TexasCHLforum.com

Excaliber wrote:
Accounts so far leave out a critical detail - which way was the gun pointed?

Too true.

Pawpaw wrote:The link EElllis posted now says police were called to check on her because she was threatening suicide. "Shots were fired and the woman was hit."

It sounds like either she attempted suicide by cop or the officer was trying to stop her from committing suicide. Either of those scenarios probably spells "good shoot" under Texas law.

I'll wait to hear more information. The "suicidal woman" angle wasn't mentioned by the police spokesperson in the intial reports. If the officer was dispatched to the house to "check on a suicidal woman" you'd think that would have been brought up immediately. If that was the case, and the officer was aniticpating a confrontation with a mentally unstable armed person when the door opened, it might explain why the officer was so quick to shoot.

Regardless of the circumstance, I have a hard time with the concept that it's a "good shoot" if the officer shot her to try and stop her from committing suicide. Really? Shooting someone to prevent them from hurting themselves? That cure seems worse than the disease.

A third story that was linked to from the second story said the woman had the gun in a holster and took it out and pointed it at the officer. After refusing numerous commands to drop the gun or point it away from the officer he shot her. Sounds like attempted suicide by cop.

Texsquatch wrote:If I feel that I need to answer the door with a gun drawn, I'm not answering the door.

This one of those things where you will probably never need it, but wish you had it the time you answer the door and need it, but don't have it in hand. It is easy to say that I wouldn't go some place where I feel I NEED a gun. However, it's fairly common knowledge around here that most of the time a person has no idea that today is the day they will need that gun. Just the way a person has no idea when they wake up in the morning if today will be the day they have their heart attack or are hit by a bus.

I know when friends and family are coming over. When there is a knock at my door or the doorbell rings unexpectedly, I have no idea who, what, or how many is on the other side nor what their intent is. You better believe there's a gun in my hand at my side ready to fire. Fortunately for me, I haven't had to use it yet.

Excaliber wrote:Accounts so far leave out a critical detail - which way was the gun pointed?

Excal, that is true in almost every story we read these days. It's like "reporters" don't even know what to ask. They're more like stenographers. They write down what a person says, but they never ask any followup questions. (And then they print only the parts that fit their preferred narrative.)

We all know what the protocol is. Low ready unless threatened. Never fire unless the threat is real. The officer who ignores that is few and far between.

Shots were fired to keep her from committing suicide.

Am I reading that correctly?

Purplehood wrote:

Shots were fired to keep her from committing suicide.

Am I reading that correctly?

Not sure. Where are you reading that?

Shooting a citizen by police = time to riot, loot and burn down the entire neighborhood .

talltex wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:The link EElllis posted now says police were called to check on her because she was threatening suicide. "Shots were fired and the woman was hit."

It sounds like either she attempted suicide by cop or the officer was trying to stop her from committing suicide. Either of those scenarios probably spells "good shoot" under Texas law.

I'll wait to hear more information. The "suicidal woman" angle wasn't mentioned by the police spokesperson in the intial reports. If the officer was dispatched to the house to "check on a suicidal woman" you'd think that would have been brought up immediately. If that was the case, and the officer was aniticpating a confrontation with a mentally unstable armed person when the door opened, it might explain why the officer was so quick to shoot.

Regardless of the circumstance, I have a hard time with the concept that it's a "good shoot" if the officer shot her to try and stop her from committing suicide. Really? Shooting someone to prevent them from hurting themselves? That cure seems worse than the disease.

Deadly force is not justifyable to prevent suicide. Only use of force per TPC 9.34

Sec.A9.34. PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH.
(a) A person is justified in using force, but not deadly force, against another
when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing suicide
or inflicting serious bodily injury to himself.

n5wd wrote:From the Weatherford Democrat newspaper:

http://www.weatherforddemocrat.com/news ... l?mode=jqm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"When the lone male officer arrived at the house, he was met at the front door by a woman with a weapon in her hand, according to Crawford.

“At that time, we had an officer-involved shooting where shots were fired,” Crawford said. “The female was transported to [John Peter Smith Hospital] with gunshot wounds.”

Texas Rangers are investigating this situation.

When they use the passive voice like this, they did something sketchy and are trying to distance themselves from any responsibility.

VMI77 wrote:

n5wd wrote:From the Weatherford Democrat newspaper:

http://www.weatherforddemocrat.com/news ... l?mode=jqm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"When the lone male officer arrived at the house, he was met at the front door by a woman with a weapon in her hand, according to Crawford.

“At that time, we had an officer-involved shooting where shots were fired,” Crawford said. “The female was transported to [John Peter Smith Hospital] with gunshot wounds.”

Texas Rangers are investigating this situation.

When they use the passive voice like this, they did something sketchy and are trying to distance themselves from any responsibility.

I don't think so. They may be protecting the person who was shot by not saying she was whacked out and went for her gun.

Keith B wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

n5wd wrote:From the Weatherford Democrat newspaper:

http://www.weatherforddemocrat.com/news ... l?mode=jqm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"When the lone male officer arrived at the house, he was met at the front door by a woman with a weapon in her hand, according to Crawford.

“At that time, we had an officer-involved shooting where shots were fired,” Crawford said. “The female was transported to [John Peter Smith Hospital] with gunshot wounds.”

Texas Rangers are investigating this situation.

When they use the passive voice like this, they did something sketchy and are trying to distance themselves from any responsibility.

I don't think so. They may be protecting the person who was shot by not saying she was whacked out and went for her gun.

Then they would say something like: the subject pointed her gun at the officer and he defended himself with lethal force --phasing that directly accepts responsibility for the action taken. Use of the passive voice is always a deflection of responsibility, no matter when it is used, whether by a police spokesman, a politician, a scientific paper, or an engineering study. As an engineer I see this technique used all the time when the writer doesn't want to accept responsibility for a conclusion or wants to hedge his claims. And every time I've seen it used, when I dig a little deeper, I find that the argument being made is either very weak or deceptive.

VMI77 wrote:

Keith B wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

n5wd wrote:From the Weatherford Democrat newspaper:

http://www.weatherforddemocrat.com/news ... l?mode=jqm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"When the lone male officer arrived at the house, he was met at the front door by a woman with a weapon in her hand, according to Crawford.

“At that time, we had an officer-involved shooting where shots were fired,” Crawford said. “The female was transported to [John Peter Smith Hospital] with gunshot wounds.”

Texas Rangers are investigating this situation.

When they use the passive voice like this, they did something sketchy and are trying to distance themselves from any responsibility.

I don't think so. They may be protecting the person who was shot by not saying she was whacked out and went for her gun.

Then they would say something like: the subject pointed her gun at the officer and he defended himself with lethal force --phasing that directly accepts responsibility for the action taken. Use of the passive voice is always a deflection of responsibility, no matter when it is used, whether by a police spokesman, a politician, a scientific paper, or an engineering study. As an engineer I see this technique used all the time when the writer doesn't want to accept responsibility for a conclusion or wants to hedge his claims. And every time I've seen it used, when I dig a little deeper, I find that the argument being made is either very weak or deceptive.

Total speculation. Will wait and see.

Usually the stories on these cases are taken from statements made by the victim or victim's family. In this case, it is from the Police department. Interesting that the police choose to give few if any details.

I have often answered the door armed and certainly would at night. I typically won't have it in hand if I can stash it in the waistband, but I certainly wouldn't have it out for the person to see. I wouldn't open the door all the way either.

My house has a narrow entry way. I wouldn't realize it was a cop until I was already at the door. Even then, if I can't see his car, I might still keep the gun handy. I have no reason to expect a visit by the police.