Bexar County deputies shoot man during disturbance call

[suthdj]

Ok from the video we saw even if he had a knife in his hand was he really a threat to the LEO's at the moment he was shot, I suspect the reason he was shot twice was not because they both saw a threat but one reacted to the first shot, what caused the first shot is anyone's guess. However I won't say hang them out to dry until the second video is released.

Contagious fire is possible too. It could be either way from the released video. I can't make out if the subject moved before the shots or just after. That's a critical point. If he simply had a knife in his left hand but kept his hands raised and didn't engage in a threatening movement, I wouldn't see an imminent threat that justifies lethal force. On the other hand, in light of the fact that he allegedly already tried to stab a deputy, if he did have a knife in his hand and started to move from a hands up "surrender" position to the beginning of a charging posture, that would be a deadly threat.

I'm hoping the second video can clear this up.

Yes, the delay in sound from shots does leave a window of doubt about what came first.

[dlh]

Getting off topic just a little but for some reason our government refuses or delays to release many videos to the public. Several come to mind---The Navy Seal webcam helmet videos of the Bin Ladin raid...the Benghazzi Drone Video....the Delta Force ISIS Syrian raid video of several weeks back, and on and on.

dlh

[mojo84]

Getting off topic just a little but for some reason our government refuses or delays to release many videos to the public. Several come to mind---The Navy Seal webcam helmet videos of the Bin Ladin raid...the Benghazzi Drone Video....the Delta Force ISIS Syrian raid video of several weeks back, and on and on.

dlh

There's a big difference between releasing videos that reveal military tactics when such video can be used to jeopardize our military personnel's safety and a video that a secret unnamed source is saying will exonerate police officers and prove their actions were justified.

[dlh]

Getting off topic just a little but for some reason our government refuses or delays to release many videos to the public. Several come to mind---The Navy Seal webcam helmet videos of the Bin Ladin raid...the Benghazzi Drone Video....the Delta Force ISIS Syrian raid video of several weeks back, and on and on.

dlh

There's a big difference between releasing videos that reveal military tactics when such video can be used to jeopardize our military personnel's safety and a video that a secret unnamed source is saying will exonerate police officers and prove their actions were justified.

Obviously, but is that the reason these videos are not being released or are there other reasons? I love my country but I am sorry, I simply do not trust my government on these issues.

dlh

[mojo84]

Getting off topic just a little but for some reason our government refuses or delays to release many videos to the public. Several come to mind---The Navy Seal webcam helmet videos of the Bin Ladin raid...the Benghazzi Drone Video....the Delta Force ISIS Syrian raid video of several weeks back, and on and on.

dlh

There's a big difference between releasing videos that reveal military tactics when such video can be used to jeopardize our military personnel's safety and a video that a secret unnamed source is saying will exonerate police officers and prove their actions were justified.

Obviously, but is that the reason these videos are not being released or are there other reasons? I love my country but I am sorry, I simply do not trust my government on these issues.

dlh

You are conflating the two completely different situations.

I also believe if the second video really shows what the secret unnamed source says, it would be released. Since it hasn't been, I'm suspicious. However, that has nothing to do with the federal government and videos of military operations.

[Javier730]

Getting off topic just a little but for some reason our government refuses or delays to release many videos to the public. Several come to mind---The Navy Seal webcam helmet videos of the Bin Ladin raid...the Benghazzi Drone Video....the Delta Force ISIS Syrian raid video of several weeks back, and on and on.

dlh

There's a big difference between releasing videos that reveal military tactics when such video can be used to jeopardize our military personnel's safety and a video that a secret unnamed source is saying will exonerate police officers and prove their actions were justified.

100%

[dlh]

Getting off topic just a little but for some reason our government refuses or delays to release many videos to the public. Several come to mind---The Navy Seal webcam helmet videos of the Bin Ladin raid...the Benghazzi Drone Video....the Delta Force ISIS Syrian raid video of several weeks back, and on and on.

dlh

There's a big difference between releasing videos that reveal military tactics when such video can be used to jeopardize our military personnel's safety and a video that a secret unnamed source is saying will exonerate police officers and prove their actions were justified.

Obviously, but is that the reason these videos are not being released or are there other reasons? I love my country but I am sorry, I simply do not trust my government on these issues.

dlh

You are conflating the two completely different situations.

I also believe if the second video really shows what the secret unnamed source says, it would be released. Since it hasn't been, I'm suspicious. However, that has nothing to do with the federal government and videos of military operations.

