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; Originally Posted by ccw9mm Checkmate. I highly doubt it. The question is if the LEO should have been given the authority to fire. Everything posted ...

Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 567891011 LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 160
Like Tree189Likes

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

  1. #121
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,820
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    Checkmate.
    I highly doubt it. The question is if the LEO should have been given the authority to fire. Everything posted by mcp1810 is legal information that pertains to what we NOW know of the driver and what he was doing. At the time the LEO opened fire he was a "suspect" and they were wrong with what they thought he was doing. The guy could have been a drunk driver for all we know or driving with out a liscense.

    It is a policy question. And the last I knew LEO's are not suppose shoot first or do illegal search and siezures or any other things improper and then sort it out.

    We might disagree on the use of force...but hardly checkmate when someone qoutes laws which are applicable after the fact.

    Point is really simple:The were wrong about the cargo and they could have been wrong about other things. Just because the did catch the driver doing an illegal fact does not make it right. Just like if LEO's did a raid on my house becasue my electric bill is higher than the neighbors and I have a higher heat signature. It does not mean I am growing pot. But the indicators are there.
    Hopyard 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

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #122
    Senior Member Array CanuckQue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Maritimes Canada
    Posts
    1,124
    And if it turns out that you were performing some other misdemeanor, I don't think that would post-hoc justify accident levels of force.
    Our current plan for Universal Iron Lung coverage, just sayin'.
    Wisest. Retirement. Plan. Ever.
    Good thing the March of Dimes worked. How, why?

    Alternately, for those with a tool shed, ideas, or creative loved ones to tell..


  4. #123
    Senior Member Array SFury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    757
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    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)
    I doubt it. The question is irrelevant to the topic being discussed.

    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    2. If you said know to 1, do you think that they should shoot at any truck fleeing police with illegal immigrants in it.
    It depends on the situation. They should use the necessary means to stop the crime from occurring. If that means shooting at the vehicle, then that is what it means. There comes a point when we have to force consequences for ones actions on to people. Let them reap the rewards they sowed.

    They did choose to risk coming here illegally after all. It was their choice to risk their lives. They are the ones forcing the issue, not the LEOs doing their job.

  5. #124
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,596
    Quote Originally Posted by SFury View Post
    I doubt it. The question is irrelevant to the topic being discussed.


    It depends on the situation. They should use the necessary means to stop the crime from occurring. If that means shooting at the vehicle, then that is what it means. There comes a point when we have to force consequences for ones actions on to people. Let them reap the rewards they sowed.

    They did choose to risk coming here illegally after all. It was their choice to risk their lives. They are the ones forcing the issue, not the LEOs doing their job.
    Actually, the "they" you are speaking of "forcing the issue" are rather dead, and have little to say on
    their own behalf.

    We've had NO report of the driver's side of the story whatsoever.

    Everyone is speculating that the right thing was done or the wrong thing was done, but if the answer
    was obvious, the case would not have been referred to Federal authorities for further inquiry.
    It may well turn out that TX's DPS position will be vindicated. And then again, it may not.

    From the very limited information available in the story link of post 1 in this thread, I personally
    can not see the justification. If it turns out to have been justified, I hope that we find out
    on what grounds.

    The "kill them all" because they are supposedly illegals is an inappropriate position for a supposedly
    civil society to take. Same for the shoot first and look for an excuse after attitude many here are expressing.

    Just because it happened near the border doesn't automatically mean the driver wasn't lawfully here,
    and just a bean-head trying to evade arrest for some minor misdemeanor warrant; death penalty not appropriate.
    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

  6. #125
    Member Array Miamieddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Miami,Fl.
    Posts
    225
    Were not talking about shooting from a helicopter here in our residential streets where we live , of caorse that would be inecceptable!!, were talking about (the border line) . Where you have drugs,guns,bombs,illegals,gangs,etc... Coming thru, this situation should be and it did be handled the way it did, leos have no time to stop and think in fast moving situation like this.... There's simply no time. it came thru our border we need to react and ask qustions later no doubt!!. All illegals KNOW when they cross our border illegaly, they are signing there death warrent period.. Power to the leo's... Eddie.

  7. #126
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,949
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    I highly doubt it. The question is if the LEO should have been given the authority to fire. Everything posted by mcp1810 is legal information that pertains to what we NOW know of the driver and what he was doing. At the time the LEO opened fire he was a "suspect" and they were wrong with what they thought he was doing. The guy could have been a drunk driver for all we know or driving with out a liscense.

    It is a policy question. And the last I knew LEO's are not suppose shoot first or do illegal search and siezures or any other things improper and then sort it out.

    We might disagree on the use of force...but hardly checkmate when someone qoutes laws which are applicable after the fact.

