The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://www.texaschlforum.com/
I agree on the SWATer. He is guilty of murder and should be punished accordingly. I disagree on the officer. If facts are as they seem, he should not ever again be an officer, and should face a criminal trial for his actions.WTR wrote:Who ever did the SWATing needs to be charged to the full extent of the law. The Officer who pulled the trigger needs to ride a desk and never allowed a weapon again.
Can I gun down anyone who comes to my door with something in their hands that appears to possibly be a weapon?WTR wrote:Police work is inherently dangerous . Ever Officer accepts that as part of the job. You simply cannot guess if a person has anything in their hands. You need to prosess the nerve to hold your fire until you KNOW if there is a weapon present . I'm tired of these Officer in their full combat regalia saying they thought there was a weapon when the victims hands prove to be empty or at worst holding a cell phone. If you don't have the nerve.....quit. Everyone wants to go home safely to their family. You shoot first and plead ignorance you need to go to jail. We need to hold the Police accountable.
Soccerdad1995 wrote:I agree on the SWATer. He is guilty of murder and should be punished accordingly. I disagree on the officer. If facts are as they seem, he should not ever again be an officer, and should face a criminal trial for his actions.WTR wrote:Who ever did the SWATing needs to be charged to the full extent of the law. The Officer who pulled the trigger needs to ride a desk and never allowed a weapon again.
The more I codgitate on the senireo the more I agreeTyler Raj Barriss, 25, declined to fight extradition during a brief hearing in a downtown Los Angeles courtroom, and a judge said he should be handed over to authorities in Kansas no later than Feb 2. Until then, he will be held in California without bail.
THIS is when I go all John Wick on them.Liberty wrote:You left out shooting the dog.Txtension wrote:I find it hard to believe that if you just not answer the door, LE will go away. In fact now it totally justifies a crack team of commandos with APC's, tear gas, and flashbangs making a breaching action.cedarparkdad987 wrote:Do not go outside. If you do go out side put your hands in the air and do not do anything else even if they tell you to. No matter what.
So you go outside hands up and refuse to obey any other lawful commands. Looks like you are on PCP, an extremely powerful drug that increases your strength, dexterity, constitution and hit points to ridiculous levels. And that's why everyone on scene emptied their mags reloaded and emptied those. And if you really were high, it's doubtful that they could have brought enough ammunition. But I digress; into the absurd
MechAg94 wrote: Plus, if they don't prosecute the officer for the death, can you really punish the SWAT'er as an accessory to murder?
if the shooter is not guilty then the caller is not guilty.From Wikipedia:BBYC wrote:MechAg94 wrote: Plus, if they don't prosecute the officer for the death, can you really punish the SWAT'er as an accessory to murder?
The false report was a criminal act. The malicious intent that the caller had when calling in the SWATting report transfers to the consequence of that crime (death) if his actions created that consequence.Constructive manslaughter is also referred to as "unlawful act" manslaughter. It is based on the doctrine of constructive malice, whereby the malicious intent inherent in the commission of a crime is considered to apply to the consequences of that crime. It occurs when someone kills, without intent, in the course of committing an unlawful act. The malice involved in the crime is transferred to the killing, resulting in a charge of manslaughter.
For example, a person who fails to stop at a red traffic light while driving a vehicle and hits someone crossing the street could be found to intend or be reckless as to assault or criminal damage (see DPP v Newbury[9]). There is no intent to kill, and a resulting death would not be considered murder, but would be considered involuntary manslaughter. The accused's responsibility for causing death is constructed from the fault in committing what might have been a minor criminal act. Reckless driving or reckless handling of a potentially lethal weapon may result in a death that is deemed manslaughter.
Involuntary manslaughter may be distinguished from accidental death. A person who is driving carefully, but whose car nevertheless hits a child darting out into the street, has not committed manslaughter. A person who pushes off an aggressive drunk, who then falls and dies, has probably not committed manslaughter, although in some jurisdictions it may depend whether "excessive force" was used or other factors.
Sorry but I don't follow you. If there's no murder than how can they be an accessory to murder?Rob72 wrote:False.BBYC wrote:MechAg94 wrote: Plus, if they don't prosecute the officer for the death, can you really punish the SWAT'er as an accessory to murder?
You can sure as heck prosecute the caller for SOMETHING and put him behind bars. If you burn down a building that you believe to be empty, and someone dies, even a grody old bum, you’ve committed a homicide, and if they catch you, they will charge you. You are NOT allowed to do vicious acts that result in a death, and get off scot Free - EVEN IF a death was not the intended result. You’re STILL responsible for it. This is how the social contract works. Whether the police close ranks and protect the one who got trigger happy, or they decide to punish the officer, the individual that called in a FRAUDULENT MWAG call that ended in the death of the subject WILL be prosecuted for some level of homicide. When your actions kill someone, it’s no longer aggravated assault charges.BBYC wrote:MechAg94 wrote: Plus, if they don't prosecute the officer for the death, can you really punish the SWAT'er as an accessory to murder?
The Annoyed Man wrote:You can sure as heck prosecute the caller for SOMETHING and put him behind bars. If you burn down a building that you believe to be empty, and someone dies, even a grody old bum, you’ve committed a homicide, and if they catch you, they will charge you. You are NOT allowed to do vicious acts that result in a death, and get off scot Free - EVEN IF a death was not the intended result. You’re STILL responsible for it. This is how the social contract works. Whether the police close ranks and protect the one who got trigger happy, or they decide to punish the officer, the individual that called in a FRAUDULENT MWAG call that ended in the death of the subject WILL be prosecuted for some level of homicide. When your actions kill someone, it’s no longer aggravated assault charges.BBYC wrote:MechAg94 wrote: Plus, if they don't prosecute the officer for the death, can you really punish the SWAT'er as an accessory to murder?
I think it depends on whether or not the hired demolisher works for a government agency or not.Txtension wrote:What if 'you' hire a person to demolish (burn) down said building that you know is occupied. You do this "for the lolz." The hired man doesn't check the structure to see if it is safe to proceed, and simply demolishes the building.
Does the hired hand have any liability, or just the man who gave the orders?
