Police Shoots Bank Robber On Highway

[carlson1]

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/lo ... nk_robbery" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sugar Land Bank Robbed

Updated: Tuesday, 18 Aug 2009, 10:31 AM CDT
Published : Tuesday, 18 Aug 2009, 10:18 AM CDT

* DOUG DELONY

SUGAR LAND, Texas - A man who police say robbed a Sugar Land bank is later shot and killed on a nearby bridge.

Sugar Land Police are working the investigation of a suspect who robbed the Wachovia Bank on Tuesday morning.

It is believed the person fled the city heading south on Highway 59 but was later shot by Sugar Land Police on the Brazos River Bridge.

All southbound lanes of the Southwest Freeway are closed just outside the Sugar Land city limits for the investigation.[youtube][/youtube]

[joe817]

My only comment is I am glad the officer is safe after responding to a potentially deadly situation. My hats off to the LEO.

[carlson1]

My only comment is I am glad the officer is safe after responding to a potentially deadly situation. My hats off to the LEO.

Fox news reported that the BG pulled his firearm on the police. I am glad no LEO or civilians were hurt.

[joe817]

My only comment is I am glad the officer is safe after responding to a potentially deadly situation. My hats off to the LEO.

Fox news reported that the BG pulled his firearm on the police. I am glad no LEO or civilians were hurt.

Yup, yup. And the officer successfully responded in kind, thanks to his training.

[casingpoint]

I knew a superintendent who built one of the I-59 bridges over the Brazos. One morning, he ran a trotline and pulled up the body of an Hispanic female. But he said overall, the catfishing was pretty good there. I told him no thanks, I'd stick with Lake Houston and the San Jacinto River near Humble.

[HighVelocity]

When I was a kid, the Sugar Land police station was a double wide trailer. Now it's a real big city with big city crime.

[wheelgun1958]

I am glad no LEO or civilians were hurt.

Law enforcement officers are civilians. If you are not in the military and subject to the UCMJ, you are a civilian.

[LaUser]

I am glad no LEO or civilians were hurt.

Law enforcement officers are civilians. If you are not in the military and subject to the UCMJ, you are a civilian.

Law enforcement officers sometimes refer to non-law enforcement personnel, excluding the military, as civilians. It's got nothing to do with the UCMJ or the armed forces of the U.S.

[C-dub]

Technically, I think Wheelgun is correct. According to Wikipedia:
"A civilian under international humanitarian law is a person who is not a member of his or her country's armed forces. The term is also often used colloquially to refer to people who are not members of a particular profession or occupation, especially by law enforcement agencies, which often use rank structures similar to those of military units."
While the police and others may not think of themselves as civilians, it looks like they are.

[USA1]

Sugar Land has had six bank robberies since January. Cops say they've caught five of the robbers. Only one, for now, is still on the run.

5 out of 6 ... not bad .
i don't know what the stats are for Houston , but i can only imagine they are nowhere close .

[apostate]

I did Sugar Land's citizen academy many moons ago. I'm glad to hear it sounds like no good cops or good citizens were hurt.

[jbirds1210]

Technically, I think Wheelgun is correct. According to Wikipedia:

It must be true.

What stops someone else from going in and stating the exact opposite? Wikipedia should never, ever be quoted as fact!

[carlson1]

Technically, I think Wheelgun is correct. According to Wikipedia:

It must be true.

[dicion]

Well then, lets look at the Geneva Convention Articles

http://www.tamilnation.org/humanrights/ ... ol1d.htm#8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Chapter II. Civilians and civilian population
Art 50. Definition of civilians and civilian population

1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 (A) (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.

2. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

3. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.

Great, this is as cross-referenced as Texas CHL Law! Luckily, we're all versed in this cross-reference stuff.

Article 4 (A) (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention:
http://www.tamilnation.org/humanrights/ ... neva3a.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Article 43 of this Protocol
http://www.tamilnation.org/humanrights/ ... ol1c.htm#6" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Section II. Combatants and Prisoners of War
Art 43. Armed forces

1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct or its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.

2. Members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict (other than medical personnel and chaplains covered by Article 33 of the Third Convention) are combatants, that is to say, they have the right to participate directly in hostilities.

3. Whenever a Party to a conflict incorporates a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency into its armed forces it shall so notify the other Parties to the conflict.

There you have it. A Civilian as defined by the Geneva Convention, which all nations follow to the letter for warfare. ( HAHAHAHAHA!! Wait.. did I just laugh out loud? Sorry...)

I don't see 'civil servants' or 'police' or 'law-enforcement' in the section that defines non-civilians at all
However, it does specifically mention 'resistance forces', so, If, say, China invaded us, and the police assisted as part of a 'resistance force'.. then they would no longer be considered civilians.

But... Random Officer Smith, driving his daily beat, on a normal day, is a civilian

[Liberty]

It is all about context and perspective.efine