Homeowner shoots, kills 2 men in ski masks claiming to be officers, HPD says

I love that I read your comment, then backed out to the main feed and the very next post is of a pig wearing what is effectively a ski mask

“Obviously, a police car with some sort of lights and sirens and a bullhorn where we’ll be announcing ourselves,”

They always announce themselves except when they don't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-knock_warrant

Lies. ACAB.

This is gaslighting at this point. We all see the pigs with masks. We've all seen plainclothes officers in undercover cars make traffic stops.

And what you want to say (with an attorney present) is that you used necessary force to eliminate the threat.

This is Texas we're talking about. There, people shoot at each other just to say hello some times 🤷

Maybe this could be a warning sign to those cops that they shouldn't do that, or they might be shot.

Oh, who am I kidding. That just means cops in ski masks will shoot first more often.

Not 100% true. Though I admit it's rare, but in Texas a man was acquitted after killing a police officer trying to break into his house. Castle-Law absolutely came into play there.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/texas-jury-acquits-man-fatally-shot-off-duty-houston-officer-man-claimed-self-defense

This is the most recent I can find, but it's happened several times in the past as well. It should happen more often, but unfortunately the defender rarely survives.

They don't need the excuse, just look at D.C. in the past week. And escalation will only make things worse for them. They're looking at an armed insurgency situation akin to the "War on Terror," which proved that an entrenched group amongst the populace is impossible to oust because anybody could be an insurgent, and taking one out will create more people willing to take revenge. There used to be an excellent Flash game about this very point where you shot cruise missiles at terrorists walking across the screen. And every time that a missile would explode, it would inevitably hit civilians in the area, and those nearby would turn into more terrorists. You'd just continue to fill the screen with more and more terrorists than there were originally until eventually you gave up.

Somebody a few weeks ago said in a thread on a similar subject that the military's conclusion was that you need about 3 soldiers for every insurgent in a population. There's no way that they can draft as much as theoretically 75% of the population.

It's a whole lot of bluster, and if we could get organized we could topple the whole thing. ICE has homes they go back to at the end of the day. They don't have army bases to hide in.

I have a prediction: the more professional and organized members of ICE would actually be foreign agents, causing problems at key points. Say, for example, "vanishing" unfriendly politicians. ICE is the perfect cover: Low recruitment standards, no regulation, bounties for those times you need to get money, and no one able to ask questions.

It would be the chaotic and unprofessional members of ICE that are native to the USA. Those would be just into ICE for the money and racism, not patriotism to their nation. This will become a "Lions Led by Donkeys" episode in a decade or two.

Detective Stringer makes a well calculated statement about his stance on ICE.

I'm from the area. It all depends on how white and Republican you are. They stack the Grand Juries with "respectable members" of the community (white, male business owners typically) who no-bill white folk for killing minorities.

In a very public case, a white small business owner/homeowner shot 2 unarmed minorities in the back, killing both as they fled a neighbor's house. They never stepped on the killer's property and never threatened anyone. The homeowner called 911 and said he was going to kill them and get away with it. The operator said not to shoot and to go inside because police were just seconds away, and he killed them anyway.

The grand jury refused to let the prosecutor take the case to trial because killing black people is a public benefit in their eyes.

So the families of the victims sued the killer, and the state responded by outlawwing civil suits over any case involving a firearm that didn't first include a felony conviction.

Texans

Well, if you have a Ring camera, you could playback the video.

Transparency: noun. The quality of being done in an open way without secrets.

Example: "the DHHS office was being operated without any transparency. That is until we walked in on the Secretary in the conference room fully nude, savagely defiling the corpses of various large mammals as he quaffed a goblet of raw sewage water."

By all accounts, ICE are real law enforcement, with the power, and authority of the state to enact the will of the ruling class on us.

Man shot nice.

And they'll only stop a number of rifle shots, typically intermediate caliber. Once you're dealing with an opposing force using .338 lapua, you might be better off adopting the gecko45 school of duct taping plates together and using your spouse as a human shield as you make your way to your fighting weapon.

One of the reasons why I picked a shotgun and use 000 buckshot is because of the spread. I assume my aim sucks, and hope that hitting the bad guys in a unarmored limb will be enough to remove them from a fight.

There's also the option where the vest stops it but you have a crushed sternum

Also the vests could have been fake.

200% damage multiplier.

Criminal charges are not necessary for that and this line of thinking is insane. The victim of a home invasion must now necessarily be charged and re-victimized by the justice system? This practice won't last.

I'm curious how idiotic your cops are there... Do they get to arrest folks just because a crime might have occurred, or do they need evidence of it? Because a ring camera video, AND bullet holes in the door with tell tale markings of traveling inward, towards the homeowner, plus outward, AND the car on the street, AND the masked individuals that are now easily identified as NOT COPS all screams to me that no crime was committed.

Yep, but going through those motions is enough to ruin someone's life because of ruining their employment prospects because of their name being associated with horrific crimes, even if they are entirely innocent.

Arresting someone because a crime may have occurred, without there being evidence to determine such, is not great, especially when there's video proof that it was self defense. It'd now be up to a jury putting the home owner under a microscope to determine if the homeowner made the correct split-second decisions in a situation so stressful they can't even imagine what it's like because they never lived through it.

Yep, but going through those motions is enough to ruin someone’s life because of ruining their employment prospects because of their name being associated with horrific crimes, even if they are entirely innocent.

Arresting someone because a crime may have occurred, without there being evidence to determine such, is not great, especially when there’s video proof that it was self defense. It’d now be up to a jury putting the home owner under a microscope to determine if the homeowner made the correct split-second decisions in a situation so stressful they can’t even imagine what it’s like because they never lived through it.