Click the Dice!
Don't Gamble With Free Republic's Future
Give what you can
Or donate monthly
A sponsoring FReeper will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up
Posted on 10/25/2012 6:45:58 PM PDT by smokingfrog
Details, details.....
FM2410 in Harker Heights is a busy road.
Trooper was shooting to disable...
Seems like a very bad idea to try that from a helicopter with a moving vehicle full of people...
Can’t understand the thinking here. This is a tough shot even for a sniper...
http://news.yahoo.com/trooper-fired-pickup-tried-disable-193540158.html
I would bet at some point the driver endangered the lives of either law enforcement or civilians, that allows use of force nearly every time. I don’t mean to say it is always used but if a suspect puts someone else in danger then use of force policy usually covers the situation if shots are fired at the suspect.
For example people who “run” Ports of Entry at the border in a vehicle- if they don’t endanger anyone while doing it, no civilians or CBPs in danger- firing upon them to stop them is not allowed but if the port runner tries to run over CBP or civilians while “running” the port then shooting the suspect driver has happened and the shooters have been cleared.
More info is needed on this situation, but I think the most likely thing is the reporter did a poor job- or deliberately made it sound like it is ok to hunt people down and shoot them to be sensational or lack of knowledge.
I agree with you that it has been misinterpreted as a violation- I think since it is an international border and if they are actually ON the border the interaction would be with citizens of another country attempting illegal entry- not U.S. Citizens. I think it is/should be the job of the military to protect our international borders. I think the reason they claim P.C. is because patrolling is NOT always done right on the border (as I think it should be) so there is/will be interaction with our citizens. Easy solution- put Border Patrol and military assist ON the border.
The 6 Amendment states:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
So, exactly, how does a person who is evading arrest and endangering the property, well-being and lives of the public protected by this amendment? Tolerating this sort of behavior, encourages this behavior; and endangers the lives of innocent, law abiding citizens.
I opt not to encourage behaviors that endanger innocent bystanders; and I encourage behavior that seeks to limit undue risk to both the innocent bystander as well as the law enforcement officer.
Is police pursuit a pursuant to criminal action? If it is then prosecution could, arguably, start at arrest. Furthermore, simply killing people (calld summary execution) deprives them of the chance of ever mounting a legal defense. Furthermore, "posing a danger" was specifically not mentioned in the scenario I gave you: simply refusing to pull over for expired plates or some other minor infraction. In fact, trying to shoot such a person makes the police more dangerous to the general public than the person they are stopping: the bullet has to go somewhere, and even if they hit the person the car has to go somewhere; this is of course ignoring possibility of a roadblock, as per the topic of this thread.
I opt not to encourage behaviors that endanger innocent bystanders; and I encourage behavior that seeks to limit undue risk to both the innocent bystander as well as the law enforcement officer.
No, you do encourage dangerous actions; things like this are very likely to harm innocent bystanders.
The Texas Rangers have always had a quasi-military function from when they were founded in 1823. They were used as a quick reaction force against invaders and marauding natives repeatedly over the centuries.
But are Rangers under DPS? Was this a Ranger helicopter?
Turns out this vehicle was full of Guatemalans, eight of them. No Mexicans except maybe the driver
The problem isn't about illegal aliens, the problem is about Law Enforcement Officers trying to summarily execute people. (That's a 5th and 6th amendment violation, btw.)
This is not to say that I would be against lethal force being employed against illegal immigrants via military/militia action; that is actually one way to really break the faith people have in the Fed Gov (declare a state of invasion, militarily defend the borders of your state, demand the Fed Gov assist as per Art 4, Sec 4... them you'll instantly have changed the national political landscape.)
We are tired of being overrun, tired of the sanctuary cities,
Fun fact: if you were to declare a state of invasion then Sanctuary Cities would be an act of Treason. Imagine the reaction to indicting the city-counsel, mayor, police, and county sheriff of those cities.
We’re tired of the Federal government not enforcing the laws of our land. One of the ESL teachers in the Dallas school system told another teacher that Mexico is taking Texas back one baby at a time. Enough is enough.
So then, why don't you do things properly: declare an invasion, muster militia, and defend yourselves militarily?
Cheering at the deaths of illegal aliens, at the hands of law enforcement, will only have a bad end: those same law enforcement people will be used against you.
The Rangers are part of DPS, yes. DPS’s enforcement arm itself is a combination of State Police, Highway Patrol and a quasi-military quick reaction force - and always has been.
Don’t know if this was a Ranger chopper, but such rules of engagement have been standard for DPS since founding. The policy is that a failure to stop within a reasonable time while posing a danger to others is grounds for DPS to attempt to stop you by any means necessary in a progressive escalation including disabling the vehicle by gunfire - or disabling the driver by gunfire. That’s been the case since the Bonnie and Clyde era.
Intriguing; thank you for the information.
When DPS tells you to stop, they MEAN stop and you WILL be stopping one way or the other. Pretty much everyone (even in Mexico) knows this. Here are some prior examples:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kUK9Uh4MnE
http://www.reporternews.com/news/2012/may/10/dps-cruiser-stolen-trooper-forced-to-shoot-out/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg4NwrpXB1o
Nobody in Texas has a problem with this.
A Guatemalan diplomat has released the identities of two immigrants killed last week when a state police helicopter fired on their smuggler’s truck north of La Joya.
Alba Caceres, Guatemala’s consul in McAllen, says the victims were Marco Antonio Castro and Jose Leonardo Coj Cumar, of San Martin Jilotepeque, about an hour outside the capital.
Caceres expressed her government’s indignation and made a formal request for a thorough investigation to the Texas Rangers on Friday. She was trying to interview survivors. She didn’t know when the bodies would be released to the families, but said it could be delayed by the investigation.
http://www.krgv.com/news/immigrants-identified-in-chopper-shooting/
;>)
““We can shoot invaders.”
Bing...Bing...Bing! We have a winner!”
So simple even a caveman can understand it. Unless it’s an open border caveman.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.