TexasCHLforum.com

This one goes back to the post a couple weeks ago about getting punched in the head being deadly force. Can you imagine if this has been a CHL holder and not a DPD officer? If you follow the link and watch the video it’s even more blood boiling than reading the story.

I am getting tired of hearing about people coming to defense of criminals who made the active choice to cause harm to another human being.

nbc5i.com wrote:DALLAS -- A local civil rights group wants to meet with Dallas Police Chief David Kunkle after an officer shot and killed a man.

http://www.nbc5i.com/news/17527390/deta ... w&psp=news" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Officer Rene Villanueva told investigators he tried to arrest Derrick Jones, 31, last week after Jones rear-ended another car in south Oak Cliff.

Jones got out of his car and hit the officer in the head several times, police said.

Dallas police said Villanueva feared for his life and fired.

"The autopsy said it hit him in the heart, so that was a kill-shot on an unarmed man," brother Dalon Jones said.

"In any situation where we're faced with a life or death situation, we have right to use deadly force to defend ourselves," Dallas police Sr. Cpl. Janice Crowther said.
Officer Villanueva is on routine paid leave as the incident is investigated.

Its ridiculous that the officer is even being questioned he acted in self defense after this man attacked him. This guy also had a history of criminal behavior which I assume the officer already being that he was arresting him. Do police even have the option of shooting to wound? Now we have some self proclaimed civil rights activist making this out to be a much bigger deal than it actually is.

Ace_Inthe_O wrote:Its ridiculous that the officer is even being questioned he acted in self defense after this man attacked him.

no it's not. it's called procedure. like they said, he's on routine leave, during the investigation. just like any civillian shooting goes to a grand jury. Homicide, is still a crime. you may be justified in committing it, but you have to prove it.

Ace in the O wrote: Do police even have the option of shooting to wound?

Deadly Force (as defined by the state) has nothing to do with wound, kill, or fuzzy bunnies.
the officer shot the person who committing unlawful deadly force against him, to stop him. turns out, shooting the guy in the heart really stopped him.

how come civil rights people are almost always on the wrong side of things?? least now a days. what about Officer Villanueva's civil rights??? he has a right to go home to his ol' lady and kids, don't he??

Well, for one I think a CCL holder would get less flack because they aren't a police officer and don't carry a taser. I don't understand why people think an unarmed person can't hurt anyone (anybody ever seen a UFC fight?). Hopefully the incident was caught on video so that there is proof as to why the officer chose to use deadly force.

I just wanted to point out to you all one benefit to being a CHL. The officer in this case may not have been justified in shooting even though a CHL would have been. Officers are restricted by the Fourth Amendment and the way the courts have interpreted it. For example, the Fourth Amendment, via SCOTUS in the Garner decision, says a police officer cannot shoot a fleeing felon unless he can prove extreme danger to society if the felon gets away. In Texas, you as a CHL can shoot most of the fleeing felons under the law and this would not bother you.

Of course, in this case you have the on-going attack against the police officer. What will make a difference for the officer is the relative sizes, whether the BG tried to get away or just attacked, what else the officer tried, and even the officer's physical condition (there is case law syaing you cannot shoot someone just because you cannot handle him if ti is due to your poor physical condition).

I hope everything turns out well for the officer.

if they were in contact distance to one antoher useing a taser would have efectivly tased them both casue the current would pass form the BG to the LEO am I not right.

If pepper spray was used in close contact then they both would have gotten it. .

from those two points it would be whoever recovered first would have the upper hand. Correct me if I am wrong.

The opening line of the report is what started it for me... "A Dallas man and father of three"

How about a convicted felon who attacked a police ofice?

I'm in school for L.E. and remember the use of force as being "authorized" and "justified". Was the officer "authorized" to use "force"? Yes. Was the officer "justified" by using deadly force? IMO, Yes. It only takes ONE good hit to knock someone out, and him being an officer I'd be afraid after I get knocked out that that person would get my gun and shoot me while I was unconcious.

Ace_Inthe_O wrote:Now we have some self proclaimed civil rights activist making this out to be a much bigger deal than it actually is.

Notice that the "self-proclaimed civil rights activist" is actually the brother of the deceased. Wonder if he also has a record.

srothstein wrote:I just wanted to point out to you all one benefit to being a CHL. The officer in this case may not have been justified in shooting even though a CHL would have been. Officers are restricted by the Fourth Amendment and the way the courts have interpreted it. For example, the Fourth Amendment, via SCOTUS in the Garner decision, says a police officer cannot shoot a fleeing felon unless he can prove extreme danger to society if the felon gets away. In Texas, you as a CHL can shoot most of the fleeing felons under the law and this would not bother you..

Steve - can you expand on that? When is it justified for a CHL holder to shoot a fleeing felon other than if he is fleeing with your property?

BTW, I also hope the officer comes out of this OK. From the info we have from the report sounds like he was perfectly justified in his actions.

Wonder if NBC 5 will give the officers side of this story the airtime it deserves, or if they will continue to stand up for the criminals that bring this stuff upon themselves.

Their "angle" for this story absolutly disgusts me.

The way I understand this from the thread here, The BG got out of his car and attacted an armed Police Officer. He was on top of the Officer, giving him no other option, but to use deadly force. If the BG would of gotten the Officers weapon, hard telling who all he would of shot and killed. And on a bigger note, if this BG attaced an armed Police Officer, what would he do to an unarmed Civilian??? I think the Officer made the right decision... IMHO...

Emmett

I have noticed how reports have started to really suggest that no person has a right to take a life even if it is in self defense. Which is what the anti-2A nuts are openly saying. They seem to suggest that in order to not be somehow guilty of a higher "sin"; the victim cannot defend themselves because they might kill the attacker. That was used, successfully, in Europe and other places, to disarm the population and keep England’s police helpless for years. I have heard families say the same sort of things since the media chose sides. It doesn't matter the criminals past or actions when they were killed. It is all about the morality of the defender and that they have no right to defend their own lives.

That said, I don't know if the shoot was justified or not. I do know that this story was anti-LEO and very anti-self defense. It did not show the officer as possibly justified though the reporter didn't come out and say they thought he was guilty. I wish I could look at this story as the station wanting ratings. Unfortunately, I don't think this is the case. I think this is yet another open attack on anything that upsets their ability to control the population. They demand “Peace” even if it means we are murdered or enslaved or forced to bow to their false gods and philosophies

Crossfire,

You are correct that the suspect must be fleeing with property for the CHL to be legally able to shoot him. This is most fleeing felons in my opinion. It does not include someone fleeing from a homicide or aggravated assault, but they are relatively rare compared to the burglar and robbers that exist out there.

I should have been more clear, but a police officer can not shoot even those felons. He must prove the felon is more dangerous to society than the violation of civil rights would have been.

srothstein wrote:You are correct that the suspect must be fleeing with property for the CHL to be legally able to shoot him.

"Your honor, after I shot him the first time, he attempted to flee with my bullet..."