Uh.....no. Obviously there are LEO videos and military videos...That was not MY point. My point is the extent to which we should trust our government who refuses or delays to release videos---whether they be LEO OR military...You agreed you were suspicious regarding the LEO video...why aren't you suspicious regarding military videos? Hint...Benghazi Drone Video---Hillary is running for President....Connect the dots...

dlh

[Taypo]

Getting off topic just a little but for some reason our government refuses or delays to release many videos to the public. Several come to mind---The Navy Seal webcam helmet videos of the Bin Ladin raid...the Benghazzi Drone Video....the Delta Force ISIS Syrian raid video of several weeks back, and on and on.

dlh

There's a big difference between releasing videos that reveal military tactics when such video can be used to jeopardize our military personnel's safety and a video that a secret unnamed source is saying will exonerate police officers and prove their actions were justified.

Obviously, but is that the reason these videos are not being released or are there other reasons? I love my country but I am sorry, I simply do not trust my government on these issues.

dlh

You are conflating the two completely different situations.

I also believe if the second video really shows what the secret unnamed source says, it would be released. Since it hasn't been, I'm suspicious. However, that has nothing to do with the federal government and videos of military operations.

Uh.....no. Obviously there are LEO videos and military videos...That was not MY point. My point is the extent to which we should trust our government who refuses or delays to release videos---whether they be LEO OR military...You agreed you were suspicious regarding the LEO video...why aren't you suspicious regarding military videos? Hint...Benghazi Drone Video---Hillary is running for President....Connect the dots...

dlh

Just so I'm clear: you're saying that this video and videos pertaining to national security are of equal importance and we should be allowed to see them all?

[mojo84]

Getting off topic just a little but for some reason our government refuses or delays to release many videos to the public. Several come to mind---The Navy Seal webcam helmet videos of the Bin Ladin raid...the Benghazzi Drone Video....the Delta Force ISIS Syrian raid video of several weeks back, and on and on.

dlh

There's a big difference between releasing videos that reveal military tactics when such video can be used to jeopardize our military personnel's safety and a video that a secret unnamed source is saying will exonerate police officers and prove their actions were justified.

Obviously, but is that the reason these videos are not being released or are there other reasons? I love my country but I am sorry, I simply do not trust my government on these issues.

dlh

You are conflating the two completely different situations.

I also believe if the second video really shows what the secret unnamed source says, it would be released. Since it hasn't been, I'm suspicious. However, that has nothing to do with the federal government and videos of military operations.

Uh.....no. Obviously there are LEO videos and military videos...That was not MY point. My point is the extent to which we should trust our government who refuses or delays to release videos---whether they be LEO OR military...You agreed you were suspicious regarding the LEO video...why aren't you suspicious regarding military videos? Hint...Benghazi Drone Video---Hillary is running for President....Connect the dots...

dlh

Don't address me like I am stupid.

I am suspicious about the military videos. There's just a huge difference in the situations. I think the reasons they are being withheld in the sheriff shooting and Benghazi are obvious. However, I also believe in some cases it is justified, especially when it may reveal military tactics, identities and such. You specifically included the Bin Laden raid along with the deputies shooting the guy with his hands up which is the topic of this thread, not the military and state department videos.

[Taypo]

Getting off topic just a little but for some reason our government refuses or delays to release many videos to the public. Several come to mind---The Navy Seal webcam helmet videos of the Bin Ladin raid...the Benghazzi Drone Video....the Delta Force ISIS Syrian raid video of several weeks back, and on and on.

dlh

There's a big difference between releasing videos that reveal military tactics when such video can be used to jeopardize our military personnel's safety and a video that a secret unnamed source is saying will exonerate police officers and prove their actions were justified.

Obviously, but is that the reason these videos are not being released or are there other reasons? I love my country but I am sorry, I simply do not trust my government on these issues.

dlh

You are conflating the two completely different situations.

I also believe if the second video really shows what the secret unnamed source says, it would be released. Since it hasn't been, I'm suspicious. However, that has nothing to do with the federal government and videos of military operations.

Uh.....no. Obviously there are LEO videos and military videos...That was not MY point. My point is the extent to which we should trust our government who refuses or delays to release videos---whether they be LEO OR military...You agreed you were suspicious regarding the LEO video...why aren't you suspicious regarding military videos? Hint...Benghazi Drone Video---Hillary is running for President....Connect the dots...

dlh

Don't address me like I am stupid.

I am suspicious about the military videos. There's just a huge difference in the situations. I think the reasons they are being withheld in the sheriff shooting and Benghazi are obvious. However, I also believe in some cases it is justified, especially when it may reveal military tactics, identities and such. You specifically included the Bin Laden raid along with the deputies shooting the guy with his hands up which is the topic of the thread, not the military and state department videos.

