man killed in shootout with police & press says he was defending himself. video info added

Hometown » Texas

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - man killed in shootout with police & press says he was defending himself. video info added

Posted: 1/24/2006 2:15:23 PM EDT

Local news ch 13 reporting a man was shot and killed in shootout with police.
The turd had a aggravated assault warrant out for his arrest. When cops showed up he ran out the back door. K-9 officer found him about 2 blocks away hiding in some bushes. He jumped out with gun in hand. When ordered to drop his gun he emptied his revolver at officers. Officers returned fire killing the turd. Ok one less O2 thief, but the reporter Kevin Quinn said on the 5pm news. “efforts to defend himself”

he was not defending himself! He was trying to kill police officers so he could get away. WTF is with the press now days?

link to story
abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=local&id=3842418

ok on the 6pm new ch 13 did not air any of Kevin Quinn earlyer report from the 5pm new cast.

add: ok go to link above then look under Related Links the link you want is "ABC13's Kevin Quinn reports" it is a video of his report. about 1:25 mark is where he makes that bs defending himself crap.

Posted: 1/24/2006 2:38:33 PM EDT

[#1]

when is it ok to shoot a cop?

Posted: 1/24/2006 4:43:19 PM EDT

[#2]

Yep, I saw that on the news tonignt and my first thought was "WTF?" Shithead wanted by the US Marshals runs with a gun, hides, gets found and shoots six times at the fuzz and he is defending himself?

Posted: 1/24/2006 8:05:22 PM EDT

[#3]

what channel is Kevin Quinn on ?

Posted: 1/24/2006 8:17:25 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
what channel is Kevin Quinn on ?

Is that reporter usually anti-police or was it a unthinking/stupid statement on live tv?

Posted: 1/24/2006 8:23:29 PM EDT

[#5]

omg they killed Jesus

Posted: 1/24/2006 9:15:57 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
what channel is Kevin Quinn on ?

ABC CH. 13 Houston

Posted: 1/25/2006 4:34:14 AM EDT

[#7]

Here is his email address:

[email protected]

Posted: 1/25/2006 5:39:49 AM EDT

[#8]

That happened on the street my family and I used to live on in the old days.

A real shithole now.

Posted: 1/25/2006 5:40:50 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
when is it ok to shoot a cop?

Actually, there is a law on the books explaining that, but if you did, good luck trying to use it as a defense.

Other times, I'm thinking in the Late '30's and early '40's in Germany.

TXL

Posted: 1/25/2006 5:48:13 AM EDT

[#10]

After watching the video, I don't think the reporter really understood what he was reporting.

Posted: 1/25/2006 8:44:21 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
what channel is Kevin Quinn on ?

ABC CH. 13 Houston

and that suprises anyone that channel 13 did something like that

Posted: 1/25/2006 10:05:23 AM EDT

[#12]

Posted: 1/25/2006 10:44:04 AM EDT

[#13]

What are ya'll so riled up about? The use of the term "defend himself" ? Is this another thread where we all agree, but will self destruct on semantics?

He was "defending himself" from having to go to jail..... with wrongful use of deadly force. He was very much defending himself from something he didnt want to happen. It's a simple story.... bad guy gets served. Bad guy shoots at cops. Bad guy dies. End of story.

Posted: 1/25/2006 10:48:41 AM EDT

[#14]

I was on a jury a few years ago.....

It was a Capital Murder trial.

The defendant did not shoot the victim, but we were tasked with a conviction of Capital Murder on the decision point that the actor carried a firearm in the robbery so that he could kill the victims if need be.

One of the jurors...I shit you not...was from Massachusetts. She said and I will never forget this "He had to carry a gun when commiting robbery to defend himself from all you crazy Texans that have guns".

Mind boggling

She was finally convinced and we convicted him. She cried like a baby when we finally had an anonymous verdict. After the trial, the prosecutor came in and told us of the other three poeple this guy did pull the trigger on and the rapes and assault and that he had threatened to set people on fire during this very robbery, but, that evidence was all inadmissable.

I'm comforted that this 21 yr old kid (then) will not be eligible for parole until he is 68 years old.

Posted: 1/25/2006 11:55:36 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
when is it ok to shoot a cop?

www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm

The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the
peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts
to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search;
and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself
against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use
of greater force than necessary.

Posted: 1/25/2006 12:01:20 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
I was on a jury a few years ago.....

