process here. I don't even see how a lesson could be learned. Outside of, "Don't commit the crime if you can't do the time."
    atctimmy likes this.

  11. #115
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,957
    Hopyard,
    Garner is apples and grape juice. IIRC Garner was on foot and shot in the back by a pursuing officer.

    In this case we have an attempt to disable a vehicle by gun fire. At no time that I am aware of has anyone claimed the shooter intended to hit a person. So the legal question is under what legal concept can the government use potentially dangerous means to disable a vehicle.

    Judging the decision based on the unintended consequences would lead to such things as asking under what law can the FBI torch a church full of kids? Unless that is the person asking actually believes that was their true intention at Waco.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  12. #116
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,837
    Quote Originally Posted by SFury View Post
    This is so far from a scenario of a rogue LEO making a bad choice.

    This situation dealt with an actual crime taking place in a region where the crime is so bad they had helicopter support on hand...

    Giving leeway to LEOs?!?! What leeway? I'm all about letting them do their job when the situation is so blatantly obvious that a crime is being committed. There was no wrongdoing. Just an assumption made based on PRIOR CRIMINAL ACTS. Sometimes when something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck it is not actually duck on the rare occasion.

    When do we let people do their jobs? Are you people saying the wrong decision was made implying that running from an officer is the best course of action?

    I'm seriously missing something in the thought process here. I don't even see how a lesson could be learned. Outside of, "Don't commit the crime if you can't do the time."
    Let me just ask you (anybody) 2 questions:

    1. If they thought the truck was carrying illegal immigrants do you think they would have given the order to shoot out the tires? (Factor in LE is not stupid and they darn well know that by shooting at a vehicle from a helo can cause death)

    2. If you said know to 1, do you think that they should shoot at any truck fleeing police with illegal immigrants in it.

    Notice I did not say "drugs". Let's go with the situation and what was really in the vehicle. Just curious how many folks say it is hunky dory to shoot at a vehicle with illegal immigrants in it.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  13. #117
    Ex Member Array CaveJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    329
    Quote Originally Posted by SFury View Post
    This is so far from a scenario of a rogue LEO making a bad choice.

    This situation dealt with an actual crime taking place in a region where the crime is so bad they had helicopter support on hand...

    Giving leeway to LEOs?!?! What leeway? I'm all about letting them do their job when the situation is so blatantly obvious that a crime is being committed. There was no wrongdoing. Just an assumption made based on PRIOR CRIMINAL ACTS. Sometimes when something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck it is not actually duck on the rare occasion.

    When do we let people do their jobs? Are you people saying the wrong decision was made implying that running from an officer is the best course of action?

    I'm seriously missing something in the thought process here. I don't even see how a lesson could be learned. Outside of, "Don't commit the crime if you can't do the time."
    The leeway I was talking about is in general, not just about this topic.

  14. #118
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,642
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    Hopyard,
    Garner is apples and grape juice. IIRC Garner was on foot and shot in the back by a pursuing officer.
    It addresses when lethal force is allowed for making a "seizure," [an arrest.] Presumably
    that is what LE was trying to do here --- seize (arrest) the driver of that vehicle; or perhaps
    merely "Terry stop" him for a chat. That makes the use of potentially lethal force even less acceptable.
    Not apples and oranges at all.

    In this case we have an attempt to disable a vehicle by gun fire.
    Or a reckless act. That is yet to be determined. There's a difference between spike strips
    and shooting from a helicopter. What if the driver's big crime turned out to be a mere
    misdemeanor? Would it have been OK if the result was that the driver got killed? Go back and
    look at the complete ruling in the case I cited because it does address this issue of proportionality
    in the use of force.

    At no time that I am aware of has anyone claimed the shooter intended to hit a person. So the legal question is under what legal concept can the government use potentially dangerous means to disable a vehicle.
    So you have reckless endangerment, criminally negligent homicide, and a few others to look at.
    Bottom line, two people are dead because of seemingly bad judgment.

    You know, I could overlook that if it turned out that they knew the driver was a wanted
    murderer that they had to stop. Bad stuff happens. But, I don't think that was what they
    were thinking they were dealing with.

    Again, I'm more than willing to wait and see what Uncle does with this. I applaud our State's
    decision, and it is fairly rare that I applaud anything Abbott does.