[dlh]

Getting off topic just a little but for some reason our government refuses or delays to release many videos to the public. Several come to mind---The Navy Seal webcam helmet videos of the Bin Ladin raid...the Benghazzi Drone Video....the Delta Force ISIS Syrian raid video of several weeks back, and on and on.

dlh

There's a big difference between releasing videos that reveal military tactics when such video can be used to jeopardize our military personnel's safety and a video that a secret unnamed source is saying will exonerate police officers and prove their actions were justified.

Obviously, but is that the reason these videos are not being released or are there other reasons? I love my country but I am sorry, I simply do not trust my government on these issues.

dlh

You are conflating the two completely different situations.

I also believe if the second video really shows what the secret unnamed source says, it would be released. Since it hasn't been, I'm suspicious. However, that has nothing to do with the federal government and videos of military operations.

Uh.....no. Obviously there are LEO videos and military videos...That was not MY point. My point is the extent to which we should trust our government who refuses or delays to release videos---whether they be LEO OR military...You agreed you were suspicious regarding the LEO video...why aren't you suspicious regarding military videos? Hint...Benghazi Drone Video---Hillary is running for President....Connect the dots...

dlh

Don't address me like I am stupid.

I am suspicious about the military videos. There's just a huge difference in the situations. I think the reasons they are being withheld in the sheriff shooting and Benghazi are obvious. However, I also believe in some cases it is justified, especially when it may reveal military tactics, identities and such. You specifically included the Bin Laden raid along with the deputies shooting the guy with his hands up which is the topic of this thread, not the military and state department videos.

I addressed you like you were stupid?....Come on...those are your words...not mine.

I agree the "topic of the thread" was why the LEOs were not releasing the second video in the Bexar County Incident. Notice in my initial comment I said I was getting slightly off topic to include other videos the government was not releasing...Surely you read that....and no, I am not calling you stupid :)

dlh

[VMI77]

If this guy was innocent of beating or slashing his family, why was he not giving aid to his family?

No defense here, partner. I refuse to put myself in his shoes.

Why?

Because I'm not a wife beater, nor would I do something to give me the appearance of one. There are details here that none of us know. Once we're aware of reason, record and circumstance I may prove myself wrong but I doubt it. You and I both know the media is going to make this guy out to be an angel, but I'm confident the reality is far different.

And if it was me in this situation, the cops wouldn't need to put me down on the front lawn. My wife would have done it for them. Repeatedly.

I wish their were more women out there like this who would not put up with a man putting there hands on them. The woman in this story should of been the one that shot this guy when he was attacking her, not the deputies.

One thing I am sure of, he will never hit a woman again.

Think about what you're saying.....men don't have a monopoly on crazy. That logic sounds like open season for crazy women. At what point are you suggesting a woman should get a pass for shooting and killing a boyfriend or husband? How much putting on of hands begets the death penalty? All women are not fragile and precious little angels who never lie.

I'm thinking about what you are saying and I don't get it, especially from someone on a CHL forum and carries a gun for self protection. The guy had a knife, she had a gash on her head and a toddler was beat. I think the woman would have been perfectly justified in shooting the guy.

Now executing him after the fact would be different regardless whether it was the woman victim or the officers. However, I don't think that is what anyone is promoting. Do you?

You're addressing the specifics of this particular shooting.....shooting a guy attacking you with a knife is a legitimate use of deadly force. I was responding to a general comment about "women out there not putting up with a man putting hands on them." Perhaps I should have only quoted that part in my response.

Should women allow themselves to be beaten and attacked with a knife?

Now you're just going out of your way to be insulting and obtuse. I'll help you out anyway by highlighting in red the answer to this frivolous question, which you asked in spite of the fact that it was already answered in the first sentence you quoted of my response.

So to your response to the comment, "women out there not putting up with a man putting hands on them", what is your opinion on that? Should a woman wait until the man stops beating her and then call the police? Should they gamble with their lives and hope the beating does not cause their death. If someone is beating me, I am not going wait for them to decide I had enough. If I can stop it, I will. Women should do the same whether its some random attacker or their spouse.

Think about what you're saying.....men don't have a monopoly on crazy. That logic sounds like open season for crazy women. At what point are you suggesting a woman should get a pass for shooting and killing a boyfriend or husband? How much putting on of hands begets the death penalty? All women are not fragile and precious little angels who never lie.

I'm not trying to argue with you or insult you in any way. What you posted is why I made comments you took offensive. What I said and what you understood are completely different.

