Strange case in Houston

longview said:

I tend not to watch the news too often, but saw this story last night.
https://www.click2houston.com/news/...ng-the-fatal-police-shooting-of-a-houston-man
The Sheriff's deputy pulled up on an altercation in the street, where a man with his pants down around his ankles
was arguing with a driver. The man with his pants down was Danny Ray Thomas,
when the officer showed up, he started walking towards the officer, who told him to stop and put his hands up.
The man continued to walk towards the officer and after several more commands to stop,
the officer shot and killed Thomas.
There is a lot of public outcry, but to me this looks like suicide by cop.
An officer is standing in front of you with his gun drawn, yelling for you to stop, and you keep coming.
The Chronicle has a different camera angle from someones cell phone.
https://www.chron.com/news/houston-...hows-unarmed-man-with-pants-down-12778068.php
Something is messed up, but I am not sure the deputy is at fault.

Click to expand...

Guy had a love gun drawn on the cop so there was no alternative but to draw his own gun and discharge it.

longview said:

You are speculating about facts not in evidence.
The Deputy may have had access to non lethal means, but perhaps not in the time frame.
Would a untrained civilian be in fear for their safety if a large man on the street with his pants around his ankles,
and foaming at the mouth kept coming towards them, I think average Joe or Jane might be a bit concerned.

Click to expand...

You sir are speculating on facts not in evidence.

If the deputy could draw his service weapon.. then the deputy could have drawn his non lethal means.. or used his hands.. or backed up and put a barrier between himself and the fellow.

Would a untrained civilian be in fear for their safety if a large man on the street with his pants around his ankles,
and foaming at the mouth kept coming towards them, I think average Joe or Jane might be a bit concerned.

Click to expand...

Now we are "foaming at the mouth"? Hmmm.. talk about speculation.

The facts in evidence are that 1. a man with his pants around his ankles was walking toward the officer.

You have already established that if such was happening to an untrained civilian.. it would not be sufficient to justify using deadly force and killing the man walking toward the untrained civilian.

It simply would not meet the criteria for reasonably believing that you were in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm.

And if it is not grounds for the use of deadly force from an untrained civilian.. it most certainly is not grounds for deadly force from a trained officer, who has multiple non lethal options, including the use of hands.

jaeger19 said:

You sir are speculating on facts not in evidence.

If the deputy could draw his service weapon.. then the deputy could have drawn his non lethal means.. or used his hands.. or backed up and put a barrier between himself and the fellow.



Now we are "foaming at the mouth"? Hmmm.. talk about speculation.

The facts in evidence are that 1. a man with his pants around his ankles was walking toward the officer.

You have already established that if such was happening to an untrained civilian.. it would not be sufficient to justify using deadly force and killing the man walking toward the untrained civilian.

It simply would not meet the criteria for reasonably believing that you were in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm.

And if it is not grounds for the use of deadly force from an untrained civilian.. it most certainly is not grounds for deadly force from a trained officer, who has multiple non lethal options, including the use of hands.

Click to expand...

https://www.chron.com/news/houston-...oting-unarmed-man-Houston-police-12782533.php

The sheriff's office initially said Thomas, 34, may have been carrying a weapon, but on Monday acknowledged he was unarmed and foaming at the mouth.

Click to expand...

From the time Thomas started moving towards the deputy, and the shot was between 9 and 10 seconds.
Look I know this is a bad situation, but I think Thomas was depressed and wanted to die, why else would he keep
walking towards someone pointing a gun at him and yelling for him to stop.

longview said:

https://www.chron.com/news/houston-...oting-unarmed-man-Houston-police-12782533.php

From the time Thomas started moving towards the deputy, and the shot was between 9 and 10 seconds.
Look I know this is a bad situation, but I think Thomas was depressed and wanted to die, why else would he keep
walking towards someone pointing a gun at him and yelling for him to stop.

Click to expand...

9 to 10 seconds is a lot of time.. not to mention the distance that still would have to be covered by Thomas to even get his hands on the deputy..

It simply doesn't justify the use of deadly force. no way .. no how.

Why else would you keep walking toward someone pointing a gun and yelling to stop? Perhaps because you were really ill and were panicked and needed help? And you saw a police officer who could call for help? Perhaps you are in the midst of a cva, or other brain event and you are trying to explain whats going on..and you are unable because your words come out garbled.. or you have receptive aphasia where you can't understand what the person talking to you is saying.

