Police kill 93 year old Texas woman after she fails driving test

[Forever_frost]

Unless they work for a city where the retirement fund has a huge deficit, of course.

Arlington?

[talisman]

Arlington?

Fort Worth.

[Forever_frost]

Fort Worth.

Ah, I didn't think they had a police force. I thought they just had guys on cattle shooting anyone they thought were breaking the law.

[kingjason]

Jason, the issue is that those truck drivers don't have special immunity from laws, excluding them from speeding tickets, seatbelt tickets, and if they beat someone while 'on the clock', they still get charged and it's far easier to fire an asshole trucker than it is a violent cop.

Chapter 545. Operation and Movement of Vehicles
§ 545.413. Safety Belts; Offense.

(a) A person commits an offense if:

(1) the person:

(A) is at least 15 years of age;

(B) is riding in a passenger vehicle while the vehicle is being operated;

(C) is occupying a seat that is equipped with a safety belt; and

(D) is not secured by a safety belt; or

(2) as the operator of a school bus equipped with a safety belt for the operator's seat, the person is not secured by the safety belt.

(b) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) operates a passenger vehicle that is equipped with safety belts; and

(2) allows a child who is younger than 17 years of age and who is not required to be secured in a child passenger safety seat system under Section 545.412(a) to ride in the vehicle without requiring the child to be secured by a safety belt, provided the child is occupying a seat that is equipped with a safety belt.

(b-1) A person commits an offense if the person allows a child who is younger than 17 years of age and who is not required to be secured in a child passenger safety seat system under Section 545.412(a) to ride in a passenger van designed to transport 15 or fewer passengers, including the driver, without securing the child individually by a safety belt, if the child is occupying a seat that is equipped with a safety belt.

(c) A passenger vehicle or a seat in a passenger vehicle is considered to be equipped with a safety belt if the vehicle is required under Section 547.601 to be equipped with safety belts.

(d) An offense under Subsection (a) is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than $25 or more than $50. An offense under Subsection (b) is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than $100 or more than $200.

(e) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:

(1) the person possesses a written statement from a licensed physician stating that for a medical reason the person should not wear a safety belt;

(2) the person presents to the court, not later than the 10th day after the date of the offense, a statement from a licensed physician stating that for a medical reason the person should not wear a safety belt;

(3) the person is employed by the United States Postal Service and performing a duty for that agency that requires the operator to service postal boxes from a vehicle or that requires frequent entry into and exit from a vehicle;

(4) the person is engaged in the actual delivery of newspapers from a vehicle or is performing newspaper delivery duties that require frequent entry into and exit from a vehicle;

(5) the person is employed by a public or private utility company and is engaged in the reading of meters or performing a similar duty for that company requiring the operator to frequently enter into and exit from a vehicle;

(6) the person is operating a commercial vehicle registered as a farm vehicle under the provisions of Section 502.433 that does not have a gross weight, registered weight, or gross weight rating of 48,000 pounds or more; or

(7) the person is the operator of or a passenger in a vehicle used exclusively to transport solid waste and performing duties that require frequent entry into and exit from the vehicle.

[YALE]

Jason, bro. Do you even than?

[Forever_frost]

(6) the person is operating a commercial vehicle registered as a farm vehicle under the provisions of Section 502.433 that does not have a gross weight, registered weight, or gross weight rating of 48,000 pounds or more; or

(7) the person is the operator of or a passenger in a vehicle used exclusively to transport solid waste and performing duties that require frequent entry into and exit from the vehicle.

You know how much easier it is to just put up the highlighted part at this time of night? Interesting. So do they get to speed as well? In court, are they given more credibility on their testimony than anyone else?

Edit: Could claim the waste transport exemption for a squad car. Sounds legit. The driver frequently must stop to pick up waste.

[jewozzy]

I didn't read the thread but is it mentioned that she fired her gun twice?

[SS Junk]

I didn't read the thread but is it mentioned that she fired her gun twice?

Heard on the radio this morning she shot at officers twice before being shot.

If it was you wouldn't have old men with 50 inch waists...

A little on the conservative side, don't you think?

[Trip McNeely]

I didn't read the thread but is it mentioned that she fired her gun twice?

Well if that is the real case, then fuck her. She should have been taken down. I don't care how old she is or what sex she was.
The real problem with cops on these multiple shooting of a suspect comes down to mob mentality or for better words heard mentality I believe. No communication on who takes the shot if the suspect draws a weapon so everyone takes the shot and unloads. Adrenaline is flowing, it's loud, it's confusing, and they are amped up. This isn't an argument for the billy bad ass cops though on the street who abuse their powers, but moreso when its a chaotic scene, and there has definitely been a weapon involved with the suspect. I'm not saying that's the case in all of these incidents, but I can see how this can happen.

[svauto-erotic855]

So because a officer has been unfortunate enough to be in two deadly force incidents he should be punished? Regardless of if he saved some ones life or was being shot at? Sounds rational.

There is a Detroit officer that has 7 kills to his credit and one in the Southwest US that has 5. Both officers are the shoot first ask questions later types. They both keep getting cleared on the shootings but I believe they do it because they like it and can get away with it. Do you believe that this "Type" of officer should be allowed to stay on the job?

[Forever_frost]

There is a Detroit officer that has 7 kills to his credit and one in the Southwest US that has 5. Both officers are the shoot first ask questions later types. They both keep getting cleared on the shootings but I believe they do it because they like it and can get away with it. Do you believe that this "Type" of officer should be allowed to stay on the job?

Those kind of people are drawn to occupations that deal with conflict. If you like killing and can get paid to do it, you're going to. I have met guys that were in the infantry because they wanted to shoot people.

[jewozzy]

Well if that is the real case, then fuck her. She should have been taken down. I don't care how old she is or what sex she was.
The real problem with cops on these multiple shooting of a suspect comes down to mob mentality or for better words heard mentality I believe. No communication on who takes the shot if the suspect draws a weapon so everyone takes the shot and unloads. Adrenaline is flowing, it's loud, it's confusing, and they are amped up. This isn't an argument for the billy bad ass cops though on the street who abuse their powers, but moreso when its a chaotic scene, and there has definitely been a weapon involved with the suspect. I'm not saying that's the case in all of these incidents, but I can see how this can happen.

If its justified why does it mattet how many people take the shot?

[dcs13]

Interesting...They fired the officer today.. One might infer all is not well, however they would have been better to wait for an indictment or charges to be filed.

http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/texas-officer-who-shot-armed-93-year-old-fired

[LS1Goat]

Interesting...They fired the officer today.. One might infer all is not well, however they would have been better to wait for an indictment or charges to be filed.
http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/te...year-old-fired

This makes absolutely no sense. The outcome is unfortunate, but how could anyone rationally think it was a bad shoot? The old hag had a nuclear meltdown about her DL renewal, brandished a gun, then started busting caps. Of course, she's going to maimed or killed by the PD in that circumstance.

They can fire him, but that won't be able to charge with a crime. Wrongful termination suite should be a slam dunk. This story is just plain ridiculous. And the bleeding heart reaction to it is even more ridiculous.

Hell, the nephews statement says it's all.

"Golden's nephew, Roy Jones, told KBTX-TV on Friday that his aunt became upset when she was denied a driver's license renewal, and she armed herself.

Jones says he called 911 and his aunt fired two shots before the officer shot her."

End of story.

[Captain Crawfish]

She can't be any worse than the people out there already. Cop shouldn't have fired IMO but she didn't do what she was asked. I couldn't kill a 93 yr old lady