Felony Murder

HF - thank You - Information relevant to the situation the LibDPST's want to suppress!

I just found out that Texas law makes it a felony to attempt to take away or take away a Taser from a Texas Peace Officer.

"Only one criminal law in Texas refers specifically to stun guns (defined in a way that applies only to Taser-type devices). It’s felony to take or try to take away a Taser from a police officer or other law enforcement agent. The punishment depends on the type of officer or agent involved. (Tex. Penal Code § 38.14 (2019).)"

-https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/stungun-laws-texas.htm

Those of you planning to get drunk and beat up a couple of cops should keep that in mind. Originally Posted by friendly fred

(d) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the defendant took or attempted to take the weapon from a peace officer, federal special investigator, employee or official of a correctional facility, parole officer, community supervision and corrections department officer, or commissioned security officer who was using force against the defendant or another in excess of the amount of force permitted by law.

and the water gets murky.

Texas law - I am unaware of such a law in georgia.

The other cop and his lawyer were on Fox last saying that he is a defendant and never agreed to be a state's witness. The DA lied.

The DA lied. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

When he proclaimed the scumbag was "compliant," I quit listening.

Then when I saw the video of his proclamation a couple of weeks ago that a Tazer was a "deadly weapon" .... I forgot his name.

What is holding up the investigation of the DA (now standing for Dumb Ass!)?

DA howard seems to have painted himself into a corner regarding the law. However - given an all black jury in voir dire - the matter will have to be truly adjudicated in appeal court - and the mob in Atlanta will lynch the white cop who shot Brooks.

There simple is no argument that a fleeing suspect, Brooks, armed with a deadly weapon, was a serious threat to the officer and the public should Brooks decide he needed to Tas a civilian in order to hi-jack a car.


The only reasonable argument, depending on ones perspective, is that once Brooks fired the last cartridge ( at the cop let's remember ) the weapon was no longer a deadly weapon and therefore the cop should have known deadly force was not called for.


So to any reasonable cop, the standard by which the cop must be judged according to SC language, not a "reasonable person" but a reasonable cop, did he have the presence of mind to know that the deadly weapon that Brooks had, was no longer a threat to the cop.



I think that is not a reasonable assumption considering the circumstances.

HF - I hear You Unfortunately - "reasoable" is not a standard in the Fulton Cty DA's office anymore.

It is pure racial politics - and although the LibDPST's will bleat that blacks are not "racist" - that "Racism" is only and reseved for Whites - it is clear they are blind to human nature.

and ideology uber alles

The only reasonable argument, depending on ones perspective, is that once Brooks fired the last cartridge ( at the cop let's remember ) the weapon was no longer a deadly weapon and therefore the cop should have known deadly force was not called for. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Are you familiar with the model of "Tazer" used?

And are you aware that some Tazers have 3-5 "rounds"?

It appears that only one was fired at the officer who was hit.

Additionally, you will not find a definition of firearm as a "deadly weapon" in which it is qualified by "loaded" ....

... there are some really good reasons for that FACT ...

THE MOST IMPORTANT OF WHICH is that when one is faced with an incident involving a "deadly weapon" one is not required to determine if the "deadly weapon" is LOADED before exercising their RIGHT to protect themselves or protect others.

If the crook thought the Tazer only had one "round" in it why did he continue running with it after he fired it and hit the officer? It was useful to him ...

.. when you point a firearm at an officer it is aggravated assault on a peace officer even if it is UNLOADED! ... and the peace officer is entitled to use his or her deadly weapon on you .... to protect themselves and THIRD PARTIES ... the peace officer doesn't have to be concerned whether it was loaded or not.

Even the Dumb Ass (DA) didn't qualify the Tazer as a "deadly weapon" if it's LOADED!

HF ... with all due respect you are adding facts AFTER THE FACT to this event ... that's why the event is determined from the perspective of the officer involved and not the Monday Morning Quarterbacks (of which there are 10's of 1,000's) who want to add facts to what the officers KNEW and SAW at the moment. The standard of a "reasonable officer" is not established after days (or sometimes weeks) of INVESTIGATION and repeated examination of various video views from different sources .... along with days/weeks of pundits and so called experts offering their opinions ... when they weren't even in the same State, much less at the scene....

Such as Geraldo Rivera last night on Fox! He was sounding like the Dumb Ass!

The sad thing is of had he escaped, used the Tazer (loaded or unloaded!) to highjack a vehicle with a mom and kids, drove them to seclusion and killed them, and went into hiding .... the story wouldn't have made a blip on the News ..... and there would be no threads on Eccie .....

