Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Farmers Branch Officer Sentenced to 10 Years for Killing Brown Dindu Nuffin

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Yes, the situation (particularly initially) did not call for deadly force...

    Ken Johnson has ruined his life over a couple of stolen CDs, 1.74 in loose change, and a old phone charger...(I'm speculating)

    Nobody is a winner in this ordeal.

    mardyn

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by svauto-erotic855 View Post
      Who is going to write him the chooo chooo check? The former police officer who hasn't had a job in a few years and who spent his savings on a lawyer?
      This is America, capital of the frivolous lawsuit. I wouldn't be surprised to see the victim sue the city, claiming the city equipped the officer to kill but didn't properly train him to control himself in this situation. They'll sue anyone they can think of that might get them paid (them being he and his attorneys).

      Comment


      • #18
        If he had been smarter about it (not going execution style) he probably would have walked, if charged at all..

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Chili View Post
          If he had been smarter about it (not going execution style) he probably would have walked, if charged at all..
          Looking back, what would've been acceptable from a deadly-force standpoint?

          Seems the only time he was justified in using deadly force would've been right when he caught them in the act of stealing his property. As soon as he pursued them, he lost any legal ability for using deadly force as a defense against the theft of property.

          Had they come out of the SUV with guns blazing after he pitted them, maybe it's a different story but I'd think he still has legal problems because he was chasing them, going all vigilante.

          Comment


          • #20
            What’s a “brown dindu nuffin”?
            .....bro....

            Comment


            • #21
              A Hispanic criminal, who when challenged in the legal system would claim innocence by saying “I didn’t do nothing.”

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by TX_92_Notch View Post
                Looking back, what would've been acceptable from a deadly-force standpoint?

                Seems the only time he was justified in using deadly force would've been right when he caught them in the act of stealing his property. As soon as he pursued them, he lost any legal ability for using deadly force as a defense against the theft of property.

                Had they come out of the SUV with guns blazing after he pitted them, maybe it's a different story but I'd think he still has legal problems because he was chasing them, going all vigilante.
                Not saying I would have chased anyone down, or take the risk of prosecution over property that is already insured, but..

                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.


                Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.




                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.



                Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

                Comment


                • #23
                  It’s a defense that can be used against prosecution, but unexpected things can happen in front of a jury. I have no property that I consider worth more than another’s life, even a dindu’s life. Self-defense or that of my family would be a completely different matter however.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by The King View Post
                    It’s a defense that can be used against prosecution, but unexpected things can happen in front of a jury. I have no property that I consider worth more than another’s life, even a dindu’s life. Self-defense or that of my family would be a completely different matter however.
                    As soon as they are in possession of stolen property said person has placed that value on their own life. If you break into my home to steal something, whatever you grab is what you value your life at.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by The King View Post
                      It’s a defense that can be used against prosecution, but unexpected things can happen in front of a jury. I have no property that I consider worth more than another’s life, even a dindu’s life. Self-defense or that of my family would be a completely different matter however.
                      Yeah.. I'm with you on that. I would be much more likely to shoot if still on my property but if they fled I doubt I would chase. At the same time, I don't have any moral objections.

                      I mean, I don't think a petty thief deserves death, but the risk of getting caught and shot at is something that they knowingly took.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Craizie View Post
                        As soon as they are in possession of stolen property said person has placed that value on their own life. If you break into my home to steal something, whatever you grab is what you value your life at.
                        Everyone's different, and there is certainly nothing wrong with that position regarding property. I personally do not value property more than another's life, but to each their own. A home break-in is a different situation than what occurred in this case. Break in to my home, and if I'm present I will of course presume deadly intent on the part of the perp and react accordingly.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by A+ View Post
                          What’s a “brown dindu nuffin”?
                          the guy in your avatar

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Chili View Post
                            Not saying I would have chased anyone down, or take the risk of prosecution over property that is already insured, but..
                            (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:
                            Immediately necessary probably doesn't involve car chases across town though.

                            Not arguing, just stating why I think this guy is going to jail in this case.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Chili View Post
                              Not saying I would have chased anyone down, or take the risk of prosecution over property that is already insured, but..
                              I think the point here is, would you have chased them down, then after you wrecked their vehicle, gotten out and immediately opened fire into the wrecked vehicle, then proceed to open the door to get a clear shot on the other?

                              This guy has 27 witness that said he purposefully killed one and almost the other without a threat being present at the time, 10 years is getting off light.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Ten years for cold blood murder of a thug is pretty fair IMO.
                                When the government pays, the government controls.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X