It was a Capital Murder trial.

The defendant did not shoot the victim, but we were tasked with a conviction of Capital Murder on the decision point that the actor carried a firearm in the robbery so that he could kill the victims if need be.

WTF????

We can be CONVICTED of something, when it is totally CLEAR that we did NOT do it? You convict a guy of Capital Murder, just because he had a gun in his possession?

Whoa. I guess I would need to understand the whole story, but that sounds like MAJOR bullshit to me. I would NEVER agree to that on a jury, based on the information above. If the guy committed a robbery, and possessed a deadly weapon in that commission, I always that that was aggravated robbery. How in the HELL do you get murder, when he didnt ever shoot the gun, or kill the victim of the robbery? I dont even see how you could get attempted murder out of that!

Something stinks.

Posted: 1/25/2006 12:02:18 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
when is it ok to shoot a cop?

www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm

The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the
peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts
to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search;
and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself
against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use
of greater force than necessary.

Outstanding! But, I bet that is one hard defense to prove......

Posted: 1/25/2006 12:30:06 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

WTF???? We can be CONVICTED of something, when it is totally CLEAR that we did NOT do it? You convict a guy of Capital Murder, just because he had a gun in his possession?

Whoa. I guess I would need to understand the whole story, but that sounds like MAJOR bullshit to me. I would NEVER agree to that on a jury, based on the information above. If the guy committed a robbery, and possessed a deadly weapon in that commission, I always that that was aggravated robbery. How in the HELL do you get murder, when he didnt ever shoot the gun, or kill the victim of the robbery? I dont even see how you could get attempted murder out of that!

Something stinks.

I have no idea the details of this particular case, but maybe Texas allows the prosecution of each individual in a group for the action of a single individual in the group (ie, group of thugs robs store, 1 thug shoots clerk, can all thugs be charged with murder)?

Posted: 1/25/2006 2:56:35 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
when is it ok to shoot a cop?

www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm

The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the
peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts
to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search;
and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself
against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use
of greater force than necessary.

Outstanding! But, I bet that is one hard defense to prove......

Yea. I wonder if you can get by with...
the cops were outside with machineguns. they pointed them at me, shot my dog and were shouting obscenities. I was in fear for my life... so when they kicked down my door I tried to stop them and then ran out the back door.

had you done that to anyone other than a cop there would be no questions asked.

Posted: 1/25/2006 3:08:56 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I was on a jury a few years ago.....

It was a Capital Murder trial.

The defendant did not shoot the victim, but we were tasked with a conviction of Capital Murder on the decision point that the actor carried a firearm in the robbery so that he could kill the victims if need be.

WTF???? We can be CONVICTED of something, when it is totally CLEAR that we did NOT do it? You convict a guy of Capital Murder, just because he had a gun in his possession?

Whoa. I guess I would need to understand the whole story, but that sounds like MAJOR bullshit to me. I would NEVER agree to that on a jury, based on the information above. If the guy committed a robbery, and possessed a deadly weapon in that commission, I always that that was aggravated robbery. How in the HELL do you get murder, when he didnt ever shoot the gun, or kill the victim of the robbery? I dont even see how you could get attempted murder out of that!

Something stinks.

Capital Murder is defined as murder of a peace officer, murder done for hire I believe and murder done in the commission of a felony.

This guy was part of a robbery team. This guy jammed his .380 against the victim's head so hard that in the body photos we were show there is a .38 caliber dimple on the guys forehead. The idiot did this and jammed up his pistol, whereupon he called his partner over who shot the victim and killed him. Had his gun not jammed he would have certainly pulled the trigger.

The point of law was did he carry the gun in the commission of the felony with intent to commit murder, which, and all you barristers chime in, IS CAPITAL MURDER by Texas Penal Code

Edited to add: TRUST ME, YOU'RE GLAD THIS SCARY MOTHERFUCKER IS BEHIND BARS FOR ANOTHER 20 plus years! He showed no remorse, it was like looking into the eyes of an animal to look at him.

Posted: 1/25/2006 8:19:46 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
WTF???? hing,
Whoa. I guess I would need to understand the whole story, but that sounds like MAJOR bullshit to me. I would NEVER agree to that on a jury, based on the information above. If the guy committed a robbery, and possessed a deadly weapon in that commission, I always that that was aggravated robbery. How in the HELL do you get murder, when he didnt ever shoot the gun, or kill the victim of the robbery? I dont even see how you could get attempted murder out of that!

