Bexar County deputies shoot man during disturbance call

[MONGOOSE]

Why are we waiting on a video? There were two POs present and the guy was shot dead......not like he could hide a knife that would have fallen from his hand, Do we just not trust the POs to tell the truth? Sad. Another person refereed to a knife and it's lethal distance.....21 ' I believe....well the officers advanced on the perp and -placed themselves in danger......anybody ever hear of a 12ga bean bag round.....knocks the snot out of you.
/

[cb1000rider]

I think that 21' lethal distance is for firearms not drawn and ready... Still, a knife is a deadly weapon either way.

[suthdj]

Why are we waiting on a video? There were two POs present and the guy was shot dead......not like he could hide a knife that would have fallen from his hand, Do we just not trust the POs to tell the truth? Sad. Another person refereed to a knife and it's lethal distance.....21 ' I believe....well the officers advanced on the perp and -placed themselves in danger......anybody ever hear of a 12ga bean bag round.....knocks the snot out of you.
/

And where do you suppose that weapon might be, maybe in the SUV behind the perp or not on scene at all.

[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.

[mojo84]

with AndyC on this.

I hope the other video shows differently though. However, I doubt it does considering LaHood's comments and the fact hey haven't released it yet.

[Charles L. Cotton]

People have done precisely that, i.e. injured themselves to support a false allegation. But that aside, are you saying that in the event he did assault the wife, it was okay to kill him on the scene?

I'm not saying the shooting is bad; there's not enough evidence to make that decision yet. The video looks bad, but if there's a 2nd one that shows he had a knife, then that's very significant in the decision to shoot.
Chas.

In the event that he did indeed commit the assault?

One could make an educated guess that he's going to do it again based on the cycle of abuse, so the threat remains real as long as he's around. I don't think that's the legal answer, but its part of the reason I'm not at all bothered by this incident.

My question was directed to another Member, but since you decided to post, how about answering the question. If the man assaulted his wife, is it your position that killing him on the spot was justified?

If you are saying that a recent past assault is justification for someone else to use deadly force, then you better take a refresher course on Texas law.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

A person, not just a women, getting the snot beat out of them and getting slashed with a knife has the right to use whatever force necessary to stop who ever is doing that. I don't see how you can carry for self defense and not understand that. Maybe you would have a different opinion if that was one of your loved ones. I hope you never serve on a jury in domestic violence related self defense case or any self defense case for that matter.

I understand everyone's points, but I think you folks are talking past each other, at least to some extent.

Does family violence exist? Yes.
Are men the offender in most cases? Yes.
Are women sometimes the aggressor? Yes.
Do women make false allegations of abuse? Yes.
Are complaints by women almost always believed to be true? Yes.
Are false complaints used in divorces, post-divorce, and revenge settings? Yes.
Have men been falsely convicted of physical or sexual abuse? Yes.
Do these men realistically have any legal recourse? No.

Those who say "she said it, so I believe it, thus he deserved to die" ignore reality and buy into the media hype. Before someone asks, no, I've never been accused of family violence. But as a COP and attorney, I know quite well that there are people who will lie to get what they want or what they feel like they deserve. "Family violence," "sexual predator" and many other phrases are buzz words both in society and the judicial system and there are people who know how to play the system and the public.

Chas.

I think we can all agree on that. I have had the finger pointed at me once before about something I didn't do. Fortunately for me, the evidence was in my favor. I find it hard to believe that the woman would gash her own head to get the guy arrested when everyone knows saying he beat her would of sufficed. Pacing around aggressively like a caveman and fighting with the police for 20 minutes also makes me believe he was not innocent in this particular case.

People have done precisely that, i.e. injured themselves to support a false allegation. But that aside, are you saying that in the event he did assault the wife, it was okay to kill him on the scene?

I'm not saying the shooting is bad; there's not enough evidence to make that decision yet. The video looks bad, but if there's a 2nd one that shows he had a knife, then that's very significant in the decision to shoot.

Chas.

Whether or not he beat or slashed his wife, if he posed a threat to the deputies by having a knife in his hands and making a sudden movement, I do believe the deputies had the right to shoot. Killing him would not be the intention. Stoping him would. Death would be an unfortunate side effect.

You didn't answer my questions and I understand why. Of course deadly force could be justified if the man posed a deadly threat to officers, which may have been the case.

Your posts make it appear that you think he deserved to be shot based solely on the fact that he assaulted a woman. I'm trying to understand if that is truly your opinion or not. Once again, are you saying that in the event he did assault the wife, it was okay to use deadly force against him on the scene even if he did not post a deadly threat to the officers?

Chas.

[Taypo]

People have done precisely that, i.e. injured themselves to support a false allegation. But that aside, are you saying that in the event he did assault the wife, it was okay to kill him on the scene?

I'm not saying the shooting is bad; there's not enough evidence to make that decision yet. The video looks bad, but if there's a 2nd one that shows he had a knife, then that's very significant in the decision to shoot.
Chas.

In the event that he did indeed commit the assault?

