re: Midland (TX) Police Officer killed by man who thought his home was being burglarized

quote:

---

I base this on knowing the law and having an alarm and being told the protocol and having police come to my house multiple times followed by their actual explanation of what they do. I was also raised in a police/legal household. Took law classes.

---

So, in other words, you concede you only have indirect knowledge which is clearly not as valuable as cops on this board and their direct knowledge. Thanks for clarifying.

Man, looking at the 1st couple of pages with unknown's posts to now, he's walking back with the quickness. Quite the sharp turn in your responses.

quote:

---

Well that’s retarded logic. No one in this thread has DIRECT knowledge of the incident so I guess we should just shut down the entire discussion.

---

I'm talking about direct knowledge on cop protocols in these types of hypothetical situations. You absolutely do not have that.

quote:

---

I'm talking about direct knowledge on cop protocols in these types of hypothetical situations. You absolutely do not have that.

---

Well if you would read - I just said

1. I had them directly explained to me by cops responding to alarm calls.
2. That doesn’t even matter because “protocols” don’t trump the law itself. One police force could have perfectly legal “protocols” and the next could have those that are not exactly legal. Why do you think independent police audit boards and IA exists in the first place?

quote:

---

Show me posts where I stated this wasn’t about the burden of proof being on the state and I’ll show you posts where I stated it explicitly over and over.

---

Start on page 2, go forward.

Done

quote:

---

That's not what you're doing though

---

I realize I am on the OT and also know you struggle with context and following threads meaning you are going to quote statements I made without understanding the following:

Show me where I explicitly, I mean explicitly stated THEY actually came in the house.

Everything I stated was in the realm of hypotheticals precisely because we don’t know.

I’ll anxiously await your out of context response that will be inaccurate.

quote:

---

Everything I stated was in the realm of hypotheticals precisely because we don’t know.

---

quote:

---

Charging the homeowner for acting within their constitutional rights is obviously incorrect

---

Guys, charging the homeowner is obviously hypothetically incorrect.

quote:

---

You can’t just shoot anyone in your home, end of story. I’ve used a flashlight in my home before when I didn’t want to turn a light on for various reasons. As said, it could have been a drunk neighbor, teenager, etc.

---

You can in Texas, you can protect your property with deadly force if you have reason to believe the person is there to rob you, or burglarize your home. How do you know the drunk/ neighbor/ teenager are not there to rob you? There does not have to be a imminent threat of harm to your person. The burden of proof is your word against that of a dead man.

Under Texas Penal Code §9.42, a person may use deadly force against another to protect land or property if:
1.He is the owner of the land;
2.He reasonably believes using the force is immediately necessary to prevent arson, burglary, or robbery; and
3.He reasonably believes that the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means.

quote:

---

3.He reasonably believes that the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means.

---

If the cops identified themselves properly and he still shot one of them, this is going to be a tough one to overcome.