Bexar County deputies shoot man during disturbance call

[Mike S]

http://www.kens5.com/story/news/2015/09 ... /71901610/

There's a second video recorded by a neighbor of the deceased that shows a knife in his hand. This video will not be released to the public until the legal process is complete.

According to the dispatcher, it was Flores himself that called 911 to self-report that he had assaulted his wife & 2-month old baby, and that he was suicidal. When deputies arrived they reportedly saw a woman bleeding from a head wound, appearing to be from a cut, and holding a baby. He also had a history of violence, was released from prison in 2013, & on parole until 2018.

Let's not be so quick to judge off of initial reports.

[talltex]

http://www.kens5.com/story/news/2015/09 ... /71901610/

There's a second video recorded by a neighbor of the deceased that shows a knife in his hand. This video will not be released to the public until the legal process is complete.

According to the dispatcher, it was Flores himself that called 911 to self-report that he had assaulted his wife & 2-month old baby, and that he was suicidal. When deputies arrived they reportedly saw a woman bleeding from a head wound, appearing to be from a cut, and holding a baby. He also had a history of violence, was released from prison in 2013, & on parole until 2018.

Let's not be so quick to judge off of initial reports.

1. There have been reports of a second video that shows the knife, but so far it's just that...a report. Who is withholding it from the public, and exactly what "legal process" needs to be completed that would be holding up the release of a video that could possibly show justification?
2. His prior history and current parole status has no bearing whatsoever on the decision to shoot or not. The only consideration is what is occurring at that precise moment the trigger is pulled.

[Mike S]

Talltex,
1. The investigation of the officer involved shooting is the legal process I'm referring to. Their focus is on a fair & impartial investigation, not media ratings or our curiosity. I'd like to see & hear the audio of the second video, in which reportedly the DPS analysts confirms the presence of a knife. However, I'm not willing to jeopardize the due process these LEOs deserve, just as I wouldn't want my or anyone else's due process jeopardized. Let a Grand Jury decide, then patiently wait for its release.
2. You are correct that neither his prior felonies nor his 10-years spent in prison for aggravated robbery have bearing on whether or not he posed a risk of death or serious bodily injury to the officers or the public. However, his calling 911 to report that HE had just assaulted his wife and infant, AND that he was threatening suicide, coupled with his prior history of violence (aggravated robbery) (trespassing & assault) (attempted assault of a police officer), and his erratic behavior up until that point (I believe it was reported that this interaction lasted around 20 minutes), and his possession of a knife may have very well influenced their belief that at that point in time that they were in jeopardy.

[mojo84]

How much of his history did the officers that shot him know at the time they shot him?

How would releasing a video that exonerates the cops jeopardize the investigation and their due process?

[talltex]

How much of his history did the officers that shot him know at the time they shot him?

How would releasing a video that exonerates the cops jeopardize the investigation and their due process?

Talltex,
1. The investigation of the officer involved shooting is the legal process I'm referring to. Their focus is on a fair & impartial investigation, not media ratings or our curiosity. I'd like to see & hear the audio of the second video, in which reportedly the DPS analysts confirms the presence of a knife. However, I'm not willing to jeopardize the due process these LEOs deserve, just as I wouldn't want my or anyone else's due process jeopardized. Let a Grand Jury decide, then patiently wait for its release.
2. You are correct that neither his prior felonies nor his 10-years spent in prison for aggravated robbery have bearing on whether or not he posed a risk of death or serious bodily injury to the officers or the public. However, his calling 911 to report that HE had just assaulted his wife and infant, AND that he was threatening suicide, coupled with his prior history of violence (aggravated robbery) (trespassing & assault) (attempted assault of a police officer), and his erratic behavior up until that point (I believe it was reported that this interaction lasted around 20 minutes), and his possession of a knife may have very well influenced their belief that at that point in time that they were in jeopardy.

I understand the statements made by the department. They do not plan to release ANY of the evidence in their possession to the public. As Mojo84 questioned, how would making it public jeopardize the investigation? The video WILL have to be made public at some point unless they are hoping for it to just fade away over a period of months that the spokesman says the investigation may take. Given the inflammatory nature of the video that HAS been released, if the second shows any threatening action by Flores why would you NOT release it and put a stop to all the negative impressions it has created? I don't doubt that it shows he had a knife in his hand, but I have to wonder if it shows him doing anything other than holding it with his hands up and still doesn't provide clear justification given the seeming reluctance to make it public. Of course this is all conjecture, because that's all the public has to go on. Again, even if the officers on the scene were completely aware of everything in his background, none of that has any bearing on what was occurring at the moment they decided to shoot. Could it have "influenced" their actions...of course it could...and that may very well be what happened.