One could make an educated guess that he's going to do it again based on the cycle of abuse, so the threat remains real as long as he's around. I don't think that's the legal answer, but its part of the reason I'm not at all bothered by this incident.

My question was directed to another Member, but since you decided to post, how about answering the question. If the man assaulted his wife, is it your position that killing him on the spot was justified?

If you are saying that a recent past assault is justification for someone else to use deadly force, then you better take a refresher course on Texas law.

Chas.

I didn't in any way, shape or form claim it was legal. As a matter of fact, I said "I don't think that's the legal answer."

It's my position that if he did indeed commit the assault, I don't have a moral issue with his death. The world is a better place without him in it.

[Javier730]

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.

A person, not just a women, getting the snot beat out of them and getting slashed with a knife has the right to use whatever force necessary to stop who ever is doing that. I don't see how you can carry for self defense and not understand that. Maybe you would have a different opinion if that was one of your loved ones. I hope you never serve on a jury in domestic violence related self defense case or any self defense case for that matter.

I understand everyone's points, but I think you folks are talking past each other, at least to some extent.

Does family violence exist? Yes.
Are men the offender in most cases? Yes.
Are women sometimes the aggressor? Yes.
Do women make false allegations of abuse? Yes.
Are complaints by women almost always believed to be true? Yes.
Are false complaints used in divorces, post-divorce, and revenge settings? Yes.
Have men been falsely convicted of physical or sexual abuse? Yes.
Do these men realistically have any legal recourse? No.

Those who say "she said it, so I believe it, thus he deserved to die" ignore reality and buy into the media hype. Before someone asks, no, I've never been accused of family violence. But as a COP and attorney, I know quite well that there are people who will lie to get what they want or what they feel like they deserve. "Family violence," "sexual predator" and many other phrases are buzz words both in society and the judicial system and there are people who know how to play the system and the public.

Chas.

I think we can all agree on that. I have had the finger pointed at me once before about something I didn't do. Fortunately for me, the evidence was in my favor. I find it hard to believe that the woman would gash her own head to get the guy arrested when everyone knows saying he beat her would of sufficed. Pacing around aggressively like a caveman and fighting with the police for 20 minutes also makes me believe he was not innocent in this particular case.

People have done precisely that, i.e. injured themselves to support a false allegation. But that aside, are you saying that in the event he did assault the wife, it was okay to kill him on the scene?

I'm not saying the shooting is bad; there's not enough evidence to make that decision yet. The video looks bad, but if there's a 2nd one that shows he had a knife, then that's very significant in the decision to shoot.

Chas.

Whether or not he beat or slashed his wife, if he posed a threat to the deputies by having a knife in his hands and making a sudden movement, I do believe the deputies had the right to shoot. Killing him would not be the intention. Stoping him would. Death would be an unfortunate side effect.

You didn't answer my questions and I understand why. Of course deadly force could be justified if the man posed a deadly threat to officers, which may have been the case.

Your posts make it appear that you think he deserved to be shot based solely on the fact that he assaulted a woman. I'm trying to understand if that is truly your opinion or not. Once again, are you saying that in the event he did assault the wife, it was okay to use deadly force against him on the scene even if he did not post a deadly threat to the officers?

Chas.

No sir, of course not. LEO or not, deadly force only when one believes that its the only option to stop someone from causing serious bodily harm or death to them or anyone else. Whether he had assaulted or even killed someone previous to his encounter with the deputies does not justify the use of deadly force. Doing something that would give the deputies the impression that he was going to hurt or kill them would.

Did he do that? I don't know. Hard to tell. It doesnt appear he made a move towards the officers from when I watch the video on my tablet sitting on my couch. It's easy to say the man was not a threat watching a video when you are not the person in danger. Maybe the release of the second video will shed some light on the situation.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Folks need to remember that anti-gun liars read the Forum and don't mind taking something completely out of context, then lying about you. The subject matter of this thread has two very volatile issues 1) potential use of excessive force; and 2) a battered woman and/or child. Both of these subjects raise emotions and may prompt people to say things they don't mean.

Remember also that your posts on the Forum are here permanently and I don't think you want to see comments implying that "he deserved to die, so it doesn't matter how he died" being used against you if you ever have to defend against a deadly attack. I'm glad two Members clarified comments that I and likely others misinterpreted.

Chas.

[Javier730]

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.

[cb1000rider]

I didn't in any way, shape or form claim it was legal. As a matter of fact, I said "I don't think that's the legal answer."
It's my position that if he did indeed commit the assault, I don't have a moral issue with his death. The world is a better place without him in it.

That clarifies it for me. However, now I'm curious: Exactly what crimes result in a moral justification of immediate execution? It'd certainly be one way to clean up the prison system.

[Javier730]

I didn't in any way, shape or form claim it was legal. As a matter of fact, I said "I don't think that's the legal answer."
It's my position that if he did indeed commit the assault, I don't have a moral issue with his death. The world is a better place without him in it.

That clarifies it for me. However, now I'm curious: Exactly what crimes result in a moral justification of immediate execution? It'd certainly be one way to clean up the prison system.

Moral justification. That depends on the person. Legal justification, none.