patrick.net

He will probably be given a medal and be promoted. In today's culture where police officers can commit perjury at will and face no consequences, shooting a 93 year old woman must be considered heroic by the ticket dispensers/revenue generators.

Hearne TX police department is the national police? How did that happen? Does Hearne know this? To think I believed he was just some small town cop when I first read this.

If you-know-who hadn't done that quantitative easing, that woman would still be alive.

It seems like laws have changed? It seems like it used to be the case that police would try to just disarm or injure the person if they were holding a weapon. They would shoot your arm or leg, for instance. Now it seems like if they even suspect you have a weapon, they shoot to kill.

Am I wrong about this? Has the directive or training changed? There seems to be an increase in instances of people being shot and killed from police nowadays.

This poor lady's husband had been a police officer in that same force. And that same police force ultimately killed her. Very sad.

Once you reach a situation where 2 people have a gun pointed at each other, the first one who shoots kills the other.

If you wait, you don't know if the other person will shoot you.

If you shoot to injure, the other person might shoot you back in fear for her life.

If you have a gun and point it at a cop, you're just asking to get killed, 93 yrs old or not.

Cops are there to do a job. They're not there to risk their lives in trusting other people won't shoot them.

When you are 93, you have nothing to lose.
When you are young, you have everything to lose.

Heraclitusstudent says

Once you reach a situation where 2 people have a gun pointed at each other, the first one who shoots kills the other.

If you wait, you don't know if the other person will shoot you.

If you shoot to injure, the other person might shoot you back in fear for her life.

That sounds like a legal justification for shooting cops on sight. After all, they are one of these two people who might shoot to kill first, as you explained.

If the mere sight of an armed civilian is justification for a cop to kill the civilian, then the mere sight of an armed cop is justification for a civilian to kill the cop. According to the Constitution, we are all equal under law. If a cop shooting a civilian in fear that the civilian might shoot him is not be prosecuted by our court system, then neither should any civilian shooting a cop out of fear that the cop has a gun.

Guys....what was the motive for the police officer murdering her? You guys make it sound like he murdered her just for the heck of it. Really?
He was called to the house for a reason....the lady did have a gun......bad things are very likely to happen in these situations.
Can we have some rational thought here?

Dan8267 says

That sounds like a legal justification for shooting cops on sight. After all, they are one of these two people who might shoot to kill first, as you explained.

If the mere sight of an armed civilian is justification for a cop to kill the civilian, then the mere sight of an armed cop is justification for a civilian to kill the cop. According to the Constitution, we are all equal under law. If a cop shooting a civilian in fear that the civilian might shoot him is not be prosecuted by our court system, then neither should any civilian shooting a cop out of fear that the cop has a gun.

Every time a cop ends up killing a civilian he should be prosecuted for murder?
In a cop's line of work innocent people will get killed every now and then, that makes it murder? How are the cops expected to serve and protect the citizens when you put undue restrictions on his movements?

Dan8267 says

That sounds like a legal justification for shooting cops on sight. After all, they are one of these two people who might shoot to kill first, as you explained.

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

I'm usually the last to defend the police, but seriously if you don't want to be shot try not pointing a gun at a police officer AND THEN STILL REFUSE TO LOWER THE WEAPON AFTER BEING TOLD TO. She's lucky he even asked.

I would have shot her too, long before I would have told her to lower the weapon.

Strategist says

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

On paper, but statistics say that's not true in practice.

CrazyMan says

I'm usually the last to defend the police, but seriously if you don't want to be shot try not pointing a gun at a police officer AND THEN STILL REFUSE TO LOWER THE WEAPON AFTER BEING TOLD TO. She's lucky he even asked.

I would have shot her too, long before I would have told her to lower the weapon.

He asked because he is supposed to. If someone points a gun at me I would assume it's to kill me, and I would just start shooting first and ask the bullshit questions later. Fuck them.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

On paper, but statistics say that's not true in practice.

OK, maybe so, but how can you assume and imply he is guilty?

The point is that if fear that the other guy might shoot first is justification for a cop killing a civilian, than it's also justification for a civilian shooting a cop for the exact same reasons. The uniform does not confer any privileges, especially not in life and death matters.

CrazyMan says

would have shot her too, long before I would have told her to lower the weapon.

Well thank god you are not a cop.

Heraclitusstudent says

If you have a gun and point it at a cop, you're just asking to get killed, 93 yrs old or not.

