Dallas officer in off duty confrontation

[MoJo]

From what I read the cop was wrong to pull his gun for a misdemeanor offense. From what I have been told an off duty officer just has to "do something" if he witnesses a crime. Sounds like a power trip on the part of the cop to me.

[gregthehand]

So being drunk and ignoring orders should make anything the police do to control you subsequently illegal?

[MoJo]

So being drunk and ignoring orders should make anything the police do to control you subsequently illegal?

No that is not what I meant.

If a CHL had pulled a gun on a drunk who was urinating on a wall I'm thinking they would be taking the ride downtown. The police are taught a use of force continuum that they are supposed to follow. I still say it was a power trip for the officer.

I can see headline if it had turned out bad - - - "Cop shoots man for urinating on wall."

[chabouk]

I guess I'm the only one who is upset about this.

The guy didn't draw his weapon on someone who was urinating on a wall because he was urinating on a wall. He drew on him because he was ignoring the verbal commands of a police officer. I understand the guy could not stop his actions at the time, however he could have acknowledged the officers presence and said that he could not have stopped etc.

Who says he even knew the officer was there, much less that he knew it was a police officer?

Some guy in plain clothes starts barking orders at me, I'm probably going to ignore him too.

[casingpoint]

In my opinion this guy did what he felt was necessary to control his suspect.

Perhaps he went overboard, influenced by his personal mores. A guy whizzin' in public in a big city is not a real biggie. That is seen often in cities, and I've been there and done that. When the time is right, a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do when there ain't a loo in sight. Ladies, too, but you see that much less often.

The suspect in this case could have justifiably used deadly force in defense of himself against the out-of-uniform cop. It seems highly inadvisable to up in civilian clothes behind somebody this day and time in an urban setting, pull a gun on them and tell them to get on their knees or kiss the concrete. That language reads like a death warrant. Call the on duty cops instead. Otherwise, you're asking for it with some of the people on the street today. Not to mention there are more and more veterans around with recent military training and combat experience far and above what the average cop ever sees. They can eat your lunch.

[gigag04]

I can't comment based on a news snippet. I highly DOUBT we are getting the full story.


On a related note, can someone find the Penal Code bit that speaks to urinating in public?

[marksiwel]

I can't comment based on a news snippet. I highly DOUBT we are getting the full story.


On a related note, can someone find the Penal Code bit that speaks to urinating in public?

I think it becomes a Sex Crime or some nonsense

[Keith B]

I believe urinating in public would fall under disorderly conduct:

TITLE 9. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER AND DECENCY

CHAPTER 42. DISORDERLY CONDUCT AND RELATED OFFENSES

§ 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT.

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:

(1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

(2) makes an offensive gesture or display in a public place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

(3) creates, by chemical means, a noxious and unreasonable odor in a public place;

(4) abuses or threatens a person in a public place in an obviously offensive manner;

(5) makes unreasonable noise in a public place other than a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code, or in or near a private residence that he has no right to occupy;

(6) fights with another in a public place;

(7) discharges a firearm in a public place other than a public road or a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code;

(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;

(9) discharges a firearm on or across a public road;

(10) exposes his anus or genitals in a public place and is reckless about whether another may be present who will be offended or alarmed by his act; or

(11) for a lewd or unlawful purpose:

(A) enters on the property of another and looks into a dwelling on the property through any window or other opening in the dwelling;

(B) while on the premises of a hotel or comparable establishment, looks into a guest room not the person's own through a window or other opening in the room; or

(C) while on the premises of a public place, looks into an area such as a restroom or shower stall or changing or dressing room that is designed to provide privacy to a person using the area.

(b) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(4) that the actor had significant provocation for his abusive or threatening conduct.

(c) For purposes of this section:

(1) an act is deemed to occur in a public place or near a private residence if it produces its offensive or proscribed consequences in the public place or near a private residence; and

(2) a noise is presumed to be unreasonable if the noise exceeds a decibel level of 85 after the person making the noise receives notice from a magistrate or peace officer that the noise is a public nuisance.

(d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor unless committed under Subsection (a)(7) or (a)(8), in which event it is a Class B misdemeanor.

(e) It is a defense to prosecution for an offense under Subsection (a)(7) or (9) that the person who discharged the firearm had a reasonable fear of bodily injury to the person or to another by a dangerous wild animal as defined by Section 822.101, Health and Safety Code.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.

Amended by Acts 1977, 65th Leg., p. 181, ch. 89, § 1, 2, eff. Aug. 29, 1977; Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 4641, ch. 800, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 145, § 2, eff. Aug. 26, 1991;

Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 318, § 14, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 54, § 4, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 389, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

[mymojo]

I believe urinating in public would fall under disorderly conduct:

§ 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. [/b]

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:

(7) discharges a firearm in a public place other than a public road or a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code;

(9) discharges a firearm on or across a public road;

Sometimes legalese really confuses me.

[Keith B]

Because 7 is a Class B misdemeanor, but 9 is only a Class C. Don't ask me why though.

[jhutto]

I have no idea about the details of this case, but I am compelled to add my .02.

I think it is very difficult for us law abiding citizens to discern a plain clothes officer with a gun, from a criminal with a gun. Especially in the split second it is pointed at us. I have had to make this determination, and lucky for him (and me) I decided to keep my weapon holstered.
I don't want to have to make that determination again so perhaps (at least for plain clothes officers) the threat of deadly force should be limited to times when deadly force is threatened, no to simply "make someone" do what the officer demands. If someone is not listening, take them down, cuff them, and haul them to jail; if you can't do it yourself call for backup.
A gun is for protection, a class C crime shouldn't be enforced with the threat of death.

[Hoosier Daddy]

Do Texas cops routinely pull guns if someone is deaf or doesn't speak English?

[KD5NRH]

I believe urinating in public would fall under disorderly conduct:

Doubtful, unless he was facing the officer; "exposed" would generally require someone actually seeing the genitals, not just seeing something that implies their presence.

Most likely the only violation initially was Dallas city ordinance:

SEC. 31-18. URINATING OR DEFECATING IN PUBLIC.
(a) A person commits an offense if he urinates or defecates:
(1) in or on a public street, alley, sidewalk, yard, park, building, structure, plaza, public or utility right-of-way, or other public place; or
(2) in public view.
(b) It is a defense to prosecution under this section if the person was in a restroom. (Ord. 14971)

(Now there's an odd use of defense to prosecution where an exception would be more appropriate.)

[gregthehand]

I'm on my phone so please forgive any gramatical errors.

He wasn't drawing for the class c he was drawing because of the non compliance.

As to someone else commenting about someone with a CHL getting in trouble. Well a CHL holder would have no duty nor right to detain this guy since it's only a class C but a peace officer would.

Once again just because the initial contact was over a class c does not mean that a show deadly force could not be used. That's like saying that if an officer on a traffic stop sees furtive movement from a driver they can't draw down on them. When a suspect is being non compliant an officer has to do what is neccesary to take control of the situation and ensure officer safety.

Oh by the way. "I didn't hear the guy say he was a cop" or excuses to that affect or incredibly over used by people who break the law and then ignore a cop.

[suthdj]

This is so simple, was he life or the life of another in danger, No so there is no reason to draw a weapon.