.. that's what the cop may have prevented and that's why he's justified according to the SCOTUS to use deadly force to stop him with probable cause, which he had.

- "reasoable" is not a standard in the Fulton Cty DA's office anymore. ... Originally Posted by oeb11

"reasonable" is not applied after days/weeks of investigation ...

....it must be examined from the perspective of the officers involved without the benefit of all this other "expertise" and whether or not in a matter of a few seconds based on the information they had AT THAT TIME did they act reasonably.

[2] Under OCGA § 16-5-21(a)(2), the accused can be found guilty of aggravated assault if he or she commits an assault "[w]ith a deadly weapon or with any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury." (Emphasis supplied.) Given this statutory language, the state can craft an indictment such that "evidence of an actual bodily injury is not required to sustain a conviction under OCGA § 16-5-21(a)(2)." (Citation punctuation and emphasis omitted.) Webb v. State, 256 Ga.App. 653, 654(1), 569 S.E.2d 596 (2002).

In other words in Georgia (also in Texas) actual injury is not necessary.

(a) A person commits the offense of aggravated assault when he or she assaults:
(1) With intent to murder, to rape, or to rob;
(2) With a deadly weapon or with any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury;

Note the statutory language

Hannah Fizer.

A 26 years old shot by deputy in Sedalia, Mo this week. He claims she ran a red light and after he pulled her over she threatened him with a gun. No gun has been found. She is white.

LL Quote:
Originally Posted by oeb11
- "reasoable" is not a standard in the Fulton Cty DA's office anymore. ...

"reasonable" is not applied after days/weeks of investigation ...

....it must be examined from the perspective of the officers involved without the benefit of all this other "expertise" and whether or not in a matter of a few seconds based on the information they had AT THAT TIME did they act reasonably.
-



Apologize for my mis-spelling. LL- I agree that whether the officer action was "reasonable" should be interpreted from the officer standpoint at the moment of the incident and the milieu surrounding the officer. Unfortunately , - the system works by sicking teams of lawyers to minutely every moment of an incident in a frame by frame fashion. That is the nature of the system. "Colored" by the politicization of the incident by the LSM, the Mob, and a corrupt DA pandering and desperate for votes to stay in office - who is using over-charging the Officer Rolfe in a desperate effort to retain office.



i agree with how an incident "should be evaluated". rality is different - particularly in the Atlanta officer Rolfe incident - and that is LSM, Lib DPST racial politics. Thr0w the White cop to the Mob and they will lynch him. A black Lib judge - Rolfe will be lucky to stay live long enough in jail to have an appeal court review. Think Lib DPST jailers will raise a finger to protect him from jail predators, or hired killers by the LibDPST's???



News today - Officer rolfe already has a $250K fund raised for his legal expenses. and - they will be expensive.

Hannah Fizer.

A 26 years old shot by deputy in Sedalia, Mo this week. He claims she ran a red light and after he pulled her over she threatened him with a gun. No gun has been found. She is white. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

And now you know why the press doesn't care. Police violence isn't going to get the commies of BLM what they want... but police violence against blacks might....

Unfortunately - as a comment on our media and liberal society- u have a valid point.


A thought - go ahead and "defund, disarm-disband" some dem cities like Seattle and Baltimore - and see what happens for a few months

Observe Only - as a prelude to what LibDPST's are clamoring for - and see how the electorate responds to their nonsense - Burned cities, ruined infrastructure, no businesses or services - Just a breeding ground for Communist agitators.

Unfortunately , - the system works by sicking teams of lawyers to minutely every moment of an incident in a frame by frame fashion. That is the nature of the system. Originally Posted by oeb11

Actually, "the system" doesn't work in that manner. When politicians pander and coddle favored segments of society and bow to mob rule SELECTED incidents do get "handled" in the manner portrayed by Floyd and the convict in Atlanta who was righteously killed by the officer.

I think I heard this Atlanta cop was about three years as an officer .... I suspect during his weekly shifts he averaged about 40 contacts with citizens a week (based on a 40 hour shift and no doubles) if he stayed busy and that would be about 2,000 a year ... if you want to be conservative say 20 a shift or a 1,000 a year. Times three years = 3,000 to 6,000 citizen contacts.

HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF HIM BEFORE?

And in Atlanta with about 60% of the population Black statistically speaking he had contact with roughly 1,500 to 3,000 Black citizens. Is this incident "systemic"? Is he a "Racist"?