The articles says "brandished a gun". It never says the gun was pointed at the cop. Her husband was a cop for pete's sake! Of course she had a gun.

My point is that it seems like having any type of weapon, toy weapon, or something that a cop mistakes a weapon can be justification for being shot and killed nowadays.

I read an article where a journalist was being detained coming into the country (because she had written about Edward Snowden), and they would not let her write down what was happening during the detainment because they considered her pen a "weapon". It is sort of weapon - a weapon of free speech and truth. But, if they consider a pen a physical weapon, than any of us, at any time will have some sort of weapon on us and the fact that we get shot and killed by cop can be justified.

Gun rights advocates should be up in arms over this story, literally up in arms.

Unfortunately many gun owners are authority worshippers, so long as the authority isn't pointy-headed but rather butch-cut.

Dan8267 says

Gun rights advocates should be up in arms over this story, literally up in arms.

If only she were a white rancher stealing grazing land in Nevada...

Clear-cut case of suicide by cop.
nothing here ..... move on

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

Given the record of public agency cops in the US, it is just as likely he planted the gun on the dead lady after he blew her the fuck away and had sex with the corpse and tossed all the valuables in her house in a gym bag in his squad car

Sex with a 93 year old, that's disgusting.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

bob2356 says

Sex with a 93 year old, that's disgusting.

We're talking about cops here. A REALTOR with a license to kill.

Did you know that reseachers are going to replace lab rats with realtors?
1. The lab staff won't get attached to realtors.
2. There are more realtors than rats.
3. There are things rats have too much pride to do.

At least the cop didn't try to print his way out of the situation.

SoftShell says

Clear-cut case of suicide by cop.

nothing here ..... move on

Yes, having a gun in the house is pretty much suicide by cop nowadays. You could be cleaning it when a no-knock search busts through your doors and windows. Seeing you with a gun in your hand -- the fact that it's disassembled and unloaded makes no difference -- the police fill you with 100 bullets.

That will teach anyone thinking of having a gun at home for family protection.

Dan8267 says

SoftShell says

Clear-cut case of suicide by cop.

nothing here ..... move on

Yes, having a gun in the house is pretty much suicide by cop nowadays. You could be cleaning it when a no-knock search busts through your doors and windows. Seeing you with a gun in your hand -- the fact that it's disassembled and unloaded makes no difference -- the police fill you with 100 bullets.

That will teach anyone thinking of having a gun at home for family protection.

I read somewhere, just a little while ago that the cop was fired. Maybe he did break rules.

Strategist says

I read somewhere, just a little while ago that the cop was fired. Maybe he did break rules.

He should be arrested and prosecuted.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

I read somewhere, just a little while ago that the cop was fired. Maybe he did break rules.

He should be arrested and prosecuted.

Slow down....let the authorities investigate and come to a conclusion. They have access to all the facts, let them decide.
If he is truly guilty, charge him with murder, and put him away for good. We don't want him walking the streets. If not, let them decide the consequences of his actions. It is still possible he is a trigger happy jerk, with no intention to murder.
Let justice take its course....is that fair?

Strategist says

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

I read somewhere, just a little while ago that the cop was fired. Maybe he did break rules.

He should be arrested and prosecuted.

Slow down....let the authorities investigate and come to a conclusion. They have access to all the facts, let them decide.

If he is truly guilty, charge him with murder, and put him away for good. We don't want him walking the streets. If not, let them decide the consequences of his actions. It is still possible he is a trigger happy jerk, with no intention to murder.

Let justice take its course....is that fair?

Some people often promote "Guilty until proven innocent?". They don't want to wait for justice, they walk into the court with their mind made up after they heard some anchor on the news told them what to think.

You guys do realize that a person has to be arrested for a crime before a trial can take place?

Nowhere have I ever even remotely implied that the cops should be convicted without trial. You're thinking of the federal government. I'm always for open, fair trials.

Of course, cops never get prosecuted unless an outraged public gets a hold of the evidence before other cops destroy it and demand a trial.

No they don't.
Some 'trial in absentia's ' are due to the charged party not being found, never arrested.

Dan8267 says

You guys do realize that a person has to be arrested for a crime before a trial can take place?

SoftShell says

No they don't.

Some 'trial in absentia's ' are due to the charged party not being found, never arrested.

Dan8267 says

You guys do realize that a person has to be arrested for a crime before a trial can take place?

Not applicable in this case.