TX DPS Helicopter Shooting

[racrguy]

Yes. How does that make the people that they do generally shoot, not suspects? It does not.

Lets argue semantics some more! Lol

A person being the suspect of a crime isn't the sole determining factor in regards to them getting a few new holes.

[BradM]

Lets argue semantics some more! Lol

A person being the suspect of a crime isn't the sole determining factor in regards to them getting a few new holes.

I can't even see the hair to split it another time.

[95DRGT]

Fuck that. Must be a Rick Perry law that he sees "fit".

Adios mofo

[ThreeFingerPete]

Yes. How does that make the people that they do generally shoot, not suspects? It does not.

You can't shoot someone solely because they're a "suspect". Phrase it however you'd like, but it's a bad shoot. A person who is an immediate deadly threat can be suspected of another crime, or vise versa, but they are not mutually exclusive.

[BP]

Watch a few of the chase videos that end up with what they are calling a splash down and you'll understand why they took the shot. They'll run over any and everything to make it to the border, once they hit the river they are free to swim back across. Sometimes even with the Mexican military watching the whole thing to make sure our guys don't follow them across.

[BradM]

You can't shoot someone solely because they're a "suspect". Phrase it however you'd like, but it's a bad shoot. A person who is an immediate deadly threat can be suspected of another crime, or vise versa, but they are not mutually exclusive.

You just can not admit that you misspoke.

[ThreeFingerPete]

You just can not admit that you misspoke.

I didn't misspeak, nor mis-type. It reads plainly enough. It's almost like you've become a democrat. Cops do not get to shoot someone suspected of committing a crime. If they shoot someone who is an immediate deadly threat who is also suspected of a crime, then they were shot because of the immediate and deadly threat. Do you get it? Probably not.

[ThreeFingerPete]

Watch a few of the chase videos that end up with what they are calling a splash down and you'll understand why they took the shot. They'll run over any and everything to make it to the border, once they hit the river they are free to swim back across. Sometimes even with the Mexican military watching the whole thing to make sure our guys don't follow them across.

That doesn't change the legality of it.

[BradM]

I didn't misspeak, nor mis-type. It reads plainly enough. It's almost like you've become a democrat. Cops do not get to shoot someone suspected of committing a crime. If they shoot someone who is an immediate deadly threat who is also suspected of a crime, then they were shot because of the immediate and deadly threat. Do you get it? Probably not.

Can't admit a mistake. Sounds like you're the democrat. PEOPLE IN THE ACT OF COMMITTING A CRIME ARE SUSPECTED OF COMMITTING A CRIME UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. Do you get it? Probably not. You're one stubborn s.o.b.

[Mike]

Round Two



FIGHT

[BradM]

Should police shoot people that are not suspected of committing a crime? People who are not suspects?

[Mike]

Should police shoot people that are not suspected of committing a crime? People who are not suspects?

Too many variables in this question.

Were the cops drunk?
Do they have guns or drugs they can plant on the "perp"
Did they intend to shoot the person, or was it an accident?

I'd say it really depends on how much they've had to drink the night of the incident.

[BradM]

Depends on how much the police have had to drink that night.

2 beers, it's always 2 beers.

And a sprinkle of crack.

[ThreeFingerPete]

Should police shoot people that are not suspected of committing a crime? People who are not suspects?

They do that more than enough.

PEOPLE IN THE ACT OF COMMITTING A CRIME ARE SUSPECTED OF COMMITTING A CRIME UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

Do you think that I don't understand that justified shootings are against "suspects"? Being suspected of a crime is not grounds for being shot. People are not/should not be shot solely because they are suspected of a crime.

[BP]

That doesn't change the legality of it.

Even citizens with a CHL can legally use lethal force to stop someone who is endangering someone else's life. How would this be any different for a law officer? They were driving recklessly, fleeing from the police and endangering everyone else on the road as well as their passengers. It's not like a spike strip or ramming the vehicle would have done anything more to protect anyone involved.