I can think of plenty of scenarios where a person with certain medical conditions could be in confusion, or not understand commands, or have insight into the situation other than they need help because something is wrong. etc.. from having a CVA,, to medication reactions, to seizure activity...

At the end of the day..a guy walking toward you with his pants down in and of itself is not a deadly threat that requires the use of deadly force.

jaeger19 said:

9 to 10 seconds is a lot of time.. not to mention the distance that still would have to be covered by Thomas to even get his hands on the deputy..

It simply doesn't justify the use of deadly force. no way .. no how.

Why else would you keep walking toward someone pointing a gun and yelling to stop? Perhaps because you were really ill and were panicked and needed help? And you saw a police officer who could call for help? Perhaps you are in the midst of a cva, or other brain event and you are trying to explain whats going on..and you are unable because your words come out garbled.. or you have receptive aphasia where you can't understand what the person talking to you is saying.

I can think of plenty of scenarios where a person with certain medical conditions could be in confusion, or not understand commands, or have insight into the situation other than they need help because something is wrong. etc.. from having a CVA,, to medication reactions, to seizure activity...

At the end of the day..a guy walking toward you with his pants down in and of itself is not a deadly threat that requires the use of deadly force.

Click to expand...

We will just have to see, but I do not expect the deputy to be charged with a crime, or even found to be at fault.

longview said:

We will just have to see, but I do not expect the deputy to be charged with a crime, or even found to be at fault.

Click to expand...

Of course.. and that's because like you..our current culture does not hold our officers reasonably responsible for their actions. Instead.. you hold them to a lower standard than you would an ordinary citizen.

jaeger19 said:

Of course.. and that's because like you..our current culture does not hold our officers reasonably responsible for their actions. Instead.. you hold them to a lower standard than you would an ordinary citizen.

Click to expand...

I would not say it is a lower standard, but rather, people generally understand what an ugly job the police have.
The average person does not have to carry a gun, a taser, mace, and baton, on a daily basis, because they may need them on the job.
The average persons daily job, does not bring them into contact with the worst elements in our society,
in situations that have a high probability of becoming violent.
I think of the George Orwell quote, when I think of the police,

We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.

Click to expand...

Do we as a society, give a little more latitude to the police than the average citizen, I suspect we do,
but it is because on a daily basis, we expect them to stand in the breech between law abiding society,
and people who choose to follow the laws of nature.

longview said:

Not all departments have Tasers, I think they all have pepper spray, but the Thomas's distance was several feet,
switching from the gun to another option would take too long.
I still think Thomas wanted to get shot, that is the only rational explanation for him to
keep moving towards the officer.

Click to expand...

If they didn't have tasers, and the dude didn't have a weapon within reach, why not just let him keep coming and tackle him instead? They all would have been bruised up but alive.
Thomas needed to be committed, not killed. I am all for giving cops the benefit of the doubt. Granted, we weren't there, so it is easy for us to spout wisdom. This scenario doesn't smell right. If you don't mind posting further developments, that would be great.

Lovebug said:

If they didn't have tasers, and the dude didn't have a weapon within reach, why not just let him keep coming and tackle him instead? They all would have been bruised up but alive.
Thomas needed to be committed, not killed. I am all for giving cops the benefit of the doubt. Granted, we weren't there, so it is easy for us to spout wisdom. This scenario doesn't smell right. If you don't mind posting further developments, that would be great.

Click to expand...

He did have a taser, and was trained in non lethal force, I think it just happened very quickly.
Now knowing the background, (His girlfriend drowned his two children while he was in jail),
I think he was trying to kill himself.
I think they train officers that a safe distance from someone who may have a knife,is 20 feet, this guy was shot at arms length.

To all stupid people when the cop say "stop" then stop. If you refuse to drop whatever you have in your hand and it is dark out then you are on your own. Too bad, no sympathy.

longview said:

I would not say it is a lower standard, but rather, people generally understand what an ugly job the police have.
.

Click to expand...

Nope.. its a lower standard. That's exactly what I have proven. If am unarmed man with his pants around his ankles is walking toward me and refuses to stop.. I am not justified in shooting him.

Yet you claim the police were justified in shooting him. Why? Not because the police had more to fear. They actually had more means to protect themselves, training, experience, non lethal weapons, etc.

The average persons daily job, does not bring them into contact with the worst elements in our society,
in situations that have a high probability of becoming violent

Click to expand...