Something stinks.

Yes. It is called an accomplice in some states and Texas has it under Complicity. You are responsible for the actions of another if you are part of the incident. It is the same reason that Charles Manson was convicted of the murders in CA and given the death sentence even though he did not actively take part in the murders.

Posted: 1/26/2006 4:15:19 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I was on a jury a few years ago.....

It was a Capital Murder trial.

The defendant did not shoot the victim, but we were tasked with a conviction of Capital Murder on the decision point that the actor carried a firearm in the robbery so that he could kill the victims if need be.

WTF???? We can be CONVICTED of something, when it is totally CLEAR that we did NOT do it? You convict a guy of Capital Murder, just because he had a gun in his possession?

Whoa. I guess I would need to understand the whole story, but that sounds like MAJOR bullshit to me. I would NEVER agree to that on a jury, based on the information above. If the guy committed a robbery, and possessed a deadly weapon in that commission, I always that that was aggravated robbery. How in the HELL do you get murder, when he didnt ever shoot the gun, or kill the victim of the robbery? I dont even see how you could get attempted murder out of that!

Something stinks.

Capital Murder is defined as murder of a peace officer, murder done for hire I believe and murder done in the commission of a felony.

This guy was part of a robbery team. This guy jammed his .380 against the victim's head so hard that in the body photos we were show there is a .38 caliber dimple on the guys forehead. The idiot did this and jammed up his pistol, whereupon he called his partner over who shot the victim and killed him. Had his gun not jammed he would have certainly pulled the trigger.

The point of law was did he carry the gun in the commission of the felony with intent to commit murder, which, and all you barristers chime in, IS CAPITAL MURDER by Texas Penal Code

Edited to add: TRUST ME, YOU'RE GLAD THIS SCARY MOTHERFUCKER IS BEHIND BARS FOR ANOTHER 20 plus years! He showed no remorse, it was like looking into the eyes of an animal to look at him.

Sorry - from your first post... I wasnt aware that an accomplice killed the clerk. Like I said.... needed to understand the whole story. My apologies. (tho I still dont like convicting people for something their buddy did)

Posted: 1/26/2006 5:46:57 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I was on a jury a few years ago.....

It was a Capital Murder trial.

The defendant did not shoot the victim, but we were tasked with a conviction of Capital Murder on the decision point that the actor carried a firearm in the robbery so that he could kill the victims if need be.

WTF???? We can be CONVICTED of something, when it is totally CLEAR that we did NOT do it? You convict a guy of Capital Murder, just because he had a gun in his possession?

Whoa. I guess I would need to understand the whole story, but that sounds like MAJOR bullshit to me. I would NEVER agree to that on a jury, based on the information above. If the guy committed a robbery, and possessed a deadly weapon in that commission, I always that that was aggravated robbery. How in the HELL do you get murder, when he didnt ever shoot the gun, or kill the victim of the robbery? I dont even see how you could get attempted murder out of that!

Something stinks.

Capital Murder is defined as murder of a peace officer, murder done for hire I believe and murder done in the commission of a felony.

This guy was part of a robbery team. This guy jammed his .380 against the victim's head so hard that in the body photos we were show there is a .38 caliber dimple on the guys forehead. The idiot did this and jammed up his pistol, whereupon he called his partner over who shot the victim and killed him. Had his gun not jammed he would have certainly pulled the trigger.

The point of law was did he carry the gun in the commission of the felony with intent to commit murder, which, and all you barristers chime in, IS CAPITAL MURDER by Texas Penal Code

Edited to add: TRUST ME, YOU'RE GLAD THIS SCARY MOTHERFUCKER IS BEHIND BARS FOR ANOTHER 20 plus years! He showed no remorse, it was like looking into the eyes of an animal to look at him.

Sorry - from your first post... I wasnt aware that an accomplice killed the clerk. Like I said.... needed to understand the whole story. My apologies. (tho I still dont like convicting people for something their buddy did)

So apologies necessary....I didn't 'splain it well.

I'll just never forget that Yankee gal saying "criminals carry guns to protect themselves from all you Texans that have guns"......

I was foreman on the jury too. We deliberated for two full days.....

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - man killed in shootout with police & press says he was defending himself. video info added

Hometown » Texas

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us