Cop stays cool under pressure ~VID~

[TENGRAM]

I am asking why you so interested in preserving the priveledges of a criminal

Because you can't kill people for robbery and/or resisting arrest. It's not right and it's not legal.

[Jimbo]

Because you can't kill people for robbery and/or resisting arrest. It's not right and it's not legal.

Who is talking about killing him because of the robbery? I think you are confused. I would be hard pressed to define attacking an officer who has drawn down on you, as "resisting arrest".

[CJ]

That's impressive. No way he should have killed an unarmed guy over a robbery. Nice to see a video of a cop doing their job well. Usually they only get bad press.

You're the type of guy who would get killed in most situations like this.

[TENGRAM]

You're the type of guy who would get killed in most situations like this.

try me.

[03trubluGT]

Cop should have shined the flashlight in his face.

I have a 600 lumen LED Streamlight that you can't look at in broad day light.

I was always told/etc not to get that close if you have a gun. I guess the cop knows better then me, but it seems like how much bigger the guy was that gun could've been turned on him real fast.

Scrappy little guy though. (little in comparison to the crook)

Yep, the cop lost the advantage that distance provides. You should NEVER go hands on with someone while you have a gun out. The fight can turn from controlling the suspect, to fighting over the gun in an instant.

That's impressive. No way he should have killed an unarmed guy over a robbery. Nice to see a video of a cop doing their job well. Usually they only get bad press.

Yea, like robbery is such a non-violent crime. That guy could have had a gun under all that clothing. I'm not saying I would have dropped the hammer on him, but robbery is a felony. If he would have ran, Texas law says an officer can shoot a fleeing felon.

[racrguy]

It's a shame we can't shoot motherfuckers on sheer principal..

[TENGRAM]

If he would have ran, Texas law says an officer can shoot a fleeing felon.

That's kinda crazy. I'll keep that in mind in case I ever shoot an unarmed man and think about running from the cops afterward.

[TENGRAM]

It's a shame we can't shoot motherfuckers on sheer principal..

everybody would be dead...

[03trubluGT]

That's kinda crazy. I'll keep that in mind in case I ever shoot an unarmed man and think about running from the cops afterward.

Ch. 9.51 of the Texas Penal Code:

(c)A peace officer is justified in using deadly force
against another when and to the degree the peace officer reasonably
believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to make an
arrest, or to prevent escape after arrest, ....

[Jimbo]

No reply tengrams?

try me.

I get it, you are a tough guy, a hard ass. Well I'm not. I'm not willing to gamble on the saftey of a criminal over the safety of others.

That's kinda crazy. I'll keep that in mind in case I ever shoot an unarmed man and think about running from the cops afterward.

You are being ridiculous, and apparently ignorant of the law. Crazy? I can't remember a time when that wasn't law.

[TENGRAM]

Ch. 9.51 of the Texas Penal Code:

(c)A peace officer is justified in using deadly force
against another when and to the degree the peace officer reasonably
believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to make an
arrest, or to prevent escape after arrest, ....

left out some important parts there, huh?


(c) A peace officer is justified in using deadly force
against another when and to the degree the peace officer reasonably
believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to make an
arrest, or to prevent escape after arrest, if the use of force would
have been justified under Subsection (a) and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct for
which arrest is authorized included the use or attempted use of
deadly force; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes there is a
substantial risk that the person to be arrested will cause death or
serious bodily injury to the actor or another if the arrest is
delayed.



That's a significant difference from what you posted.

No reply tengrams?

I get it, you are a tough guy, a hard ass. Well I'm not. I'm not willing to gamble on the saftey of a criminal over the safety of others.

You are being ridiculous, and apparently ignorant of the law. Crazy? I can't remember a time when that wasn't law.

Sorry, life took priority today.

So what's to comment on? I've spelled out my thoughts on it for you in plain English. So who is ignorant of the law? See my reply above. You know, that's been the law for as long as I can remember.

[Jimbo]

Sorry, life took priority today.

So what's to comment on? I've spelled out my thoughts on it for you in plain English. So who is ignorant of the law? See my reply above. You know, that's been the law for as long as I can remember.

Whats to comment on? Life has taken a priority, yet you still managed three replies after I posed this question?

Who is talking about killing him because of the robbery? I think you are confused. I would be hard pressed to define attacking an officer who has drawn down on you, as "resisting arrest".

Yes you have explained that, for some reason, you are more interested in preserving the safety of a criminal than others around him.

I said "apparently ignorant of the law", based on the previous post by an leo and my inability to remember any officer being persecuted for shooting a dangerous suspect that attacked him while weapon drawn. I'm willing to wager this officer would have had no problem explaining the legality of his actions if he had done so.

[Blue88Coupe]

That just asks for a disablement of ones life.

Dallas PD would have waited for his turn to check out. JK

LOL have you not followed DPD's string of unarmed citizen killings over the past year? DPD would have let out a scream that would make homos proud and shot him dead

[TENGRAM]

Who is talking about killing him because of the robbery? I think you are confused. I would be hard pressed to define attacking an officer who has drawn down on you, as "resisting arrest".

I glossed over this question originally because it did not look to me like he had attacked the officer at all; he merely tried to escape. After looking at the video again it does actually appear he attacked the cop at about the 0:50 mark. Therefore, yes, the cop could have legitimately shot the perp. I still don't think it was necessary and apparently neither did the cop. He even said as much:

“We wasn’t going to shoot the guy because he was unarmed,” Perez said.

Huh, some cops have morals.

[03trubluGT]

left out some important parts there, huh?

Ha! Made you look..


I get tired of spoon feeding people. I had to make you do some work for yourself..