Arlington police chief is spineless

[txwhitetail]

It was very unusual for the officer to be fired so quickly. Usually they are placed on administrative leave while the investigation plays out.

Yep....unless they cower to the media and cop bashers.

[DFWPI]

As for the firing, I know nothing about the circumstances. But, I do know rookie officers are usually on probation for a year and can be terminated at the bat of an eye for any reason.

I don't believe its the right thing to do, but I've seen it all too many times.

[Mike D]

Most likely because of a "protected class" infraction. I employee over 400 people, have a HR department dedicated to just this and dealt with it as recently as this morning. We don't always win the "unemployment claim" hearings, but we certainly do the vast majority of them, because we do them right.

The times I've been subpoenaed did not involve a protected class at all. The majority of the time it is a IBEW guys filing a grievance for wrongful termination but I've also been involved in more than one case that was one of our nonunion employees filing wrongful termination.

Luckily I document everything to the T and the cases went our way but you can bet the lawyers tried everything in the book to find us in the wrong.

[Limbwalker]

and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

I still wonder if anyone is paying attention to what comes after "AND."

That's an "AND" folks, not an "or." Makes a big difference.

I'd love to hear anyone explain how any property that kid could have taken could not be protected or recovered by any other means or anything other than deadly force would expose the person or another to death or serious injury. I doubt they could. Why? Because it's a CAR LOT.

[Ironman]

I still wonder if anyone is paying attention to what comes after "AND."

That's an "AND" folks, not an "or." Makes a big difference.

I'd love to hear anyone explain how any property that kid could have taken could not be protected or recovered by any other means or anything other than deadly force would expose the person or another to death or serious injury. I doubt they could. Why? Because it's a CAR LOT.

You aren't paying attention.

He wasn't shot for vandalizing cars at the lot.

[RickH78]

you aren't paying attention.

He wasn't shot for vandalizing cars at the lot.

^^^^this x1000^^^^

[tvc184]

I still wonder if anyone is paying attention to what comes after "AND."

That's an "AND" folks, not an "or." Makes a big difference.

I'd love to hear anyone explain how any property that kid could have taken could not be protected or recovered by any other means or anything other than deadly force would expose the person or another to death or serious injury. I doubt they could. Why? Because it's a CAR LOT.

Honestly, do you think this was a case of Chapter 9 defense of property?

Actually the "and" or "or" in this case makes no difference at all.

This case had absolutely nothing to do with property, period. Again, what the original stop was for is almost meaning less. It could have been for a traffic citation.

The only thing that matters is the officer is claiming that he had a reasonable fear of his life. At that point the property has nothing to do with case. A grand jury will look at the facts as they are known and make a determination if that claimed fear was reasonable. If a guy is threatening an officer's life, does it matter if the original detention was because of jaywalking or property damage?

Here is an analogy. You go to a garage sale and look at a used hunting bow. You go talk to the person putting on the garage sale and for some reason he snaps, goes crazy and starts attacking you with a knife. In defense you shoot and kill him. Should the headlines be, "Man Shoots Homeowner Over Archery Equipment"? The answer is clearly "no". The bow had nothing to do with it. For some reason a guy went bonkers and attacked you and you had to defend yourself. What you were discussing beforehand has nothing to do with it.

Apparently you do not believe the officer is entitled to such equal treatment.

I have no clue what happened other than the videos of the kid acting like he was drug crazed. Maybe the officer was justified and maybe he wasn't.

You insistence on bringing up property crimes means that you have no idea why the officer fired shots or you know and are simply trying to divert attention to a straw man argument. I don't think anyone will argue that the officer had the authority or any reasonableness to shoot the kid due to property damage as listed under Chapter 9. That is ludicrous.

Maybe you have some inside information that you would like to share on what really happened the few seconds before shots were fired that would lead us to believe the officer was justified or is not, should be charged with murder. I have seen no such information but if you could enlighten us, I would appreciate it.

[Arrowslinger1]

I feel like I just watched a hole season of Dexter!
Stone cold killers, law officers, victims, I'm surprised no one has been butchered and thrown in Lake Ray Hubbard! Lol

[manwitaplan]

Honestly, do you think this was a case of Chapter 9 defense of property?

Actually the "and" or "or" in this case makes no difference at all.

This case had absolutely nothing to do with property, period. Again, what the original stop was for is almost meaning less. It could have been for a traffic citation.

The only thing that matters is the officer is claiming that he had a reasonable fear of his life. At that point the property has nothing to do with case. A grand jury will look at the facts as they are known and make a determination if that claimed fear was reasonable. If a guy is threatening an officer's life, does it matter if the original detention was because of jaywalking or property damage?

Here is an analogy. You go to a garage sale and look at a used hunting bow. You go talk to the person putting on the garage sale and for some reason he snaps, goes crazy and starts attacking you with a knife. In defense you shoot and kill him. Should the headlines be, "Man Shoots Homeowner Over Archery Equipment"? The answer is clearly "no". The bow had nothing to do with it. For some reason a guy went bonkers and attacked you and you had to defend yourself. What you were discussing beforehand has nothing to do with it.

Apparently you do not believe the officer is entitled to such equal treatment.

I have no clue what happened other than the videos of the kid acting like he was drug crazed. Maybe the officer was justified and maybe he wasn't.

You insistence on bringing up property crimes means that you have no idea why the officer fired shots or you know and are simply trying to divert attention to a straw man argument. I don't think anyone will argue that the officer had the authority or any reasonableness to shoot the kid due to property damage as listed under Chapter 9. That is ludicrous.

Maybe you have some inside information that you would like to share on what really happened the few seconds before shots were fired that would lead us to believe the officer was justified or is not, should be charged with murder. I have seen no such information but if you could enlighten us, I would appreciate it.

Bravo..... Loud clapping in background.

[Ironman]

Very nice TVC!

[RutnBuk]

Very nice TVC!

X2

[Limbwalker]

This case had absolutely nothing to do with property, period

Just responding to your post. You might want to go back and see who brought up property first here champ. 'Twasn't me. You were responding to Burnadell, and was the one who posted that code and "rested his case."

[Limbwalker]

Actually, burnadell and YOU brought up property before I ever did. But let's not let facts get in the way of a good 'ol fashioned mob mentality lynching on the GS. LOL.

Carry on.

[Ironman]

Just responding to the one who posted that code and "rested his case." Don't let that distract you. I'm not the one that brought the property clause into the discussion.

Why didn't you respond to them when they posted that? Hmm?

Lol! You are becoming very transparent.


Why don't you just start a new thread about Texas State Law, and Property Rights. Let this one be about the Arlington Chief.

[Limbwalker]

Honestly, do you think this was a case of Chapter 9 defense of property?

Huh, it just occurred to me that you brought up the "property" clause to justify the action, and then when I pointed out the problem with that, you want to now say it's "not about property."

And somehow I'm now "transparent" because of this.

GS Logic at it's best.

I'm out on this one guys.

If you want to use the property clause, then go ahead. If you don't, then don't. But make up your mind.