    Judging the decision based on the unintended consequences would lead to such things as asking under what law can the FBI torch a church full of kids? Unless that is the person asking actually believes that was their true intention at Waco.
    And, are you not one who asks that question? So you do see it my way. Or do you think
    it was just peachy that we got roast kiddos in part because Uncle militarized the confrontation?

    As the old saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right.
    Last edited by Hopyard; November 6th, 2012 at 09:25 PM. Reason: spelling correction
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  15. #119
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,957
    Well if it makes any of y'all feel any better the driver was a fleeing felon.
    Texas Statutes - Section 20.05: UNLAWFUL TRANSPORT

    (a) A person commits an offense if the person for pecuniary benefit transports an individual in a manner that:

    (1) is designed to conceal the individual from local, state, or federal law enforcement authorities; and

    (2) creates a substantial likelihood that the individual will suffer serious bodily injury or death.

    (b) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.
    and
    Texas Statutes - Section 38.04: EVADING ARREST OR DETENTION
    (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally flees from a person he knows is a peace officer attempting lawfully to arrest or detain him.

    (b) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor, except that the offense is:

    (1) a state jail felony if the actor uses a vehicle while the actor is in flight and the actor has not been previously convicted under this section;

    (2) a felony of the third degree if:

    (A) the actor uses a vehicle while the actor is in flight and the actor has been previously convicted under this section
    ; or

    (B) another suffers serious bodily injury as a direct result of an attempt by the officer from whom the actor is fleeing to apprehend the actor while the actor is in flight; or

    (3) a felony of the second degree if another suffers death as a direct result of an attempt by the officer from whom the actor is fleeing to apprehend the actor while the actor is in flight.

    (c) In this section, "vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section 541.201, Transportation Code.

    (d) A person who is subject to prosecution under both this section and another law may be prosecuted under either or both this section and the other law.
    And the driver can of course be charge for the deaths
    Texas Statutes - Section 7.02: CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCT OF ANOTHER

    (a) A person is criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct of another if:

    (1) acting with the kind of culpability required for the offense, he causes or aids an innocent or nonresponsible person to engage in conduct prohibited by the definition of the offense;

    (2) acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense; or

    (3) having a legal duty to prevent commission of the offense and acting with intent to promote or assist its commission, he fails to make a reasonable effort to prevent commission of the offense.

    (b) If, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit one felony, another felony is committed by one of the conspirators, all conspirators are guilty of the felony actually committed, though having no intent to commit it, if the offense was committed in furtherance of the unlawful purpose and was one that should have been anticipated as a result of the carrying out of the conspiracy.
    So while the Trooper suspected they were committing a drug related felony, they were actually committing a human trafficing felony instead. But they were most definitely committing felony evading.
    So forget negligent homicide, we have....
    Texas Statutes - Section 19.02: MURDER

    (a) In this section:

    (1) "Adequate cause" means cause that would commonly produce a degree of anger, rage, resentment, or terror in a person of ordinary temper, sufficient to render the mind incapable of cool reflection.

    (2) "Sudden passion" means passion directly caused by and arising out of provocation by the individual killed or another acting with the person killed which passion arises at the time of the offense and is not solely the result of former provocation.

    (b) A person commits an offense if he:

    (1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;

    (2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual; or

    (3) commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.
    (c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.

    (d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he caused the death under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree.
    And Hopyard I agree that what the feds did at Waco was reprehensible but not because the children died. Their deaths (like these) were an unintended consequence of the action. To me the question of if a pursuit was proper is answered by the initial reason for the attempted stop, time of day, location, traffic and weather conditions. Not whether it ends when the officer involved T-bones a mini van and kills a family of four. Either the action was justified or it was not.

    So our driver should be facing two murder charges, plus his felony illegal transport, his felony evading, whatever traffic offenses he committed during the pursuit and once we are done with him turn him over to the feds so they can have their turn with him.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  16. #120
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,589
    Checkmate.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 4567891011 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

bad cops

,
bad cops ky
,

border patrol shoots truck of illegals

,
caltrops on i95
,

dps helicopter defensive carry

,

dps helicopter shoots

,

dps shoots illegals

,

guatemalan illegals shot

,

helicopter shooting illegals

,
helicopter shoots border illegals in pickup truck
,
illegals running out of truck
,

tires shot from helicopter

Click on a term to search for related topics.