Ironically.. that's really not true. Who do you think most violent crime is perpetrated on? On police? Criminals rarely target police as victims.. they target folks like me that are leaving the office to make a bank deposit.. or my nurses that are leaving after the even shift and are in a dark parking garage at night. Or my kids when they are walking home late at night. Or my parents because they are elderly.

I think of the George Orwell quote, when I think of the police,

Click to expand...

Right.. except we don't sleep in bed at night because of "rough men".. not when I have more to fear from those rough men. In today's world.. I literally have to fear that I or worse my sons will get injured or killed by a trigger happy police officer that panics on a routine traffic stop because when they run my plates it will come back that I am a concealed weapons permit holder.

That is an honest to goodness fear...and its borne out by the recent history.

And why? Because we are not holding our police responsible for their actions. In today's world... I, an untrained, civilian.. is now the one that's expected when stopped by the police.. to be more calm than the police, to be in more control of the situation, to be more understanding and understand the situation better than the police.. OR I risk being killed.

and even if I do everything right? And the police STILL kill me... ? In all likelihood.. since I have a concealed weapons permit.. the policeman that panics and shoots me.. won't even get punished at all.

longview said:

He did have a taser, and was trained in non lethal force, I think it just happened very quickly.
Now knowing the background, (His girlfriend drowned his two children while he was in jail),
I think he was trying to kill himself.
I think they train officers that a safe distance from someone who may have a knife,is 20 feet, this guy was shot at arms length.

Click to expand...

One.. the 20 foot rule is bunk..

Second.. the guy didn;t have a knife.

The guy wasn;t trying to kill himself.. he was probably confused, and in some time of mental breakdown its doubtful that in his mental state that he was thinking.. "gee this would be a good opportunity to be killed by cop". . In fact in all possibility.. he could have been instinctually trying to get the police officer to help him. ..


Just think about his scenario...

You have just witnessed a crime and you just observed the criminal run away..

The cops show up just then.. your jacked up about what you just witness and you run to the police to tell them what happened and to point out where the criminal went..

They yell at you to stop and before it registers in your adrenaline filled mine that they are yelling at YOU... bang.. you are dead.

and then the folks on the internet.. like yourself.. are saying.. "well the guy was stupid for running to the police".. "he should have obeyed their commands.. how stupid.. no sympathy"..

Now.. you say "I would never do that"... I HAVE SEEN IT.. A LOT.

jaeger19 said:

One.. the 20 foot rule is bunk..

Second.. the guy didn;t have a knife.

The guy wasn;t trying to kill himself.. he was probably confused, and in some time of mental breakdown its doubtful that in his mental state that he was thinking.. "gee this would be a good opportunity to be killed by cop". . In fact in all possibility.. he could have been instinctually trying to get the police officer to help him. ..


Just think about his scenario...

You have just witnessed a crime and you just observed the criminal run away..

The cops show up just then.. your jacked up about what you just witness and you run to the police to tell them what happened and to point out where the criminal went..

They yell at you to stop and before it registers in your adrenaline filled mine that they are yelling at YOU... bang.. you are dead.

and then the folks on the internet.. like yourself.. are saying.. "well the guy was stupid for running to the police".. "he should have obeyed their commands.. how stupid.. no sympathy"..

Now.. you say "I would never do that"... I HAVE SEEN IT.. A LOT.

Click to expand...

The Deputy had no way of knowing if the man had a knife, that nine to ten seconds is important, and not a lot of time.

longview said:

The Deputy had no way of knowing if the man had a knife, that nine to ten seconds is important, and not a lot of time.

Click to expand...

Bottom line: you would go to jail for a very long time if you shot that man dead in that situation. You would never be able to convince a jury that the menace of being walked at by a man with pants around his ankles justified deadly force.

ie, MA superior court model instruction:

"The Commonwealth satisfies its burden of proving that the defendant did not act in proper self-defense if it proves any one of the following four [or five] propositions beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. The defendant did not actually believe that he was in immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm from which he could save him only by using deadly force. Deadly force is force that is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury.2

2. A reasonable person in the same circumstances as the defendant would not reasonably have believed that he or she was in immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm from which he or she could save him or herself only by using deadly force.

3. The defendant did not use or attempt to use all proper and reasonable means under the circumstances to avoid physical combat before resorting to the use of deadly force.

