TX officer shot robber and fired for it.

[mikes45]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/11/us/texas-dealership-shooting/
[video]https://youtu.be/7mP_kJE4D9U[/video]

He drove his car into the showroom and started charging the cop. I'm no apologist, but wtf could the officer have done differently. Yes I understand that he should of waited for backup, but I think he did the right thing, by trying to stop the crime from going any further. Sorry if this is a dupe.

Mike

 

[Spanz]

you can not have it both ways.

If WE shot someone, who was not an immediate threat to our lives or the lives of our loved ones, WE would be in a world of hurt.
So by the same token, if a cop shoots someone just because he is acting nutty...he should be in a world of hurt too.
IF there was a valid reason for the use of deadly force, it will come out in the court cases. But it just looked like one pissed off black guy that has listened to too many Jessie Jackson speeches recently, and was out raising hell on whitey. You can't shoot a guy for that.

 

[EJFudd]

But it just looked like one pissed off black guy that has listened to too many Jessie Jackson speeches recently, and was out raising hell on whitey. You can't shoot a guy for that.

He was a good boy... a very good boy.

 

[soloman02]

This is why we need video on cops. Yes it does mean that some officers will exercise less discretion. But if we had video, it would prove A whether the cop was lying, and B would allow for direct evidence of the alleged aggressors actions before use of force to determine if in fact the officer's use of force was reasonably justified.

There is no video of the encounter thus all we have to go on is the officers statement. After all the things I have read about police lying about events around the country and even right here in NH (my hometown in fact), I do not trust any officers version of events without secondary proof. Video, especially if worn by the officer (as it gives the officers perspective) acts as that secondary proof.

In the end it provides protection for both the officer and the suspect. Provided of course that there are actual penalties (like mandatory jail time) for editing or deleting (or disabling) video from body cameras outside of established protocol (set by the legislature).

 

[Bonesinium]

I think there is another thread on this but I'm not sure.

What I can say is that based on other unrelated threads, there is a common viewpoint of people that defending property isn't a valid reason to use deadly force. That is largely related to the actual property owners also. When you consider property owners have a vested interest in protecting their property I'm not sure I agree. So when you further consider this wasn't the property owner, logically I'd imagine the common viewpoint of the same people would be that this is definitely not a valid use of deadly force. I'm not so sure that to be the case though, sadly.

I'd bet dollars to donuts that had this officer been a veteran cop, he would not have been fired. But he was brand new still in training, so out he goes.

Cops do a lot worse and still remain on the job. While the video doesn't show what happened during the shooting, and it sounds like it probably wasn't justified, at least the guy he shot was actually actively committing a real crime, as opposed to either committing no crime or the victimless crime of possessing a small amount of drugs for personal use.

 

[GlockJock]

This is why we need video on cops.

Zee Fuhrer has issued his decree on your statement.. His reply: "Screw you, worthless peasant. Just do as I say and shut up. GOT IT??"

 

[soloman02]

I think there is another thread on this but I'm not sure.

What I can say is that based on other unrelated threads, there is a common viewpoint of people that defending property isn't a valid reason to use deadly force. That is largely related to the actual property owners also. When you consider property owners have a vested interest in protecting their property I'm not sure I agree. So when you further consider this wasn't the property owner, logically I'd imagine the common viewpoint of the same people would be that this is definitely not a valid use of deadly force. I'm not so sure that to be the case though, sadly.

I'd bet dollars to donuts that had this officer been a veteran cop, he would not have been fired. But he was brand new still in training, so out he goes.

Cops do a lot worse and still remain on the job. While the video doesn't show what happened during the shooting, and it sounds like it probably wasn't justified, at least the guy he shot was actually actively committing a real crime, as opposed to either committing no crime or the victimless crime of possessing a small amount of drugs for personal use.

This occurred at night and Texas does have a law that allows for the use of deadly force in protection of property when said property is being stolen at night. Whether that applies to police or not I don't know.

- - - Updated - - -

Zee Fuhrer has issued his decree on your statement.. His reply: "Screw you, worthless peasant. Just do as I say and shut up. GOT IT??"
View attachment 143879

 

[Boris]

I get it that shooting unarmed black kids by white cops is kind of taboo now, but what the **** was this good kid doing at midnight rampaging through a dealership

Family tells FOX4 that Taylor was a good kid with a bright future in football.

Will his family pick up the tab for the damaged cars now or is it raysis?

 

[Bonesinium]

This occurred at night and Texas does have a law that allows for the use of deadly force in protection of property when said property is being stolen at night. Whether that applies to police or not I don't know.

Correct, I was commenting on what appears to be a common viewpoint of others that the theft or destruction of property isn't a valid reason to use deadly force. That isn't something I necessarily agree with either. The fact he was fired leads me to believe either (or both) the cop wasn't very well liked, or he shot when he was under no threat at all.