Dallas Police Officer goes home to the wrong apartment, kills man inside !!

And If i'm correct, I'm pretty sure DPD takes their Radios home with them..Her's may have been in her car..but Had she had her radio with her, then she has an easier and much better chance to call for help

Also I might add Texas is a Castle Law state and you have no duty to retreat as we are also a "stand your ground" state. Also you can use deadly force to protect your property during the hours of darkness or to stop criminal mischief to your property at night. Yes technically you can kill the kids TP'ing your house in Texas as long as it's at night.

Not exactly true, but I can see how one could read Texas Penal Code 9.42 and come away with that idea.

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property;
and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Emphasis added...the AND is the important part.


In reality, you need to reasonably believe you had no other option to stop them other than deadly force. Kids TPing your house can reasonably be stopped many other ways than shooting them.

The KKK burning a cross on your lawn, brandishing weapons, and throwing bricks through your window? You can probably shoot those bastards.

Not exactly true, but I can see how one could read Texas Penal Code 9.42 and come away with that idea.

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property;
and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Emphasis added...the AND is the important part.


In reality, you need to reasonably believe you had no other option to stop them other than deadly force. Kids TPing your house can reasonably be stopped many other ways than shooting them.

The KKK burning a cross on your lawn, brandishing weapons, and throwing bricks through your window? You can probably shoot those bastards. Originally Posted by B Three

The "reasonably believes" is the important part.

You come upon a person throwing toilet paper, burning a cross, or brandishing a gun - who's to say anymore what someone "reasonably believes" is NOT a substantial risk of death or bodily injury.

IE: I recently heard of a young black man sitting in his home when a young white woman just walked in and shot him...

In other words, it's a crazy fucking world Bx3.

Today, I had a beggar ask me for a dollar in an Exxon... from 30 feet away. When I handed it to him he said "I'm sorry, but I don't walk up on people anymore"... 30 feet, in broad daylight, to talk to someone. And you don't think the impetus of fear sufficient enough to believe your in eminent danger exists when an intruder is in (what you believe) is your apartment?

He opened the door and she ended his life
There wasn't any "freeze!" "What are you doing in my apartment" "get on the ground" "put your hands up"
(snip)
We really need to stop hiring every hack who makes it through the academy Originally Posted by Prince Akeem Of Zamunda

dallasfan wrote, Only going to get worst. No one In Their right minds wants to be a cop now a days. They are drawing from the bottom of the deck. This one obviously didn’t need to be issued a gun.



Given the undermanned, poorly paid, unfunded pension problems and the pile of race cards scattered around at DPD, what quality of recruits is DPD working with?


When the story finally comes out I speculate that most of us will be surprised.

Of course the reasonable standard is subjective, it always has been. And that’s why their are a few cases where the shooter got lucky with the jury. Cases where someone fired through a closed door and shot their boyfriend or child. Cases where some shot an intruder in the back at 45 yard, running away. Sometimes the jury feels sorry for the shooter and applies a broad interpretation of the standard.

The system isn’t perfect, but to say, like bandit007 did, you have “the right” under Texas Law to shoot kids TPing your lawn, as long as it’s at night, is incorrect and just perpetuates people being trigger happy.

In a nutshell, have the right to do what twelve strangers in the future judge you to have a right to do. That’s a gamble anyway you put it, because in these type of cases, you probably don’t want a bench trial.

Also I might add Texas is a Castle Law state and you have no duty to retreat as we are also a "stand your ground" state. Also you can use deadly force to protect your property during the hours of darkness or to stop criminal mischief to your property at night. Yes technically you can kill the kids TP'ing your house in Texas as long as it's at night. Originally Posted by bandit007

I hate the elimination of duty to retreat. I have no problem with shooting a burglar. However, if I'm in my yard with a gun pointed at someone, and they stupidly walk towards me, I would back up and give them another warning.

On the other hand, if they made one step towards my daughters or my wife or mistress, I would shoot the motherfucker(s).

??? She's a cop. Are you suggesting that police should only be armed while on duty? Originally Posted by dark3419

Certainly there is no reason for cops to be armed off duty. And I think you can make a very strong argument that many have no reason to be armed on duty. The vast majority of local police in other countries are not armed and seem to fare just fine.

That is the dumbest statement I've ever heard tth..

I prefer my cops with guns bigger than the criminals. But we all have our opinions.

Totally Agree B three..
TTH.. just curious..Lets say it was like you suggested..Cops with no guns on or off duty, you get robbed at gunpoint by a convicted felon..what is the punishment for that felon? Remember, the bad guys are the only ones with the guns..

Certainly there is no reason for cops to be armed off duty. And I think you can make a very strong argument that many have no reason to be armed on duty. The vast majority of local police in other countries are not armed and seem to fare just fine. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Let's try it first in Chicago, see what happens.

Totally Agree B three..
TTH.. just curious..Lets say it was like you suggested..Cops with no guns on or off duty, you get robbed at gunpoint by a convicted felon..what is the punishment for that felon? Remember, the bad guys are the only ones with the guns.. Originally Posted by billyjames

Why should punishment change based in whether police officers in a society have guns? Punishments should be set to meet a balance of the three goal of punish,ent recognized by law: 1) deference, both specific and general; 2) rehabilitation; and 3) retribution.

And as for those who think it’s a dumb idea not to arm cops, or it won’t work, how does it work in the rest of the world? Are they just smarter than we are? More disciplined? Or hire better cops?

Or is it the fact that our society is foolishly awash in guns with no liscensing and regulation? Get rid of the vast majority of the guns, and cops don't need guns. Nobody would need guns. And yes, it will take a lot of time and effort to get all the guns, but it would very much be worth it. Then we’d be as safe on our streets as residents of the U.K., Germany, Japan, and other industrialized democracies.

And as for those who think it’s a dumb idea not to arm cops, or it won’t work, how does it work in the rest of the world? Are they just smarter than we are? More disciplined? Or hire better cops? Originally Posted by TexTushHog

The difference between a republic and a democracy really needs its own thread.


But as to the above point, which countries? I don't know how much you've traveled, but I've been to many "developed" countries where law enforcement walk around with AK47s or comparable weapons. Also been to countries where police have authority to beat you senseless for little or no reason.


Countries that don't arm their police. Well, look at the UK - their streets are becoming a bloodbath of knife violence. France is getting attacked by terrorists on a regular basis.


Exactly which enlightened society are you thinking of?

Certainly there is no reason for cops to be armed off duty. And I think you can make a very strong argument that many have no reason to be armed on duty. The vast majority of local police in other countries are not armed and seem to fare just fine. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I have seen many stories of off duty police stopping robberies and other crimes. They are never really off duty and hell yes I want them to have guns.