4. The defendant used more force than was reasonably necessary under all the circumstances.

5. [Where there is evidence the defendant was the initial aggressor] The defendant was the first to use or threaten deadly force, and did not withdraw in good faith from the conflict and announce to the person (or persons) whom he/she provoked his/her intention to withdraw and end the confrontation without any use of or additional force"

Also this "had no way of knowing if he had a knife" thing is absurd on its face. Unless you're going to require everyone to walk around stark naked, you won't know for sure. If not knowing is enough, then outside of nudist colonies, it's a virtual license to kill. (And even then we'd probably get "ah, but he didn't know if the suspect had secreted a weapon in his rectum or clenched it between his buttocks")

Mr Person said:

Bottom line: you would go to jail for a very long time if you shot that man dead in that situation. You would never be able to convince a jury that the menace of being walked at by a man with pants around his ankles justified deadly force.

ie, MA superior court model instruction:

"The Commonwealth satisfies its burden of proving that the defendant did not act in proper self-defense if it proves any one of the following four [or five] propositions beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. The defendant did not actually believe that he was in immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm from which he could save him only by using deadly force. Deadly force is force that is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury.2

2. A reasonable person in the same circumstances as the defendant would not reasonably have believed that he or she was in immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm from which he or she could save him or herself only by using deadly force.

3. The defendant did not use or attempt to use all proper and reasonable means under the circumstances to avoid physical combat before resorting to the use of deadly force.

4. The defendant used more force than was reasonably necessary under all the circumstances.

5. [Where there is evidence the defendant was the initial aggressor] The defendant was the first to use or threaten deadly force, and did not withdraw in good faith from the conflict and announce to the person (or persons) whom he/she provoked his/her intention to withdraw and end the confrontation without any use of or additional force"

Click to expand...

And the Deputy should be thankful, that he is not subject to MA law,
but I am not sure the state could prove,

1. The defendant did not actually believe that he was in immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm from which he could save him only by using deadly force. Deadly force is force that is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury.2

Click to expand...

The Deputy had no way of knowing that the man did not have a knife, or could cause serious bodily injury with his hands alone.

longview said:

And the Deputy should be thankful, that he is not subject to MA law,
but I am not sure the state could prove,

The Deputy had no way of knowing that the man did not have a knife, or could cause serious bodily injury with his hands alone.

Click to expand...

Actually the standard of self defense is that you have to prove that you reasonably would believe that you were in imminent danger of grave bodily injury or death.

That's why criminals who commit murder don't pull the "self defense" ploy all the time.

In self defense the burden of proof is on the defense, not the prosecution.

jaeger19 said:

Actually the standard of self defense is that you have to prove that you reasonably would believe that you were in imminent danger of grave bodily injury or death.

That's why criminals who commit murder don't pull the "self defense" ploy all the time.

In self defense the burden of proof is on the defense, not the prosecution.

Click to expand...

So that fact that the police department announcement that the Deputy fired fearing for his own safety, has not bearing.
https://www.chron.com/news/houston-...hows-unarmed-man-with-pants-down-12778068.php

HPD said Thomas ignored verbal commands from the deputy and "continued to advance" toward him.
"Fearing for his safety, the deputy discharged his duty weapon, striking Thomas once in the chest, " Houston Police said.

Click to expand...

No even if they choose to prosecute this, the state would have to prove that it was unreasonable
for the officer to fear for his safety.

longview said:

So that fact that the police department announcement that the Deputy fired fearing for his own safety, has not bearing.
https://www.chron.com/news/houston-...hows-unarmed-man-with-pants-down-12778068.php
.

Click to expand...

"not bearing"??

You mean no bearing?

Right.. it has no bearing.. just like it would have no bearing in a case where I claim self defense. OF COURSE. a person who kills another and claims self defense is going to claim that they feared for their own safety. THATS the claim of self defense.. duh.

the question is whether I or a police officer could REASONABLY believe that I/or him was in imminent danger of grave bodily harm or death...

Otherwise every criminal that murdered someone would say.. "yeah but she/he came at me and I feared for my life" so now "prove" that it wasn't self defense.

Nope.. criminals don't do that because the self defense claim loses innocent until proven guilty and it puts the burden of proof on the defense.


And no.. the state would not have to prove that it was unreasonable. The reality is that in self defense the DEFENSE has to prove that it was a reasonable. It does not have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt however, usually its a preponderance of the evidence which is a much lower standard than beyond reasonable doubt.

.

jaeger19 said:

"not bearing"??

You mean no bearing?

