SB 1637 establishes an exception to the deadly conduct offense (Texas Penal Code section 22.05) for peace officers acting in the line of duty.

HB 2436 establishes an exception to the deadly conduct offense for peace officers acting in the line of duty when they reasonably believe their actions were justified under Texas Penal Code sections 9.31, 9.32, or 9.33 (self-defense provisions).

🔴 House Bill 2436 would exempt #Texas law enforcement officers from being charged with deadly conduct for actions taken in the line of duty. The Senate approved a nearly identical bill, Senate Bill 1637, earlier this month. https://t.co/7YAYKOiYgV

— KWTX News 10 (@kwtx) April 28, 2025

chickencoupe16 said:

---

Lawyers tell me if I'm wrong, but it would seem that as long as the current law is applied appropriately, they already have this protection.

---

Yep, so dumb.

An egregious case could be picked up by the feds anyway.

plenty of protections already in place.

I struggle with this. If someone is pulled over for a broken taillight and speeds away, why does the police officer need to give chase? Let's assume the police officer wrecks in pursuit at 100 mph and kills another random driver. Right now there is no consequence, yet as a society we have seemingly chose to risk the lives of others over a broken tail light. It's different if we run plates and it's someone with a warrant for a violent crime.

Granted, I realize my post has absolutely nothing to do with this thread, but it is something that bothers me.

There was a case in the northwest (I think WA) where it was an unarmed car in pursuit and the unmarked car ran a red light and killed someone. I don't recall the outcome, but I believe WA passed a law not allowing unmarked cars to pursue vehicles.

BCG Disciple said:

---

I struggle with this. If someone is pulled over for a broken taillight and speeds away, why does the police officer need to give chase? Let's assume the police officer wrecks in pursuit at 100 mph and kills another random driver. Right now there is no consequence, yet as a society we have seemingly chose to risk the lives of others over a broken tail light. It's different if we run plates and it's someone with a warrant for a violent crime.

Granted, I realize my post has absolutely nothing to do with this thread, but it is something that bothers me.

There was a case in the northwest (I think WA) where it was an unarmed car in pursuit and the unmarked car ran a red light and killed someone. I don't recall the outcome, but I believe WA passed a law not allowing unmarked cars to pursue vehicles.

---

I think you would have a hard time finding anyone who would agree that a broken taillight is worth another's life. The problem, of course, becomes if you can break the law simply by running away, then there is no law. Just like we have seen with certain cities not prosecuting thefts below a certain dollar amount, soon the criminals learn exactly how many Jordans they can steal without going to jail.

BCG Disciple said:

---

I struggle with this. If someone is pulled over for a broken taillight and speeds away, why does the police officer need to give chase? Let's assume the police officer wrecks in pursuit at 100 mph and kills another random driver. Right now there is no consequence, yet as a society we have seemingly chose to risk the lives of others over a broken tail light. It's different if we run plates and it's someone with a warrant for a violent crime.

Granted, I realize my post has absolutely nothing to do with this thread, but it is something that bothers me.

There was a case in the northwest (I think WA) where it was an unarmed car in pursuit and the unmarked car ran a red light and killed someone. I don't recall the outcome, but I believe WA passed a law not allowing unmarked cars to pursue vehicles.

---

This just emboldens criminals that are actually guilty to always, always run.

Not a good way to help police catch criminals, which is the reason why we should have police.

There were multiple cases like that, but I believe the one you're referencing is the case of DEA agent blowing through a stop sign and speeding through a residential neighborhood in an unmarked truck while on a surveillance detail. There were other agents involved, there was no intention to make an arrest at the time, there was no emergency or pressing need, and ignoring basic traffic safety wasn't necessary, but he was allowed to by policy as long as he thought it would be beneficial to his mission and didn't endanger the public. While living out his biggest Hollywood fantasies and blowing through intersections, he also blew through a cyclist, killing her. He claimed immunity because he was acting in his role as a federal agent and following policy. Apparently, speeding through a residential neighborhood and blowing through intersections are not actions that endanger the public.

Courts agreed and he faced 0 consequences. He is immune from prosecution and civil liability.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.kptv.com/2024/11/26/judge-drops-case-against-dea-agent-accused-deadly-salem-crash/%3foutputType=amp

And this is the danger of giving law enforcement any kind of immunity. You don't need to be a criminal to be subjected to their negligence and left without recourse, no matter how egregious their actions.

