Please please please.. don't do this. THINK before you act.

[Jeff White]

All I stated in my earlier post was that private citizens did not have sovereign immunity. I don't know of any state that gives peace officers a different standard on criminal liability.

However no state gives a private citizen intervening to stop a crime in progress (which this wasn't) sovereign immunity. Any civil action is on the private citizen. Some states extend it to private citizens who are asked by a peace officer to assist. But if you act on your own, you're on your own in court.

In this particular incident, if a peace officer had opened fire on the car he could face the same criminal charges, however in the inevitable excessive force lawsuit, his employer would be the one who is held liable.

Even if he escapes criminal prosecution or is acquitted of any charges, he's going to be on his own in civil court.

 

[RPZ]

All I stated in my earlier post was that private citizens did not have sovereign immunity. I don't know of any state that gives peace officers a different standard on criminal liability.

However no state gives a private citizen intervening to stop a crime in progress (which this wasn't) sovereign immunity. Any civil action is on the private citizen. Some states extend it to private citizens who are asked by a peace officer to assist. But if you act on your own, you're on your own in court.

In this particular incident, if a peace officer had opened fire on the car he could face the same criminal charges, however in the inevitable excessive force lawsuit, his employer would be the one who is held liable.

Even if he escapes criminal prosecution or is acquitted of any charges, he's going to be on his own in civil court.

You use the term sovereign immunity; it is the municipality, county or state that carries the civil liability.

Here's an example, although because he was also acting in the capacity of "security" for a property the property owner is sharing liability:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-co-shooting-settlement-20161229-story.html

In the case of Misty Holt-Singh in Stockton, the city and the police department is getting sued. I do not see any criminal charges, but negligent homicide comes to mind:

http://www.kcra.com/article/family-of-misty-holt-singh-files-suit-against-city-of-stockton/6424481

I was speaking of criminal prosecutions and immunity as this guy has been charged with a crime.

 

[RPZ]

I don't know of any state that gives peace officers a different standard on criminal liability.

No? How about the case of Terence Crutcher? Could someone not employed as a public servant working for the City of Tulsa get away with a "justification" for deadly force on the basis of "that was my training"?? Don't know about Oklahoma, but in Texas I do not see "reaching" and "failure to obey commands" - i.e. "don't let them bring their hands out [of the vehicle] again - because that is the way I was trained" and "We're not trained to see what comes out of a car" anywhere in the Texas Penal Code regarding the use of deadly force.

Yes, that is a different standard.

http://cnn.com/2017/05/17/us/tulsa-police-shooting-trial/

 

[Jeff White]

You use the term sovereign immunity; it is the municipality, county or state that carries the civil liability

That's what sovereign immunity means. The government is liable for the civil suit.

While it seems similar, your example of the security guard's employer sharing civil liability isn't the same.

I (like almost every officer) was named in a couple lawsuits. In one, I wasn't even working when the incident in question occurred and the city's attorney got me dropped from the action. Apparently the plaintiff just named officers he knew. In the other, I was dropped from the action due to a federal law that said all of the supervisors couldn't be named in certain types of actions from incidents they weren't personally involved in. In neither case did I have to hire my own attorney as I had sovereign immunity and my employer had the responsibility for the defense of the charges.

It is possible to get the court to take sovereign immunity from an officer but the officer's conduct had to have been very egregious and over the top, completely against policy and possibly criminal.

The security guard is still personably liable. The court may find the employer jointly liable, but the security guard is a private citizen and has no protection. If the security guard was following his employer's procedures he may be able to successfully sue the employer. But that would be a separate action.

 

[RPZ]

That's what sovereign immunity means. The government is liable for the civil suit.

While it seems similar, your example of the security guard's employer sharing civil liability isn't the same.

I (like almost every officer) was named in a couple lawsuits. In one, I wasn't even working when the incident in question occurred and the city's attorney got me dropped from the action. Apparently the plaintiff just named officers he knew. In the other, I was dropped from the action due to a federal law that said all of the supervisors couldn't be named in certain types of actions from incidents they weren't personally involved in. In neither case did I have to hire my own attorney as I had sovereign immunity and my employer had the responsibility for the defense of the charges.

It is possible to get the court to take sovereign immunity from an officer but the officer's conduct had to have been very egregious and over the top, completely against policy and possibly criminal.