Right.. it has no bearing.. just like it would have no bearing in a case where I claim self defense. OF COURSE. a person who kills another and claims self defense is going to claim that they feared for their own safety. THATS the claim of self defense.. duh.

the question is whether I or a police officer could REASONABLY believe that I/or him was in imminent danger of grave bodily harm or death...

And no.. the state would not have to prove that it was unreasonable. The reality is that in self defense the DEFENSE has to prove that it was a reasonable. It does not have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt however, usually its a preponderance of the evidence which is a much lower standard than beyond reasonable doubt.

.

Click to expand...

Of course, no bearing! No that the Houston Police Department backs up a County Deputy's story in it's press release,
says, that a secondary police organization has reviewed the evidence, and found the shooting was justified.
This would be part of the preponderance of the evidence, you mentioned. the evidence that he fired fearing for his safety.

longview said:

Of course, no bearing! No that the Houston Police Department backs up a County Deputy's story in it's press release,
says, that a secondary police organization has reviewed the evidence, and found the shooting was justified.
This would be part of the preponderance of the evidence, you mentioned. the evidence that he fired fearing for his safety.

Click to expand...

Nope.. that would not be preponderance of the evidence.

Seriously a "secondary" police organization found that an officer shooting was justified? That surprises you? Because of course the police have a long history of policing and controlling their own. :roll:

You already established based on the evidence available that I nor any civilian would be justified by shooting this man because he was walking toward me with his pants around his ankles and refusing my commands to stop.

And a police officer would have LESS to fear than I or another civilian would.. because he has had training in use of hands and in use of non lethal equipment that is not available to the average civilian.

jaeger19 said:

Nope.. that would not be preponderance of the evidence.

Seriously a "secondary" police organization found that an officer shooting was justified? That surprises you? Because of course the police have a long history of policing and controlling their own. :roll:

You already established based on the evidence available that I nor any civilian would be justified by shooting this man because he was walking toward me with his pants around his ankles and refusing my commands to stop.

And a police officer would have LESS to fear than I or another civilian would.. because he has had training in use of hands and in use of non lethal equipment that is not available to the average civilian.

Click to expand...

As I said the fact that the deputy was cleared by a different police department is a portion of the evidence supporting
that the shooting was justified. having most of the encounter on the dashcam also helped support the officers story.
I think the man was depressed and wanted to end his life.

longview said:

I tend not to watch the news too often, but saw this story last night.
https://www.click2houston.com/news/...ng-the-fatal-police-shooting-of-a-houston-man
The Sheriff's deputy pulled up on an altercation in the street, where a man with his pants down around his ankles
was arguing with a driver. The man with his pants down was Danny Ray Thomas,
when the officer showed up, he started walking towards the officer, who told him to stop and put his hands up.
The man continued to walk towards the officer and after several more commands to stop,
the officer shot and killed Thomas.
There is a lot of public outcry, but to me this looks like suicide by cop.
An officer is standing in front of you with his gun drawn, yelling for you to stop, and you keep coming.
The Chronicle has a different camera angle from someones cell phone.
https://www.chron.com/news/houston-...hows-unarmed-man-with-pants-down-12778068.php
Something is messed up, but I am not sure the deputy is at fault.

Click to expand...

I would fire the cop. If "fearing for your safety" is the standard, then police can pretty much kill anybody anytime they encounter them and get off. The new york case recently with the guy brandishing something mistaken to be a gun after receiving reports he had a gun and showing up finding him brandishing it like a gun was justified. This one was not in my mind.

backpacker said:

I would fire the cop. If "fearing for your safety" is the standard, then police can pretty much kill anybody anytime they encounter them and get off. The new york case recently with the guy brandishing something mistaken to be a gun after receiving reports he had a gun and showing up finding him brandishing it like a gun was justified. This one was not in my mind.

Click to expand...

I (and the Houston Police Department) think the shooting is justified.
The Deputy works for Harris County, so is not part of HPD.
I still think this was suicide by cop, Thomas was in a bad way, He got out of Jail to find his girlfriend
was on trial for drowning his two children.

longview said:

I (and the Houston Police Department) think the shooting is justified.
The Deputy works for Harris County, so is not part of HPD.
I still think this was suicide by cop, Thomas was in a bad way, He got out of Jail to find his girlfriend
was on trial for drowning his two children.

Click to expand...

Suicide by cop doesn't entitle the cop to play along. He could have tasered they guy.