[dlh]

Yep we can sure trust big brother on these issues can't we? (sarcasm intended).

dlh

[mojo84]

Another thought, what if he was still holding the knife but wasn't really aware of it? Many times on here, people have discussed how fine motor skills and cognition is diminished under highly stressful adrenaline fueled situations. I bet the guy that was shot felt considerable stress and had some serious adrenaline pumping.

I am not defending him or saying he didn't deserve to be shot. I am just saying these arguments go both ways and the video looks bad enough that they should release the second video if what the unnamed source is saying is true and it would exonerate the cops. Not that there has been any suggestion of riots, civil disobedience or protests happening or are planned that I am aware, however, why wait until after they break out before releasing a video that is supposed to show the cops did the right thing?

[EEllis]

Well the video is pretty shaky so you might not. There is also the fact that you can't see facial expressions or body tension either both of which could justify use of force. Heck just having a weapon and refusing to comply combined with the comments and previous actions are probably legal justification even without a precipitating action.

You cannot justify force with someones facial expression. You cant just punch or shoot someone because they have an angry or crazy look on their face. Its their actions that justify the use of force. Would you not use force on someone who posed a threat to you but had a smile on their face? How about if they were pouting like a baby? The facial expression has nothing to with justifying the use of force. Sure you can tell the police or a jury "he had a crazy look on his face", but that would not justify using force the persons actions would.

I think you can. Facial expressions can give clues to intent. Reasonability is the key to the legality of someone's actions. If it was reasonable for them to act it's legal. If a suspect's expression changes in such a way that a reasonable officer would think the suspect is about to act then of course they can use that as part of the reason they used force. It's also not just one thing. If the guy had a spatula instead of a knife then it wouldn't matter what his expression was.

[EEllis]

http://www.kens5.com/story/news/2015/09 ... /71901610/

There's a second video recorded by a neighbor of the deceased that shows a knife in his hand. This video will not be released to the public until the legal process is complete.

According to the dispatcher, it was Flores himself that called 911 to self-report that he had assaulted his wife & 2-month old baby, and that he was suicidal. When deputies arrived they reportedly saw a woman bleeding from a head wound, appearing to be from a cut, and holding a baby. He also had a history of violence, was released from prison in 2013, & on parole until 2018.

Let's not be so quick to judge off of initial reports.

1. There have been reports of a second video that shows the knife, but so far it's just that...a report. Who is withholding it from the public, and exactly what "legal process" needs to be completed that would be holding up the release of a video that could possibly show justification?
2. His prior history and current parole status has no bearing whatsoever on the decision to shoot or not. The only consideration is what is occurring at that precise moment the trigger is pulled.

Well one reason for not releasing any video or making the public force a release is to prevent claims that the agency or prosecution is trying to bias the public in some manner. Now that isn't the only reason but one of many possibilities.
As to prior history not having any bearing, that just is not true legally or practically, in today's policing. Don't think it should be true either for police or a citizen who has to use force.

[Javier730]

Well the video is pretty shaky so you might not. There is also the fact that you can't see facial expressions or body tension either both of which could justify use of force. Heck just having a weapon and refusing to comply combined with the comments and previous actions are probably legal justification even without a precipitating action.

You cannot justify force with someones facial expression. You cant just punch or shoot someone because they have an angry or crazy look on their face. Its their actions that justify the use of force. Would you not use force on someone who posed a threat to you but had a smile on their face? How about if they were pouting like a baby? The facial expression has nothing to with justifying the use of force. Sure you can tell the police or a jury "he had a crazy look on his face", but that would not justify using force the persons actions would.

I think you can. Facial expressions can give clues to intent. Reasonability is the key to the legality of someone's actions. If it was reasonable for them to act it's legal. If a suspect's expression changes in such a way that a reasonable officer would think the suspect is about to act then of course they can use that as part of the reason they used force. It's also not just one thing. If the guy had a spatula instead of a knife then it wouldn't matter what his expression was.

It does not matter what the guy is holding. If he is putting the officers in danger of serious bodily injury or death, deadly force is justified. His expression would not matter. The guy can have an angry face or a happy one. He can even be doing a selfie duckface. If the threat is there, its there. No expression will change that.

[EEllis]

It does not matter what the guy is holding. If he is putting the officers in danger of serious bodily injury or death, deadly force is justified. His expression would not matter. The guy can have an angry face or a happy one. He can even be doing a selfie duckface. If the threat is there, its there. No expression will change that.

