Nomination For a Hero Badge

The Problem with Examples

The Idaho Supreme Court came up with a bizarre decision ruling that a drug sniffing dog trespassed by jumping on a car during a drug search. They suppressed the evidence that as found after the dog alerted. They decided that the K-9 search was illegal. There is no indication that the court addressed the inevitable discovery of the evidence, based on a probable inventory of the vehicle or probable cause obtained as a result of statements made by the passenger. Commenters were outraged.

I found one commenter’s attempt to explain nuances in the law as comical.

Simple example. A person jumps off a tall building to commit suicide. If someone fatally shoots that person before they hit the ground, it is deemed a homicide. Try to do common sense with that one.

If you want to understand law, take Law 101 at your local community college. It is quite the eye opener.


I don’t know about Idaho. But in Texas, Walter’s example isn’t as straight forward as it seems. The Texas Penal Code addresses the situation that Walter describes:

Sec. 9.34
Protection of Life or Health


A person is justified in using force, but not deadly force, against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing suicide or inflicting serious bodily injury to himself.


A person is justified in using both force and deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the other’s life in an emergency.

So, it would seem that the guy jumping of the building, at least in Texas, is fair game. Shooting the dude on the way down is not murder. Bullshit! Shooting the guy on the way down does nothing to preserve his life. On the contrary, loss of consciousness may cause the jumper to relax. Keep in mind all of the drunks who survive violent impacts in car wrecks. It is theorized that their relaxed state allowed them to survive. It’s a theory with as much scientific basis as gender identity.

This article and resulting tempest are the reason why MSM renditions of court decisions are not reliable. The only reason to read such an article is for comic relief.