The security guard is still personably liable. The court may find the employer jointly liable, but the security guard is a private citizen and has no protection. If the security guard was following his employer's procedures he may be able to successfully sue the employer. But that would be a separate action.

The "security guard" was an off-duty PO. They are suing the property owner and the county.

As it happens, I have a neighbor who is an attorney of 20 years experience. According to him, there is no "sovereign immunity" in Texas. However a plaintiff will generally sue the municipality, county or state because the hope of getting any money from a named officer is a dim prospect.

I am also aware of a case, I believe it was in Dallas, Texas, a few years ago, where an unarmed subject was killed by a PO on duty. The PO claimed his pistol went off by accident. I have listened to a radio interview with the attorney for the family whose opinion was that the evidence and story do not match that explanation. Regardless, there was a claim of immunity because the PO was working as part of a Federal task force and thus he carried the immunity aquired while working with the Fed task force. Federal agents do have a level of sovereign immunity even from criminal charges. Example; Lon Horiuchi of Ruby Ridge infamy, where Randy Weaver received an out of court civil settlement for the shooting death of his wife.

 

[Jeff White]

As it happens, I have a neighbor who is an attorney of 20 years experience. According to him, there is no "sovereign immunity" in Texas. However a plaintiff will generally sue the municipality, county or state because the hope of getting any money from a named officer is a dim prospect.

I don't know why anyone would be a peace officer in Texas if this is the case.

 

[Kleanbore]

So let's say anyone, and I mean anyone - armed - had walked into this in progress the same possibilities exist.

Well, alrighty, then.

Only difference is they were not in a car when the badguy pointed a pistol at this guy's head and shot him execution style.

Nor do the facts indicate this to have been,

How many people might have chosen to intervene?

No one with any common sense.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

According to him, there is no "sovereign immunity" in Texas.

In Texas, it's known as qualified immunity and it absolutely exists. If your 20 year attorney friend doesn't know that I suspect his field of legal practice may not be too parallel to this topic.

 

[RPZ]

I don't know why anyone would be a peace officer in Texas if this is the case.

Don't worry, the DA will protect you. That is usually the way it goes - he or she simply does not refer your case to a grand jury. That's the way it goes in Texas. Most of the time.

Now, if you are NOT a public servant, yes, it is very likely it will go to a grand jury. And "he was reaching", or "I saw something shiny", or " my training was 'don't let their hands come back out of the car and wait to see'..." - no, that won't save you.

 

[Kleanbore]

Don't worry, the DA will protect you. That is usually the way it goes - he or she simply does not refer your case to a grand jury. That's the way it goes in Texas. Most of the time.

Most homicide cases in Texas, of whatever cause, are referred to Grand Juries.

Whether the referral is accompanies by a recommendation of some kind is another subject.

 

[RPZ]

Most homicide cases in Texas, of whatever cause, are referred to Grand Juries.

Whether the referral is accompanies by a recommendation of some kind is another subject.

That is often the case, but I could cite cases similar to the Shelby/Crutcher case where the PO walked when anyone else would have been indicted.

In this case, it is apparent they are going to crucify this guy, who just happens not to be a public servant, not based on the justification for deadly force, but rather on the basis that he used "poor judgement". That is not synonymous with "assault with a deadly weapon", as his intent in my view (based on the info we have) was not to shoot the driver who I believe he perceived was the victim. But the Dallas DA is going to try and make that stick regardless.

 

[RPZ]

In Texas, it's known as qualified immunity and it absolutely exists. If your 20 year attorney friend doesn't know that I suspect his field of legal practice may not be too parallel to this topic.

Criminal defense attorney. Qualified immunity revolves around mistakes of fact, and things like probable cause. It would not let a PO walk away from a negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter etc nor the unjustified use of deadly force.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

That is usually the way it goes - he or she simply does not refer your case to a grand jury. That's the way it goes in Texas. Most of the time.

Male bovine fecal mater.

Criminal defense attorney.

You're twenty year criminal defense attorney doesn't know qualified immunity exists?

Most homicide cases in Texas, of whatever cause, are referred to Grand Juries.

All felony cases, unless waived by the defense, must go through the Grand Jury in Texas.

I think we need to declare thread over, since fictional verisons of Texas law are now in play... from fictional attorneys.

 

[Kleanbore]

With five pages tending into unfounded and erroneous comments on Teas law, we're done. If there are any developments in the case, we can have a new thread..