    Point is really simple:The were wrong about the cargo and they could have been wrong about other things. Just because the did catch the driver doing an illegal fact does not make it right. Just like if LEO's did a raid on my house becasue my electric bill is higher than the neighbors and I have a higher heat signature. It does not mean I am growing pot. But the indicators are there.
    I have to disagree with your logic Suntzu. While the nature of the felony concealed in the bed of the truck was not known to the officers involved, the fact that the truck was not stopping was known to them. That in and of itself is a felony. I would say it is a pretty safe bet that most if not all LEOs in Texas are aware of that law. While the motivation of the driver could have been that he was drunk or had no license does not change anything. Being drunk or not having a CHL when you carry a gun into a bank and announce a robbery does not change the fact that the robbery itself is a felony. They are just potential additional charges to go along with the robbery charge.

    A felony was in progress and was stopped by the shots fired.
    Miamieddie likes this.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  8. #127
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,596
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    I have to disagree with your logic Suntzu. While the nature of the felony concealed in the bed of the truck was not known to the officers involved, the fact that the truck was not stopping was known to them. That in and of itself is a felony. I would say it is a pretty safe bet that most if not all LEOs in Texas are aware of that law. While the motivation of the driver could have been that he was drunk or had no license does not change anything. Being drunk or not having a CHL when you carry a gun into a bank and announce a robbery does not change the fact that the robbery itself is a felony. They are just potential additional charges to go along with the robbery charge.

    A felony was in progress and was stopped by the shots fired.
    MCP earlier posted, "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:

    Checkmate
    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

  9. #128
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,820
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    I have to disagree with your logic Suntzu. While the nature of the felony concealed in the bed of the truck was not known to the officers involved, the fact that the truck was not stopping was known to them. That in and of itself is a felony. I would say it is a pretty safe bet that most if not all LEOs in Texas are aware of that law. While the motivation of the driver could have been that he was drunk or had no license does not change anything. Being drunk or not having a CHL when you carry a gun into a bank and announce a robbery does not change the fact that the robbery itself is a felony. They are just potential additional charges to go along with the robbery charge.

    A felony was in progress and was stopped by the shots fired.
    OK, so we have cops shooting at every vehicle now that evades...BTW, thanks Hop for the cite, I already knew it. You logic is not very sound either MCP1810. If you think the act of fleeing is enough to have a LEO use a gun to try to stop you then I seriously hope their is never a ballot initiative for that where you live. Let me see:

    1: Medical issue causes person to not respond to sirens (diabetic)-shoot the tires
    2: Somebody is driving on a suspended liscense and gets nervous-shoot the tires
    3: A teen has pot on him (not smoking or under the influence) gets scared-shoot
    4: A teen with open containers in the vehicle (not driving drunk but panics)-shoot


    Yeah, good plan.

    I am not for giving anyone a pass, neither is anyone else. But LEO's should be using less than lethal means to stop a vehicle unless someones life is in danger. What about if it were kids partying and the driver gets nervous and speeds away. The other kids are telling him to stop but he won;t and they get killed. Yeah, they made a bad choice, but who the heck did not at one point in our lives.

    Yey, it worked out and they were felons. But it might not always be like that.
    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

  10. #129
    Member Array Miamieddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Miami,Fl.
    Posts
    225
    I guess everyone ignored my last statement above it pertains to this argument. A defferance between carried out actions in your neighbor hood and the borders, hello... Eddie

  11. #130
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,949
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    MCP earlier posted, "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:

    Checkmate
    Unless Hopyard is putting forward the notion that the operator of the vehicle was carrying it on his back, he cuts off that law a little early.
    What does (b) (1) say?
    (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;
    So yes, running on foot is a misdemeanor, but that is not relevant here.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  12. #131
    Senior Member Array SFury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    757
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Actually, the "they" you are speaking of "forcing the issue" are rather dead, and have little to say on
    their own behalf.

    We've had NO report of the driver's side of the story whatsoever.

    Everyone is speculating that the right thing was done or the wrong thing was done, but if the answer
    was obvious, the case would not have been referred to Federal authorities for further inquiry.
    It may well turn out that TX's DPS position will be vindicated. And then again, it may not.

    From the very limited information available in the story link of post 1 in this thread, I personally
    can not see the justification. If it turns out to have been justified, I hope that we find out
    on what grounds.

    The "kill them all" because they are supposedly illegals is an inappropriate position for a supposedly
    civil society to take. Same for the shoot first and look for an excuse after attitude many here are expressing.

    Just because it happened near the border doesn't automatically mean the driver wasn't lawfully here,
    and just a bean-head trying to evade arrest for some minor misdemeanor warrant; death penalty not appropriate.
    First of all, the driver isn't dead. His story is irrelevant to the discussion. It's known he was fleeing an officer which is a crime.

    Second, cases get referred to higher ups not only for being suspicious, but for being political in nature and wanting to have the CYA done. This has CYA written all over it.

    The only justification needed, which was mentioned in the first article, was the law being broken as it had been in similar cases. A judgment call was made based on prior crimes being committed in the same manner which justified the actions taken.

    More importantly, I don't know anyone who was shot stopping for the police instead of fleeing them. It's the safe and legal response.

