Off Duty Police Officer fires @ Teens who knocked on his door Late at Night - Sparta, NJ

[Johnny 0]

Sounds like this guy may have been pretty paranoid. Perhaps that's an occupational hazard.

[Maximus 16]

Did I miss something here? Where does it say that I should stop my car and surrender to some guy running down the street In his underwear or pajamas, waving and firing a gun at me, just because he says he's a police officer. Was he wearing his unform at 2am? Have his badge strapped on his PJ's? I'm not stopping either, especially after he started shooting at me.

[PK90 3,570]

Did I miss something here? Where does it say that I should stop my car and surrender to some guy running down the street In his underwear or pajamas, waving and firing a gun at me, just because he says he's a police officer. Was he wearing his unform at 2am? Have his badge strapped on his PJ's? I'm not stopping either, especially after he started shooting at me.

... and especially when I just tried to break into his house.

[mipafox 438]

Did I miss something here? Where does it say that I should stop my car and surrender to some guy running down the street In his underwear or pajamas, waving and firing a gun at me

Well, Texas law is pretty clear on the subject.

[Kevin125 4,772]

What ever happened to the days when cops would simply bust your balls and take your beer?

 

 

Also, Mark Furman was on Fox last night commenting on the cop that shot that guy in the head as he tried to drive away.  His comment was essentially... "Once he started driving away, that's the end of the story."  Meaning, taking shots at an unarmed, fleeing suspect isn't an option.

[Kevin125 4,772]

Well, Texas law is pretty clear on the subject.

 

How so?  You mean firing at a suspect who flees? I'm not familiar with TX law.

[Handyman 5,682]

Sounds like another:

 

[Kevin125 4,772]

Here's something to consider.  Anyone remember that cop that shot that guy in the back as he ran away in that park?  Someone got it on their cell phone.

 

So let's say this guy was a better shot and put a round in the back of that 18 year old's head....

 

Dropped him as he was getting into the car... or as he drove it.

 

What's the situation now?  And why is his inability to hit what he was shooting at a factor in the consequences?

 

Edit:  One difference is the locale.  A public space,,, vs ,,,, private property.

[mipafox 438]

How so?  You meaning firing at a suspect who flees? I'm not familiar with TX law.

 

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

 

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.

 

(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

 

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

 

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

 

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

 

 

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.

 

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

 

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

 

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

 

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

 

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; 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.

 

 

Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY.

 

A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

 

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or

 

(2) the actor reasonably believes that:

 

(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;

 

(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or

 

© the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

[PK90 3,570]

Kill'm all and let God sort'm out.

[Kevin125 4,772]

lol...

 

Mipa.. have you considered a career as a Walking Encyclopedia?

 

TY for the info.

 

As I read that, it seems there are conditions that need to be met.  Some subjective, but for example, when a person is fleeing, it has to be established they are fleeing with your stuff and there is no other recourse to prevent them from getting away.

 

The interpretation of that in TX is probably more towards the property owners rights...

 

In NJ, any law even written the same way would be interpreted as requiring a judge on the scene giving permission to fire. 

[silverado427 10,692]

Kill'm all and let God sort'm out.

we need a like button.

[Kevin125 4,772]

I need a Clint Eastwood "Grand Torino" GIF of him talking to the little thugs.

[silverado427 10,692]

   https://youtu.be/CJrMvXGjdLQ

[1LtCAP 4,262]

HA!!

[raz-0 1,259]

Here's something to consider.  Anyone remember that cop that shot that guy in the back as he ran away in that park?  Someone got it on their cell phone.

 

So let's say this guy was a better shot and put a round in the back of that 18 year old's head....

 

Dropped him as he was getting into the car... or as he drove it.

 

What's the situation now?  And why is his inability to hit what he was shooting at a factor in the consequences?

 

Edit:  One difference is the locale.  A public space,,, vs ,,,, private property.

 

 

How is a street private property? 

[Newtonian 453]

that's funny I was taught in school that a paragraph should consist of a topic sentence, supporting sentences and a conclusion sentence. there for a paragraph should consist at least 3-4 sentences.

Wrong.

 

A paragraph is more about coherently representing an idea than word count or number of sentences. Technically and practically a paragraph can consist of a single word. As in my previous paragraph.

[mipafox 438]

Your participle is dangling. Might want to zip that up

[Smokin .50 1,907]

Your participle is dangling. Might want to zip that up

LOL, thank God that's all that's danglin' up in Newton these days, lol!

[JackDaWack 2,895]

The 911 audio from the trooper is up on NJ.com

http://www.nj.com/morris/index.ssf/2015/07/listen_trooper_followed_teens_after_shooting_teen.html#incart_river_mobileshort

[fishnut 2,358]

Wrong.

 

A paragraph is more about coherently representing an idea than word count or number of sentences. Technically and practically a paragraph can consist of a single word. As in my previous paragraph.

I guess you failed to read my post directly after the one you quoted.

[Newtonian 453]

I guess you failed to read my post directly after the one you quoted.

Did I miss something? Surprise, surprise. Point it out bruh.

[Newtonian 453]

The 911 audio from the trooper is up on NJ.com

http://www.nj.com/morris/index.ssf/2015/07/listen_trooper_followed_teens_after_shooting_teen.html#incart_river_mobileshort

Yeah this reminds me of the thread 9-10 months ago about looking out the window and seeing some punks vandalizing your car. We all want them to be run over by a 50-ton tractor but for very good reasons you can't shoot them. Maybe not so good reasons. 

[jackandjill 683]

Keep some manners and be polite when you knock on someone's door at 2 AM. 

 

 

Having said that, a non LEO in similar situation would have been branded as "Old, NRA backed, Gunman going after innocent kids", promptly arrested and processed to let courts figure it out. 

[Polak 3]

Well, if he's in front of the car and they try to run him over, I'd say shooting at them is justified. If he was shooting at them while they drove AWAY from him, he's in some doodoo.

[mipafox 438]

It's certainly justified but I'd rather get TF out of the way because shooting isn't going to stop them from running me over.

[Kevin125 4,772]

How is a street private property?

 

I was referring to the driveway and front porch. Don't know where the car was parked. Most kids I know pull into the driveway of the house they are stopping at.

[mipafox 438]

Let's try to mostly refrain from opening posts with "No" or "Wrong." Not very civil. We don't have any reason to be confrontational with one another.

 

And, Yes, I am the biggest offender You can call me out on it.

[Kevin125 4,772]

It's certainly justified but I'd rather get TF out of the way because shooting isn't going to stop them from running me over.

Right.

 

What pisses me off most about this incident is how the Sparta Police dealt with the two or three "kids". What a pack of douche bags they are to treat these kids like criminals. They may be idiots, but there's no evidence they broke any laws.

 

Oh.. There is one law they may have broken. Interfering with the trajectory of an Official Bullet.

[Kevin125 4,772]

Let's try to mostly refrain from opening posts with "No" or "Wrong." Not very civil. We don't have any reason to be confrontational with one another.

 

And, Yes, I am the biggest offender You can call me out on it.

I think the "one word opening paragraph"........ was part of his point. Not so much intentional confrontation...at least not totally.