TexasCHLforum.com

thanks for the answer!

gigag04 wrote:

KD5NRH wrote:

gigag04 wrote:Based on the info we have,

You mean "based on the info they were willing to give."

No....I meant what I posted.

pbwalker wrote: Based on what is stated in the story, this cop was a hot-head Rambo wannabe and needs to be disciplined....


How can ANYONE defend this?

With same vigor that you attack it with little information. Hurling insults at people you don't know involved in a situation that you heard about on the news seems to be jumping the gun, no?

I always find comments like "I don't want to bash LEOs"..... Preceding bashing of LEOs funny.

Please, spare me...do you mean to tell me this is SOP for officers? I know you want to protect your 'boys in blue', but look at the facts given. Why didn't he call it in and get more backup? Was he looking to be the "hero of the day"?

And nowhere did I state "I don't want to bash LEO's...". Not sure what you meant by that comment. Maybe an attempt at humor...who knows. I AM calling out the officer for his actions (based on what we know...which I stated earlier). You may think it's ok, but it appears as though you are in the minority here officer...

And then you make snide comments like "Not this again..." (in regards to my para-military comment) with nothing else to offer up any kind of retort. Prove to me how they are not. Or are you the cut and run type?


ETA: I doubt the details of this will ever come out...things like this have a tendency to "disappear" in the shuffle...

Purplehood wrote:The Officer acted in good faith based on the information that he was given. If that is indeed the case, it is most likely that he would not suffer any liability.

From a hotel clerk...

Why didn't the officer identify himself? Why didn't he have the clerk call (or advise him to call the clerk) to verify it was indeed the police?

Based on what is stated in the story, this cop was a hot-head Rambo wannabe and needs to be disciplined. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets pushed back behind the proverbial "blue shield".

Little says the man at the door was not in uniform and did not say he was a member of law enforcement but did threaten to break down the door if Little would not open it.

How can ANYONE defend this? How is this any different than some "girl" knocking on the door at your home and saying she has a flat tire...knowing you will open the door and it'll allow her boyfriend / partner in crime to gain access?

The Annoyed Man wrote:

macavity wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

pbwalker wrote:I love how PD's are becoming para-military forces...

If they have the wrong address, break in your door, do not identify themselves, and you shoot...guess what? $1 to a donut that you're going to jail.

Nah, you'd being going to the morgue, or a hospital if you're very lucky. They're already primed & ready for a fight, and they outnumber you.

I'm not a lawyer, nor am I well versed in the laws, so I ask this question:
If the victim ended up in the hospital, is there a law in place that protects the officer or the officer's employer from liability should the victim sue? Same question if the person ended up dead and the victim's family was suing.

Why should there be such protection? I'm not trying to bash law enforcement; Lord knows they have a difficult job. But if a cop shoots and kills me in a case of mistaken identity, my family should never have to worry about any single financial issue for the remainder of their lives.... ....and that still won't bring me back.

Law enforcement agencies, and individual law enforcement officers, need to be fully accountable for their actions or their influence over our lives lacks legitimacy.

Bingo! And sadly, it seems, that is not the case in most situations.

I love how PD's are becoming para-military forces...

If they have the wrong address, break in your door, do not identify themselves, and you shoot...guess what? $1 to a donut that you're going to jail.