TexasCHLforum.com

bdickens wrote:I recommend dying as a free man or woman rather than living as a slave.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

bdickens wrote:I recommend dying as a free man or woman rather than living as a slave.

I recommend not advocating lethal combat/shooting/whatever on this site with police officers. I certainly wouldn't recommned that for my kids. Righteous lawsuits are so much more better. One can strongly object without getting violent (and losing).

paperchunker wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

bdickens wrote:I recommend dying as a free man or woman rather than living as a slave.

I recommend not advocating lethal combat/shooting/whatever on this site with police officers. I certainly wouldn't recommned that for my kids. Righteous lawsuits are so much more better. One can strongly object without getting violent (and losing).

I understand your viewpoint. Neville Chamberlain would have agreed with you.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

bdickens wrote:I recommend dying as a free man or woman rather than living as a slave.

I recommend not advocating lethal combat/shooting/whatever on this site with police officers. I certainly wouldn't recommned that for my kids. Righteous lawsuits are so much more better. One can strongly object without getting violent (and losing).

Redneck_Buddha wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

bdickens wrote:I recommend dying as a free man or woman rather than living as a slave.

I recommend not advocating lethal combat/shooting/whatever on this site with police officers. I certainly wouldn't recommned that for my kids. Righteous lawsuits are so much more better. One can strongly object without getting violent (and losing).

Can you show me where anyone advocated that? The way people are being beaten and tased lately, one can die while being detained with minimal resistance.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

paperchunker wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

bdickens wrote:I recommend dying as a free man or woman rather than living as a slave.

I recommend not advocating lethal combat/shooting/whatever on this site with police officers. I certainly wouldn't recommned that for my kids. Righteous lawsuits are so much more better. One can strongly object without getting violent (and losing).

I understand your viewpoint. Neville Chamberlain would have agreed with you.

I think the rules of forum would agree with me too.

Forum Rule 4 wrote:4. No posting of messages promoting illegal conduct.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Agreed. This is an excellent instance where the DOJ could do some real good to investigate, including the disparity between the two cases.

To the point I also agree one is free to pursue all legally available means of recourse, and that someone can and should emphatically NOT CONSENT repeatedly with any search of such a manner and in that location.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

paperchunker wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

bdickens wrote:I recommend dying as a free man or woman rather than living as a slave.

I recommend not advocating lethal combat/shooting/whatever on this site with police officers. I certainly wouldn't recommned that for my kids. Righteous lawsuits are so much more better. One can strongly object without getting violent (and losing).

I understand your viewpoint. Neville Chamberlain would have agreed with you.

I think the rules of forum would agree with me too.

Yes they do; Rule 4 is specifically on point. The offending post was deleted and if it happens again, the poster will be taking a vacation. I'm just as offended as anyone else at what happened to these women. I hope the U.S. Justice Dept. looks into the case for action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, but advocating the shooting of LEOs will not be tolerated.

Chas.

Forum Rule 4 wrote:4. No posting of messages promoting illegal conduct.

PC §9.31. SELF-DEFENSE.(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or

(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

A Department of Public Safety trooper has been acquitted of a misdemeanor theft charge that stemmed from a traffic stop last year in which two Irving women claim they were subjected to roadside body cavity searches.

texanjoker wrote:2nd trooper cleared by a jury in the Irvine incident.....

http://www.statesman.com/ap/ap/crime/dp ... top/nZrn3/

mojo84 wrote:

texanjoker wrote:2nd trooper cleared by a jury in the Irvine incident.....

http://www.statesman.com/ap/ap/crime/dp ... top/nZrn3/

Interesting. I didn't hear about the charges of "theft by a public servant".

Farrell denied stealing hydrocodone pills during the 2012 stop in Irving after he reported seeing two women throw cigarette butts out the window. No drugs were found. Farrell's lawyer says one woman took the stand but testified she never saw the trooper take her pills.