Explaining Penal Code 9.21 Public Duty

[jbarn]

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.

Yes, that is exactly what I wrote. 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.

Tennessee v Garner does not prohibit the use of deadly force against a fleeing felon ( including a burglar) in all situations.

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.

Regarding Zimmerman, unless the LEO were off duty the facts would hardly have been the same. And Zimmerman was not an innocent bystander.

[switch]

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'.

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.

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?

[jbarn]

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'.

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 9.43

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.

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.

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?

[/quote][/quote]


What does any of that have to do with anything? And I cannot address such a vague comment as "the case".

Be specific and we can have an honest and intelligent discussion.

[switch]

You are right. That is a state case and would not apply to TX LEO (other than an indicator how a TX court might rule. :( )

If we shoot too many burglars, TX may change our law.

I said the LEO would be vilified, just not prosecuted.

There is a continuum for shootings. One one end, you shoot Jeffrey Damler breaking into your child's bedroom at 3AM, on the other end, you shoot someone in a theatre for texting. It is obvious that non-LEO will be prosecuted a lot lower on that line than LEO. Do you need examples? Sure, they prosecute LEOs (see Janey Reno in FL :( ), but they are quicker to prosecute non-LEOs.-

[switch]

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.

[jbarn]

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.

That is it, exactly. Our penal code 9.42 is within the ruling

[switch]

We might have to agree to disagree on that. Our laws on using deadly force against fleeing burglars do not have any qualifications about them being armed or being a threat to others.