Even today, there is an Atlanta family is at the Supreme Court seeking to sue the federal government for raiding their house in error. FBI agents and local police conducted a SWAT raid on their house, breaking down their door, using flash bang grenades, and holding their 7 year old at gunpoint. They simply left when they realized they were at the wrong house. An agent later returned with an apology and left his card, but the government refuses to pay for the damages to their home and emotional distress. No one involved has faced any consequences. Why did they raid the wrong house? The agent in charge used a GPS that took him to the wrong house. The police raided the house without verifying its description or even the street they were on. The kicker is that said agent in charge had previously been to the correct house and documented it. He KNEW, or should have known, it was the wrong location, and yet, he has immunity.

pagerman @ work said:

---

Has there been a rash of police officers being wrongfully incarcerated for killing someone in the line of duty that I am unaware of?

What alleged problem is this a solution to?

---

The Christopher Taylor case in Austin.

BCG Disciple said:

---

I struggle with this. If someone is pulled over for a broken taillight and speeds away, why does the police officer need to give chase? Let's assume the police officer wrecks in pursuit at 100 mph and kills another random driver. Right now there is no consequence, yet as a society we have seemingly chose to risk the lives of others over a broken tail light. It's different if we run plates and it's someone with a warrant for a violent crime.

Granted, I realize my post has absolutely nothing to do with this thread, but it is something that bothers me.

There was a case in the northwest (I think WA) where it was an unarmed car in pursuit and the unmarked car ran a red light and killed someone. I don't recall the outcome, but I believe WA passed a law not allowing unmarked cars to pursue vehicles.

---

They are not being chased for a broken taillight. In Texas they are being chased for Evading in a Motor Vehicle which is a third degree felony.

If they stopped their car and ran on foot, they are being chased for evading detention, a class A misdemeanor.

See case above

BCG Disciple said:

---

I struggle with this. If someone is pulled over for a broken taillight and speeds away, why does the police officer need to give chase? Let's assume the police officer wrecks in pursuit at 100 mph and kills another random driver. Right now there is no consequence, yet as a society we have seemingly chose to risk the lives of others over a broken tail light. It's different if we run plates and it's someone with a warrant for a violent crime.

Granted, I realize my post has absolutely nothing to do with this thread, but it is something that bothers me.

There was a case in the northwest (I think WA) where it was an unarmed car in pursuit and the unmarked car ran a red light and killed someone. I don't recall the outcome, but I believe WA passed a law not allowing unmarked cars to pursue vehicles

---

A big problem is people know the police won't pursue at high speeds, doesn't that encourage the bad guys to do just that?

Quote:

---

rouge prosecutors

---

It's kind of cute when they blush.

NM

100% aimed at Jose Garza at Travis County. The prosecutors actually said the officer should've taken the stairs instead of the elevator to avoid the deadly force encounter.

I'd love to say yes to the OP question, but that would require no "Dirty cops" and unfortunately.............

Would a law like this have kept Chauvin out of prison in the Geo Floyd case?

BCG Disciple said:

---

I struggle with this. If someone is pulled over for a broken taillight and speeds away, why does the police officer need to give chase? Let's assume the police officer wrecks in pursuit at 100 mph and kills another random driver. Right now there is no consequence, yet as a society we have seemingly chose to risk the lives of others over a broken tail light. It's different if we run plates and it's someone with a warrant for a violent crime.

Granted, I realize my post has absolutely nothing to do with this thread, but it is something that bothers me.

There was a case in the northwest (I think WA) where it was an unarmed car in pursuit and the unmarked car ran a red light and killed someone. I don't recall the outcome, but I believe WA passed a law not allowing unmarked cars to pursue vehicles.

---

How about if they sped off because they don't want whoever is tied up in the trump from banging on the trunk and getting the attention of the police?

Regarding the unmarked car, did it not have lights on the grill and a siren?

Bryanisbest said:

---

Would a law like this have kept Chauvin out of prison in the Geo Floyd case?

---

No, a different jury or prosecution was his only chance because, as it was, neither really cared about the law.

They should be given immunity if acting in good faith. If you want police officers in your state, then you need this. You have to throw them a bone at some point. They're putting up with the bull**** violent culture created by the left.