glock27 wrote:in texas if you run into anyones rearend while driving its automatically your fault.
Just to help clear up the argument, this is not true. while Texas law does say you should leave adequate room to stop, it does nto say you are automatically at fault. For example, if I cut in front of someone with little room and then slam on the brakes, he will rear-end me and it would be my fault not his.
In one accident I handled, I wrote the driver in front a ticket because they started from the light but popped the clutch too fast and stalled the car. Since it stopped without signaling the intent to stop and was not expected to stop, I thought they were more at fault than the car behind them that also started with the green light and should have waited a little more.
shooting someone in the back IMO is morally wrong.
This is a personal judgement and each of us gets to make our own decision on our morals. The law may be seen as what society as a whole has agreed is moral. It does not say this in the law.
more like a sucker punch, if they got your money and are running off your no longer inthreat.
This is not how they are teaching police officers any more. If the suspect is still armed and is leaving, he is still a threat and may be headed to threaten someone else. The use of deadly force is justified. In texas law, the threat is not even needed if he is leaving with your property and it is the only reasonable way to get it back.
IMO it is unhuman-like to shoot someone in the back as they are running away i think a jury would corkscrew someone on this, unless they have your childs carseat running and you are promising with your shot. to retrieve your child.
Probably the best example of proving you wrong is a case in Austin that made lots of news a few years ago. I may be remembering this wrong since I am not looking it up but going on old memory. A CHL followed a car burglary suspect and ended up shooting him away from the scene. There was some debate as to whether or not the suspect was armed or made threatening movements towards the CHL. I think it took the DA a couple tries to get a grand jury to indict. The trial jury said not guilty. And that was in the liberal heart of Texas. What do you think a more conservative area would do?
adrenaline gets the best of us, who knows what anyone of us would do if somthing happend, we can say one thing and do the completely opposite. adrenaline and fear and nerves take over thinking lawfully is the last thing on our minds. survival and revenge would be #1 for me personally. but at the same time this forum "trains" us to "slow our roll" on ceratin situations and to double think situations. as well as expecting the unexpected and being ready for it....
I certainly agree that we may not react in the real situation the way we think we will. Adrenaline and stress do things we do not think they will. I also agree that the forum, and many other training programs, helps us to think things through in advance and plan a better than just instinctive response. That is one of the things I like here.
On this subject, I would strongly suggest anyone do some research on what the scientists are showing now. I especially like some of the research coming out of the Force Science Institute in Minnesota. I especially like some of their motion studies and how fast a fleeing suspect turns into a threat. One of their studies showed that it was almost impossible for an officer to shoot a suspect who was lying on the ground with his hands under his chest faster than the suspect could turn over and shoot the officer.