pt145ss,pt145ss wrote:After reading and re-reading the code several times, i must admit that I was wrong and you guys are right. I think i was having a mental block. I could not (and still to some extent) can get passed the notion that it is immediately necessary to shoot a fleeing suspect in the back. Maybe I just believe that once the BG turned and ran that there is no longer an immediate threat...and giving chase and possibly pushing a bad situation over a wallet or something that can be replaced is just not worth it to me. So I guess I was blinded by my moral judgments about the situation when I should have read the code for what it is.
Thanks for forcing me to read the code in a more objective manner.
You've been right all along, IMHO. If you shoot somebody, you're going to be sued even if you're no-billed. If you shoot somebody in the back, you'll probably be cited as well as sued - mightily.
All of these well intentioned good folk who are so anxious to kill somebody need to get a grip:
* First of all, even if you think you can live with it, can your family, friends, neighbors, etc., etc?
* Secondly, if you blast someone, you'd better have deep pockets and a job that favors long leaves of absence.
If you shoot someone, you better be dadgum sure they needed shooting. Just because they spoke harshly, looked at you funny, kicked your car, lifted your wallet, etc., etc. ain't a good enough reason - even in Texas. Everybody, no matter how worthless a scumbag, has a family and there is a lawyer for those grieving, relative deprived, folk who wants to make them feel good.
Think about it.