Return to “Explaining Penal Code 9.21 Public Duty”
That is it, exactly. Our penal code 9.42 is within the rulingswitch wrote:Garner went to the USSC so I guess it is the law of the land.
The way I read it, the LEO were dropped from the case but the city and police department were liable for Garner's 'civil rights violation'. Basically, they said it is not reasonable to shoot burglars (especially fleeing burglars) if they were unarmed, if you had no reason to believe they were dangerous.
Read the case. I named it so you could read it. The case does not create a blanket prohibition against police shooting fleeing burglars. And Texas law DOES matter if one is protecting his own or a third persons property. See penal code 942 and 9.43switch wrote:I disagree. I do not remember the case but it restricts LEO from shooting fleeing burglars. Still legal in TX but TX is one of the few states that allows us to use deadly force to protect property. Does not matter if it is ours or third parties. I said 'could not be recovered by any other means'.
The case would not have had the same fact set had it been a LEO. And if you don't think the press vilified LE, then I don't know how to answer you.Do you think a LEO in Zimmerman's shoes would have been prosecuted? On or off duty? Vilified by the press/Jackson/Sharpston, maybe - sued civilly? maybe, prosecuted for murder? Not in this lifetime.
[/quote][/quote]What if Zimmerman had shot him because he thought he had a gun and it turned out it was a wallet? What about a LEO surrounded by 5 thugs and one had a sharpened screwdriver? Think the LEO would be prosecuted?
Remember they case where the LEO's shot into a crowd and injured 2 or 3 bystanders? Were any of them prosecuted?
Yes, that is exactly what I wrote.switch wrote:There is federal case law that says LEO's cannot shoot fleeing burglars. TX law says we can if they are fleeing w/property and there is no other way to recover it w/o exposing someone to death or serious injury.
A LEO would be within the federal ruling in such a situation. Also, the risk of exposing to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury is not the only limitation in penal code 9.42. Another is if the person reasonably believes there is no other way to protect or recover the property. Of course, unless protecting his own property a Peace Officer would also have to meet the requirments of Protection of a Third Persons Property.Regarding Zimmerman, unless the LEO were off duty the facts would hardly have been the same. And Zimmerman was not an innocent bystander.I'm just observing cases reported in the news. What I would consider 'questionable' shootings - non-LEO's are prosecuted, LEOs are no-billed. Look at Zimmerman, would an LEO have been prosecuted in that case? OK, that's really not a good example, too political, still.... You may disagree.
private citizens MAY be justified in using deadly force to prevent a person from fleeing with stolen property immediately after committing a burglary. There is no law giving blanket justification to shoot fleeing burglars at all, and especially if they are not escaping with stolen property.switch wrote:Actually, private citizens may have more power than LEOs - we can shoot fleeing burglars and they cannot. :)
I disagree. Do you have any evidence to support that?I agree, they do not have more leniency under the law to use deadly force, however, the prosecutors, courts, generally will NOT hold them to the same standard they impose on a non-LEO. If we 'accidently' shoot an innocent bystander, we are much more likely to be prosecuted.
A distinction without a difference, I think. A peace officer is never statutorily required to use force. A non peace officer is never required to use force.dogflight wrote:So by 'never required", you're saying that nothing statutorily compels a LEO to use force in the line of duty - 'cuz we could list scenarios all day long where the officer had better use force, and quick.jbarn wrote:LEO's and non LEO's have the same laws and they apply the same.
A LEO is never required to use force.
I teach that, in contrast to LEOs, nothing in the law requires a private citizen to use force, period. I guess I need to drop the contrast part.
This section does not authorize force to make an arrest. 9.51 does.MasterOfNone wrote:Quick and dirty explanation:
Sec. 9.21. PUBLIC DUTY. (a) Except as qualified by Subsections (b) and (c), conduct is justified if the actor reasonably believes the conduct is required or authorized by law, by the judgment or order of a competent court or other governmental tribunal, or in the execution of legal process. Think of the authority a LEO has to use force again a person to make an arrest.
Agree with the rest
(1) the court or governmental tribunal has jurisdiction or the process is lawful, even though the court or governmental tribunal lacks jurisdiction or the process is unlawful; or If an order is overturned or determined to be unlawful, you are justified as long as you reasonably believed it was lawful.
(2) his conduct is required or authorized to assist a public servant in the performance of his official duty, even though the servant exceeds his lawful authority. If a LEO directs you to assist with an action or asks for help, and the action is unlawful (like an unlawful arrest), you are still justified.
When a person administers a lethal injection, the conduct was authorized by a court, and was authorized by law.(d) The justification afforded by this section is available if the actor reasonably believes:
(1) the court or governmental tribunal has jurisdiction or the process is lawful, even though the court or governmental tribunal lacks jurisdiction or the process is unlawful; or
(2) his conduct is required or authorized to assist a public servant in the performance of his official duty, even though the servant exceeds his lawful authority.