WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

1.1K

Intelligent legal analysis. It is good that this happened in Texas.

Intelligent legal analysis. It is good that this happened in Texas.

(post is archived)

[–] 0 pt

Here's the rub. If he is guilty, it means most every officer who has ever fired their weapon in the line of fire is a murdered and should be in prison. They are commonly taught to keep firing until the threat it ended. It's trivial to find police shootings, with many officers involved, all emptying their magazines into a person. Under law, they are criminals. But because they are police, they get a pass. Constitutionally, and accordingly any law or interpretation which makes them distinct in this regard, is illegal and unconstitutional. Under the US Constitution, either you are allowed to terminate someone's life involved in such crimes, with malice, or all police involved in such shootings are also criminals and we must prosecute them harshly, ensuring they too die in prison. Legally and constitutionally, we can't have it both ways.

[–] 2 pts

There are certainly some police shootings where they "get carried away" and shoot far more rounds than needed. Some of those killed had it coming and some didn't. Sometimes the cops skate, other times they are fired or even jailed. Not a good correlation between offing the undeserving and punishment. It seems to depend on the politics of the region and the prosecutor. Being this was in Texas I feel confident they will find No Bill.

[–] 2 pts

Commonly find cops who continue firing even after they hit the ground. Their statement, "I thought they were still armed and dangerous." That's it. This is standard practice. They are all taught to say it. Where able, they do as they are told.

[–] 1 pt

we can't have it both ways

Depends on who you are.

[–] 1 pt

Qualified immunity.

[–] 0 pt

Constitutionally is illegal. They only legally have arrest powers. Any special privileged extended to them beyond arrest powers, which are not extended to the rest of the citizenry are by definition exclusionary and unconstitutional. To be clear, making the distinction between your statement (you are correct) and what is actually lawful. Qualified immunity is not constitutional. If judges actually did their job, the concept wouldn't even exist.