People including cops derive a lot of info from expressions and body language. This is not about someone "making a face" it's about someone's expressions being useful in trying to determine what their actions might be. Saying they don't matter is not compatible with LE training or any recognized legal theory. An officer can certainly make, and would be allowed to make, an argument that "I could see it in his eye's" as why they acted believing a suspect was about to do something. Now a jury would be free to apply whatever weight to that testimony they wanted but to say it doesn't matter? You're argument is a little strange overall. It doesn't matter if he has a spatula............ if the threat is there then it's there" What would the threat be if all he has is a spatula? How could that not matter? An expression isn't reason to shoot on it's own but if other things are going on then certainly something as small as an expression, a noise, a twitch, can add up with other factors to give justification for use of force.

[Javier730]

It does not matter what the guy is holding. If he is putting the officers in danger of serious bodily injury or death, deadly force is justified. His expression would not matter. The guy can have an angry face or a happy one. He can even be doing a selfie duckface. If the threat is there, its there. No expression will change that.

People including cops derive a lot of info from expressions and body language. This is not about someone "making a face" it's about someone's expressions being useful in trying to determine what their actions might be. Saying they don't matter is not compatible with LE training or any recognized legal theory. An officer can certainly make, and would be allowed to make, an argument that "I could see it in his eye's" as why they acted believing a suspect was about to do something. Now a jury would be free to apply whatever weight to that testimony they wanted but to say it doesn't matter? You're argument is a little strange overall. It doesn't matter if he has a spatula............ if the threat is there then it's there" What would the threat be if all he has is a spatula? How could that not matter? An expression isn't reason to shoot on it's own but if other things are going on then certainly something as small as an expression, a noise, a twitch, can add up with other factors to give justification for use of force.

When I said "if the threat is there, its there", I was talking about how a facial expression does not change whether the deputies were or were not in danger.

A person can cause serious bodily injury or death without any object in there hands. Having a "non lethal object" does not change that. A spatula may not be as dangerous as a knife but I'm not going to argue its lethality or lack of it because other than you mentioning it, there is no reports of a spatula being present. Maybe someone here will make a thread discussing on whether or not a spatula can be deadly.

[talltex]

1. There have been reports of a second video that shows the knife, but so far it's just that...a report. Who is withholding it from the public, and exactly what "legal process" needs to be completed that would be holding up the release of a video that could possibly show justification?
2. His prior history and current parole status has no bearing whatsoever on the decision to shoot or not. The only consideration is what is occurring at that precise moment the trigger is pulled.

Well one reason for not releasing any video or making the public force a release is to prevent claims that the agency or prosecution is trying to bias the public in some manner. Now that isn't the only reason but one of many possibilities.
As to prior history not having any bearing, that just is not true legally or practically, in today's policing. Don't think it should be true either for police or a citizen who has to use force.

They would certainly not want to release a video that made them look bad, but the benefits of releasing a video that shows there was no wrongdoing on the officer's part would far outweigh any unlikely claim that they were trying to bias the public.

That is true legally...go into a courtroom as a prosecutor,and try to introduce into evidence someone's prior criminal history, without having the door opened by the defense, and see if you don't get a sustained objection. Unless the defendant testifies, the prosecution cannot bring up past history to impeach the defendants credibility. The sentencing phase is a different ballgame, but that's after someone has already been found guilty.
I'm not sure what you mean by the phrase "today's policing" but the rules of evidence haven't been changed to accommodate it.

[EEllis]

It does not matter what the guy is holding. If he is putting the officers in danger of serious bodily injury or death, deadly force is justified. His expression would not matter. The guy can have an angry face or a happy one. He can even be doing a selfie duckface. If the threat is there, its there. No expression will change that.

People including cops derive a lot of info from expressions and body language. This is not about someone "making a face" it's about someone's expressions being useful in trying to determine what their actions might be. Saying they don't matter is not compatible with LE training or any recognized legal theory. An officer can certainly make, and would be allowed to make, an argument that "I could see it in his eye's" as why they acted believing a suspect was about to do something. Now a jury would be free to apply whatever weight to that testimony they wanted but to say it doesn't matter? You're argument is a little strange overall. It doesn't matter if he has a spatula............ if the threat is there then it's there" What would the threat be if all he has is a spatula? How could that not matter? An expression isn't reason to shoot on it's own but if other things are going on then certainly something as small as an expression, a noise, a twitch, can add up with other factors to give justification for use of force.

When I said "if the threat is there, its there", I was talking about how a facial expression does not change whether the deputies were or were not in danger.

A person can cause serious bodily injury or death without any object in there hands. Having a "non lethal object" does not change that. A spatula may not be as dangerous as a knife but I'm not going to argue its lethality or lack of it because other than you mentioning it, there is no reports of a spatula being present. Maybe someone here will make a thread discussing on whether or not a spatula can be deadly.

You were responding to my comment on justification for force so that is what I was discussing. Facial expressions can indicate possible actions and as such can change the perception of the level of danger. It's that perception that is the legal justification for force not some not some after the fact evaluation, and I still don't really get whatever point it is you're trying to make.