TexasCHLforum.com

Was the driver drunk?

Was the vehicle stolen?

I wonder if this was a case of "suicide by cop", which I think is an especially rotten way to go out...

texanjoker wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

BStacks wrote:Good grief. Try that as a "regular" citizen.

Yeah it is not advisable for "regular" citizens to be making traffic stops

How disingenuous of you. You know exactly what he meant.

Since leo's make traffic stops and regular citizens do not, I simply replied with some humor.

As I have stated in other threads and in here on the OP, there is no magic number of rounds allowed. One fires until the threat is stopped. We read that some disagree with that as their right. For all we know the first 8 rounds missed. You can also see how fast that went down.

I personally know a leo that was shot in the hand. His first 10-12 rounds missed. He was then able to steady his aim, while nursing a gunshot to his hand, and stop the threat with the last 3 rounds. To witnesses, if there were any, they would think the leo was executing the guy when in fact he was firing at the armed suspect until the threat was stopped.

I have also seen people go to jail because they emptied their gun, the suspect was down, then they reloaded and walked over dumping another magazine into the body. That is obviously a no no.

I'm not complaining about the number of shots, and while I can't speak for BStacks, I didn't think he was either. What I'm alluding to is the different standards for LEO's and citizens --FOR THE SAME ACTION. You know full well that if a citizen walked by some guy siting in his car in a parking lot who pulled a gun and pointed it at him, and he emptied his gun in the same manner, even if the gun was an actual firearm, the citizen would likely find himself on trial for murder --especially so in places like Travis and Harris county. The DA would say he set out to kill. And btw, I'm not saying that this cop should be tried, or that what he did was wrong either; I'm saying that there is a double standard, and it's just as wrong to charge a citizen in a case like this as it would be to charge the cop.

carlson1 wrote:I believe I would have reloaded also.

I have been involved in one officer shooting, but I did not have to pull my trigger. I do believe I would have reloaded. Stress kicks in and I would imagine it would be pretty easy to empty your weapon as fast as this shooting took place.

For me this particular video brought back some vivid memories. I recall seeing my glock just like that as it cycled while I fired. I only heard one shot but fired more then one shot. I then recall at some point thinking "I have to stop". Then it was quiet. All that in a split second. Then you hear the sirens of the back up units just like in this case. I also reloaded and was later asked why. I didn't even think about it as it was 2nd nature. We trained a lot and in training you always holster a loaded weapon.

To answer another post I read this guy had false license plates and was giving a fake name. He had stated to his family that he didn't want to go back to jail. Lots of people switch license plates to avoid paying registration on cars and some do cover up stolen vehicles, but I didn't read that in this story.

I wonder how many suspects are shot brandishing bb type guns? I had a friend involved in a shooting at a domestic violence where the suspect pulled one out. I have had them pointed at me as well.

Wow...it seemed like a lot of time passed while waiting for backup. I bet to that LEO, it felt like an eternity.

Also, when they separated him, he started telling his story and did I hear the lady cop correctly? I believe she said, "not a word".

Robert*PPS wrote:Wow...it seemed like a lot of time passed while waiting for backup. I bet to that LEO, it felt like an eternity.

Also, when they separated him, he started telling his story and did I hear the lady cop correctly? I believe she said, "not a word".

Depending where he was = the response. In areas I worked cover could take 20-30 minutes code 3 (lights/sirens).

You definitely heard that correctly. You are not allowed to talk about the shooting to ANYBODY aside from legal council prior to being interviewed by homicide. That keeps the public from thinking you are standing around making up a story with your peers.

texanjoker wrote:

Robert*PPS wrote:Wow...it seemed like a lot of time passed while waiting for backup. I bet to that LEO, it felt like an eternity.

Also, when they separated him, he started telling his story and did I hear the lady cop correctly? I believe she said, "not a word".

Depending where he was = the response. In areas I worked cover could take 20-30 minutes code 3 (lights/sirens).

You definitely heard that correctly. You are not allowed to talk about the shooting to ANYBODY aside from legal council prior to being interviewed by homicide. That keeps the public from thinking you are standing around making up a story with your peers.

I doubt a citizen would be offered the same advice from the police. In fact, I'm sure they would want to hear anything and everything he had to say, and it can and will be used against him in a court of law.

texanjoker wrote:

Robert*PPS wrote:Wow...it seemed like a lot of time passed while waiting for backup. I bet to that LEO, it felt like an eternity.

Also, when they separated him, he started telling his story and did I hear the lady cop correctly? I believe she said, "not a word".

Depending where he was = the response. In areas I worked cover could take 20-30 minutes code 3 (lights/sirens).

You definitely heard that correctly. You are not allowed to talk about the shooting to ANYBODY aside from legal council prior to being interviewed by homicide. That keeps the public from thinking you are standing around making up a story with your peers.

I think the not talking until we talk to counsel is also a good example for us mere citizens.

mojo84 wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

Robert*PPS wrote:Wow...it seemed like a lot of time passed while waiting for backup. I bet to that LEO, it felt like an eternity.

Also, when they separated him, he started telling his story and did I hear the lady cop correctly? I believe she said, "not a word".

Depending where he was = the response. In areas I worked cover could take 20-30 minutes code 3 (lights/sirens).

You definitely heard that correctly. You are not allowed to talk about the shooting to ANYBODY aside from legal council prior to being interviewed by homicide. That keeps the public from thinking you are standing around making up a story with your peers.

I think the not talking until we talk to counsel is also a good example for us mere citizens.

We do have to give a "safety statement" if needed - like if a suspect is outstanding, ect but then you don't talk until you talk to counsel.

