Posted on 12/08/2012 10:26:35 AM PST by smokingfrog
I lived in Houston for over twenty years. The “right to propery” is a well established right in Texas law. The short version, you can use ANY force to protect your property, REGARDLESS of value!
It’s tragic she had to die this way, but, she only has herself and accomplishes to blame. It the crimes are deemed a felony, can’t her cohorts face “capital murder” charges?
Reading that article the woman deserved to be shot!
Read the effing article. She was killed to trying to run over the officer, not shoplifting.
I love it when people MAKE SENSE and I'm in TOTAL agreement with you.
Nice to see that common sense is still alive.
NOT TRUE if, in the commission of a crime, the perp either threatens or endangers your life, in TENN you have the right by law to defend yourself, whether you're a police officer or not..
It appears, according to the record of the Houston incident striking the officer and then trying to run him down while he was trying to perform an arrest is now way past shoplifting charges.
If law enforcement commands YOU to STOP the simplest way I know of avoiding ANY harmful confrontation to me or them is to COMPLY.
That white stuff sure caused her lips to swell up.
Unless you're an Army officer at a Las Vegas Costco...
WAY too many people, of all colors,race and creeds, think it is totally acceptable to AVOID personal responsibility for their actions. And here, in Texas, you can very well end up dead because of your poor choices.
My wife and I daily risk our lives to get to work, earn a paycheck and enjoy the life we have and anyone who thinks they are “entitled” to steal what I have risked my life to provide are likely to sacrifice their own trying to take mine.
That's what you should have stated initially, isn't it?
It's in damn short supply among the cop haters
Thanks for mentioning that Houston has tons of jobs right now. I see NOW HIRING signs all over town. They may be beginning, low paying jobs but it would mean honest work for these criminals that are out there robbing people.
“In nature there are neither rewards nor punishment - there are consequences”. Robert G. Ingersoll
This person decided to steal, likely to supplement her EBT and other government entitlements, and she learned the hard way there are sometimes SEVERE consequences for one’s actions.
She was stealing, not once, but evidently, multiple times, as she was caught multiple times, in WalMart. Yes, sorry for her poor decisions. Sorry she has two kids without a mother. She and her friends decided it would be fun and profitable to steal. Decisions have consequences. She is dead. Sorry, ‘bout dat.
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=8911831
Her friends didn’t care enough about her to take her to the ER but let her bleed out in their apartment parking lot. A neighbor stated “she” was looking for someone to help her. Can’t understand from the article if it was the one who died or one of the friends who told the neighbor what happened. Since they didn’t go to the ER, then that should bring more time added to their sentence.
purple haze
Have you been in some areas of large cities? The slap-on-wrist response to crime has bred us a whole population of hostiles. I'll stick with my original response. Moreover, as dozens of people have pointed out, she wasn't shot for shoplifting. She was shot for dragging him with her car, suggesting that a thief is only one situational development short of a murderer. Someone who doesn't give a hang about the law is inherently dangerous, as this chick proved. Sorry, can't dredge up a drop of sympathy for her.
My concern was the claim this ol'gal was trying to run him down, yet a passenger was shot ~ from the side door. You'll find that somewhere in the vicinity of the first full description of the event a Freeper used the term 'run over', which may be more applicable than 'run down', since 'run down' necessarily implies some sense of steering toward a target, whereas 'run over' could simply have you trundled under the tires.
The union will need to provide the cop with one of their better lawyers for this one ~ the driver, if she was trying to run over, run down, back into, roll around on, or bump the cop, wasn't the primary suspect.
These cases where the cop shoots a passenger rather than the driver while claiming the driver was trying to collide with them on foot do get argued over a lot. The Bridgroom Case in New York ended up with NYC paying the unarmed men who were shot a huge sum. We had a shooting here where some kids tried to leave the IHOP without paying ~ the renta cop ~ an offduty Alexandria officer, shot a kid in the back seat. He too claimed they tried to collide with him ~ and he lost big time. Couldn't convict any of these cops but the civil damages were tremendous.
See the pattern ~ you can't convict the cops, but they really have to make sure they shoot the driver and not one of the unarmed passengers! Else the civil damage suit will be very costly.
This is one of the first such cases where we had a major video operation looking down on the events. Walmart could probably sell it as instructional material ~ and make a fortune!
Totally agree with you. Well stated. Good post. Freepers on this thread applauding the despicable actions of a cop shooting at a fleeing car over shoplifting....is insanity.
Or did the cops go out looking for this woman, or the car?
Someone else not involved in any of this found the wounded woman bleeding out in the car ~ the others having fled.
Seems to me it really wasn't her day!
That may be true. However, people are posting according to facts presented in the article. It states he shot at fleeing car. Freepers here see no problem with that. It’s disgusting.
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.