You mentioned that not all women are fragile and previous little angels who lie. That's true, but there are some women out there who get beaten. Those beating could result in death. They should not have to wait until their abuser decides to use a weapon on them to use deadly force and they should not lose their right to defend themselves from domestic violence just because there are lying women out there.

I'm an old guy and words still have meaning for me.....you didn't say defend against a beating, a knife attack, or even a punch...you said "putting hands on." If a woman pushes a man and he pushers her back should she be able to shoot him? If someone restrains a wife or girl friend to prevent her from doing something stupid, or, say, in a rage throwing an object at him, or the family dog, and grabs her arm and take the object away, should she be able to shoot him?

I believe in the rule of law....I'd support a man or a woman shooting someone attempting to strike a blow to their head with a fist....under some circumstances anyway....or a pregnant woman defending against a blow to her stomach for instance....but the term "putting hands on" is way too broad and sweeping. Furthermore, though I may believe it's defensible to use lethal force under some circumstances to defend against being punched, especially for a small woman defending herself against a large man, the law is not so gracious when it comes to shooting people the press celebrates as "unarmed."

The law already favors women when it comes to self-defense. A woman is far more likely to get away with shooting an unarmed attacker than a man is....in spite of the constant media barrage that women and men are equal and that women can do anything a man can do. A battered spouse is not equivalent to a woman being attacked in a parking lot by a stranger. I have no interest in discussing of the dynamics of domestic abuse, but a woman who continues to live with a partner who beats her is making a choice that is the product of a disturbed psychology. A mentally healthy woman doesn't hang around for a second beating. The law is imperfect, but I think when it comes to self-defense, it has the balance between competing rights just about right, at least in states like Texas. It's a dangerous principle to grant extra latitude in the use of deadly force to someone who essentially is not acting rationally just because they're female.

I'm categorically against the notion that law enforcement should be given any latitude to act as judge, jury, and executioner, no matter how heinous responding officers may perceive a crime to be, or how heinous it may actually be. That's a prescription for tyranny.

I understand what you mean sir, I really do. The part I highlighted is the part I don't agree with. The reasons for a man beating his spouse may differ from the reason a stranger would attack a woman but what they share is violence. A woman getting hit by their spouse should not have to wait until the slaps transition into punches or choking to defend herself. How is getting slapped, punched, kicked, choked, thrown , etc. different just because the person is your spouse and not a stranger? Should a woman empty a magazine on her spouse because he slapped her once for whatever reason? No, of course not. She should do what is legal. Call the police or do nothing if she is one of disturbed ones. But product if disturbed psychology or not, if a woman is being beaten (punched, kicked, choked, etc) she has the right to protect herself from serious bodily harm.

I didn't elaborate so perhaps what I'm getting at is not what you took from my remarks. A woman who is assaulted by a boyfriend or spouse and doesn't leave, permanently, is choosing to continue to put herself in danger. She has an expectation, or should have, that by remaining in the proximity of her abuser, she will continue to be attacked. A woman walking to her car in a parking lot isn't doing so expecting to be attacked. If she did expect it, she'd take preventative action, such as calling the police or seeking an escort. She wouldn't walk out to her car and take a beating. If you saw someone who had attacked you previously hanging around your car in a parking lot and expected he would attack you again, would you just walk out and confront the person and either get in a fight or be forced to use your gun in self-defense? Would you not take preventative action instead?

As someone with a CHL if you knowingly put yourself in a dangerous situation that could have been avoided and then have to use your gun in self-defense, you have assumed some responsibility for the consequences. I don't think most of us go walking around dangerous neighborhoods at 3 AM if we don't have to. Yes, a woman has a right to protect herself from bodily harm, but she should also take responsibility for herself, and if she's a mother, most especially for her children, by refusing to continue to place herself and her children in harm's way. I'm trying to avoid a long discussion on the dynamics of domestic abuse, but I see a difference between the woman who has no expectation of violence while innocently going about her daily business and a woman who chooses to remain in a place where an abusive partner can continue to beat her. It doesn't grant the abuser the right to beat her but it makes future beatings and/or escalation and tragedy almost inevitable.

[EEllis]

I can't make out if the subject moved before the shots or just after. That's a critical point. If he simply had a knife in his left hand but kept his hands raised and didn't engage in a threatening movement, I wouldn't see an imminent threat that justifies lethal force. On the other hand, in light of the fact that he allegedly already tried to stab a deputy, if he did have a knife in his hand and started to move from a hands up "surrender" position to the beginning of a charging posture, that would be a deadly threat.

Our opinions agree - that matches what I said earlier. I'm concerned because I didn't see even a hint of a movement from him before he suddenly collapsed.

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.

[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.