Jaguar wrote: I doubt a citizen would be offered the same advice from the police. In fact, I'm sure they would want to hear anything and everything he had to say, and it can and will be used against him in a court of law.

And of course you would be talking to someone you see everyday, work closely with, are friends with, and think of yourself as on the same team as so of course you have that extra desire to talk with them. Oh! wait a min none of that's true either.

EEllis wrote:

Jaguar wrote: I doubt a citizen would be offered the same advice from the police. In fact, I'm sure they would want to hear anything and everything he had to say, and it can and will be used against him in a court of law.

And of course you would be talking to someone you see everyday, work closely with, are friends with, and think of yourself as on the same team as so of course you have that extra desire to talk with them. Oh! wait a min none of that's true either.

No need to be rude...

The cops will pretend to be your best friend to gather evidence, so what's your point?

ETA. What did I say that is not true?

Not to make lite of this situation, but...

The BG opened his door and I think that grunt we heard was the Officer pushing the guy and closing the car door. I notice it is closed during the shooting. I count 3 seconds to the first shot fired..not bad after being totally surprised and shoving the guy back in the car. I think I counted 16 rounds fired and it appears to be a Glock. So we know it wasn't a .45ACP. I can't tell if he reoaded but I didn't see a magazine on the ground. Either way, these guys are WAY UNDERPAID!!!!

Jaguar wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Jaguar wrote: I doubt a citizen would be offered the same advice from the police. In fact, I'm sure they would want to hear anything and everything he had to say, and it can and will be used against him in a court of law.

And of course you would be talking to someone you see everyday, work closely with, are friends with, and think of yourself as on the same team as so of course you have that extra desire to talk with them. Oh! wait a min none of that's true either.

No need to be rude...

The cops will pretend to be your best friend to gather evidence, so what's your point?

ETA. What did I say that is not true?

What did I say that wasn't true? Why is pointing out that it obviously isn't the same situation rude? What you said was accurate, but for a different situation.

EEllis wrote:

Jaguar wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Jaguar wrote: I doubt a citizen would be offered the same advice from the police. In fact, I'm sure they would want to hear anything and everything he had to say, and it can and will be used against him in a court of law.

And of course you would be talking to someone you see everyday, work closely with, are friends with, and think of yourself as on the same team as so of course you have that extra desire to talk with them. Oh! wait a min none of that's true either.

No need to be rude...

The cops will pretend to be your best friend to gather evidence, so what's your point?

ETA. What did I say that is not true?

What did I say that wasn't true? Why is pointing out that it obviously isn't the same situation rude? What you said was accurate, but for a different situation.

I understand this is a completely different situation, that was the whole point of my comment. The cops watch out for their own before they know if it was a good shoot or not. None of them saw it, for all they knew he could have murdered the man in cold blood, but they tell him "not a word" and have him accept his constitutional protections automatically while they overtly attempt to circumvent those same protections with ordinary citizens. Go Team!

Have a really nice day.

Jaguar wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Jaguar wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Jaguar wrote: I doubt a citizen would be offered the same advice from the police. In fact, I'm sure they would want to hear anything and everything he had to say, and it can and will be used against him in a court of law.

And of course you would be talking to someone you see everyday, work closely with, are friends with, and think of yourself as on the same team as so of course you have that extra desire to talk with them. Oh! wait a min none of that's true either.

No need to be rude...

The cops will pretend to be your best friend to gather evidence, so what's your point?

ETA. What did I say that is not true?

What did I say that wasn't true? Why is pointing out that it obviously isn't the same situation rude? What you said was accurate, but for a different situation.

I understand this is a completely different situation, that was the whole point of my comment. The cops watch out for their own before they know if it was a good shoot or not. None of them saw it, for all they knew he could have murdered the man in cold blood, but they tell him "not a word" and have him accept his constitutional protections automatically while they overtly attempt to circumvent those same protections with ordinary citizens. Go Team!

Have a really nice day.

It's clear from your postings you have an ingrained distrust of authority that colors your perception and responses here.
Makes it very difficult to have a rational discussion on any trigger topic.

Policy may direct a officer involved in a shooting be segregated immediately..
Officer not emotionally involved may realize friends, and co workers may say erroneous emotional based things that could color a investigation, so smartly remind the officer to shut up.

The fact an officer attempts to elicit information from a non LEO citizen after a shooting is neither negative, derogatory or contrary to normal, fair police procedure.. If a citizen states he does not want to speak, that's fine as well... but no harm no foul in asking

Jaguar wrote: I understand this is a completely different situation, that was the whole point of my comment. The cops watch out for their own before they know if it was a good shoot or not. None of them saw it, for all they knew he could have murdered the man in cold blood, but they tell him "not a word" and have him accept his constitutional protections automatically while they overtly attempt to circumvent those same protections with ordinary citizens. Go Team!

Have a really nice day.

That is one way to look at it and TJ mentioned other reasons for him not to speak with officers on site and to wait for the Cops who would actually be doing the investigation, but it also ignores the additional burden of an officer trying to invoke his rights when surrounded by people who are so close to him. Sure officers may try and be friendly to any suspect but that is different from being actual friends, teammates, compatriotes, and saying nothing about what is obviously a traumatic experience. I'm not saying there are no comparisons but I mean come on. And by the way officers who speak with suspects who do not assert their right are not circumventing anything. If they ignore requests or statements asserting those rights or illegally try and coerce a suspect into doing so then they would be circumventing. Otherwise courts couldn't allow any statements that were not made with council. And that would be absurd.