  13. #132
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,596
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    Unless Hopyard is putting forward the notion that the operator of the vehicle was carrying it on his back, he cuts off that law a little early.
    What does (b) (1) say?

    So yes, running on foot is a misdemeanor, but that is not relevant here.
    Go back to the case I cited and the parameters set around the use of lethal force to effect
    a seizure by the Supremes.

    And go and look one more time at the justification for use of lethal
    force in our penal code. Even if fleeing in a vehicle is by itself a felony, that fact by itself does not justify the use of
    lethal force--- that was the entire point of the case I cited, and its meaning is incorporated
    into our penal code.

    What we do not know is whether or not the driver engaged in any of the felonies for which
    lethal force is a lawful means of apprehension. That is not discernible from the story. The explanation,
    that they might have been carrying contraband drugs doesn't cut it.

    Hence, back to my initial point--- It is good that this has been turned over to The Feds for
    additional inquiry.
    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

  14. #133
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,949
    And again Garner is apples v grape juice.
    Garner was kid on foot. I think you would be hard pressed to show how a running kid is an immediate physical threat to the greater community.
    From that opinion:
    Hymon did not have probable cause to believe that Garner, whom he correctly believed to be unarmed, posed any physical danger to himself or others.
    However it is well documented that vehicle fleeing from police are an immediate danger to the public.
    Deaths lead police to question high-speed chase policies - USATODAY.com
    Innocent bystanders account for one-third of those who are killed in high-speed police chases, a USA TODAY review has found.
    ABC news had a story back in June stating 10,000 people injured and 300 killed as a result of pursuits in California in the last ten years.
    Police Chases in California Have Injured More Than 10,000 - ABC News
    And yeah the pursuit thing is personal with me.
    Police Officer III James E. Walch, Montgomery County Police Department, Maryland
    I was actually riding with a Cpl in the next district over when Jim died. I think anyone that runs should get a bullet in their ear, but I don't get to make the law.

    So your options are don't chase, chase them until they decide to stop or wreck, or use force to stop the pursuit.

    I would much rather officers take a shot at the vehicle (or even the driver) and end a pursuit quickly than let it go on until some innocent bystanders get killed
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  15. #134
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,596
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    And again Garner is apples v grape juice.
    Garner was kid on foot. I think you would be hard pressed to show how a running kid is an immediate physical threat to the greater community.
    From that opinion:

    However it is well documented that vehicle fleeing from police are an immediate danger to the public.
    Deaths lead police to question high-speed chase policies - USATODAY.com

    ABC news had a story back in June stating 10,000 people injured and 300 killed as a result of pursuits in California in the last ten years.
    Police Chases in California Have Injured More Than 10,000 - ABC News
    And yeah the pursuit thing is personal with me.
    Police Officer III James E. Walch, Montgomery County Police Department, Maryland
    I was actually riding with a Cpl in the next district over when Jim died. I think anyone that runs should get a bullet in their ear, but I don't get to make the law.

    So your options are don't chase, chase them until they decide to stop or wreck, or use force to stop the pursuit.

    I would much rather officers take a shot at the vehicle (or even the driver) and end a pursuit quickly than let it go on until some innocent bystanders get killed
    And if innocents get hit when that shot is taken you are OK with that? Or, in this case, not innocents,
    but folks not legally deserving of the death penalty got killed. Your OK with that?

    There is an "end justifies" the means attitude buried in there which I find unacceptable.
    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

  16. #135
    Senior Member Array SFury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    757
    Hopyard, lethal force was not being used. They were attempting to stop a vehicle that appeared to be smuggling drugs. Which apparently is a common occurrence. That is what matters. So the cargo ended up being something else, it was concealed, and the drivers acted like smugglers apparently do and fled the police.

    All the driver had to do was stop. End of story. No lives would have been lost. They chose to run, and lives were lost.

    The case you cited has no bearing on this incident. The fact the cargo was not the normal cargo being smuggled in does not matter. You can't prepare for everything in life. Sometimes things go awry. That's why people like to be prepared and CC weapons. We live in an imperfect world after all.

    Do you even CC? Are you so afraid of making the wrong decision yourself? Are you projecting your own insecurities onto others?

    This is one of the most justified shoot incidents I've ever read about. The other most recent one was the shooting of a fleeing armed criminal in Eau Claire, WI. Sometimes LEOs need to shoot at people/vehicles. It's a risk of the profession. However unfortunate that may be, if people made better choices they would not be forced into a shooting situation.

    As far as the LEOs taking on a military style tactic, well, that's the problem the President caused. It was an issue with the previous Presidents as well, but to a lesser extent. Had our current President chosen to actually defend the border, the people shooting would not have been LEOs, they would have been soldiers. Does that really matter in a case like this? I don't believe it does. The scenario would be the same, the results would be the same, but the uniform of the shooter would be different.

    The situation is that simple.

Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 567891011 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.