I'm not going to comment until later, you decide for yourself

[Doc]

watch the video...warning, the video is of a shooting and the victim dies


http://www.ksat.com/news/ksatcom-exclusive-unedited-video-of-fatal-deputy-involved-shooting

[KeithKSR]

I couldn't see the victims left arm completely, looked like the right hand was raised when the shot was fired.

[Darrell KSR]

My wife looked at earlier, said the same thing as Keith. Couldn't tell. I'm just not one to second guess those kind of decisions much. I saw one once where I swore the guy was surrendering, only to have a different angle show he was pulling a pistol out of his rear waistband. May have even been posted here; I don't recall.

Maybe there's a better video somebody has, or they can enhance this one so people can see better. My wife said that she just couldn't tell--obviously, she was disturbed that one arm was raised in the air, thinking maybe the other one was as well, which would have been horrible.

[jazyd]

right arm up but left arm is blocked by that pole, there is a reason they suddenly fired from that range. I would have to see their body camera if available.

The way officers are being murdered, can't blame the guys, something happened with that guy to cause them to shoot.

11 officers murdered since Aug 20, another today. cold blooded murder.

[UKHistory]

He moved quick but I can't tell if that was his body moving with the impact of the shot or he started to move and the police shot him.

Believe nothing of what you hear only half of what you see. This is a good example of how third party video evidence can not tell the whole story.

If there is no weapon on the deceased, I would like to hear what the officers have to say. I don't know enough about the training behind when to use deadly force or not.

Had it been a police camera the angle of telephone poll would have been considered an example of a conspriacy angle.

[suncat05]

Doc, I tried it a couple of times, but that video site won't work for me. Do you have another link? Thanks.

[Doc]

http://www.ksat.com/news/ksatcom-exclusive-unedited-video-of-fatal-deputy-involved-shooting

[suncat05]

I've looked at this three times. Honestly, I can't tell much from that distance.
If there is anything out of the ordinary or out of sync with Bexar County's Policy & Procedure, it will come out.

I'd like to know a lot more than just this video and the brief news account of what happened. Sorry, there just isn't enough there to make a decision on at this point.

[bigsky]

Outrageous. That is cold blooded murder

[KeithKSR]

I've looked at this three times. Honestly, I can't tell much from that distance.
If there is anything out of the ordinary or out of sync with Bexar County's Policy & Procedure, it will come out.

I'd like to know a lot more than just this video and the brief news account of what happened. Sorry, there just isn't enough there to make a decision on at this point.

Hopefully they had body cams on, that will fill in some gaps.

[KeithKSR]

Outrageous. That is cold blooded murder

It is if it went down as it appeared with a partial view.

[Doc]

The way it appears to me, the guy was surrendering and was shot. Reports have it he was previously stun gunned unsuccessfully. Imo that matters little. If the guy decides to surrender then he is giving up. That does not give the police a license to shoot him. Reports also have it that the had been trying to apprehend him for some time. Again, doesn't matter imo as the guy decided to surrender. The police acted as judge, jury and executioner. Lethal force should be the very last option and only when lives are in jeopardy. The police are there to protect all, even the accused.

However, that is based solely on video. As more evidence comes out I hope to change that opinion. I hope the officers actions were justified

[Darrell KSR]

It's murder if both arms are in the air unless there's something else we're not seeing. I can't see one arm, and hopefully the second video that hasn't been shown yet has a different angle. It may show the exact same thing. I'm just trying to step cautiously here.

[jazyd]

First time through I was totally on officers side, now not so sure. the pole hides his left hand and arm.
He has arms up, then he steps behind the pole and you can only see the right arm up and it looks like the left arm moves but hard to tell. However, he has on no shirt, loose shorts which if he had a weapon it would have been seen unless it is a knife. But if a knife the officers are far enough away that he couldn't have done any harm. Then after they shoot him, they don't rush over to check on him, just very casual.

Pretty sure they had no idea they were being filmed. imo, it doesn't look good for them.

[CitizenBBN]

There's supposed to be a second video showing more, was announced by the sheriff, don't think it's been released.

[kingcat]

There's supposed to be a second video showing more, was announced by the sheriff, don't think it's been released.

Probably needed some touching up. It would be prudent to release any such video immediately

[suncat05]

Again, officer involved shooting here. The posted video does not give you enough information to make a valid determination as to what happened.
And the distance required by law enforcement agencies for the use of deadly force is 21 feet, or less. If he had a knife, or any other type of blade in his left hand, the view of which is obstructed by the pole in the video, and if he said something to the officers that was threatening, well, even though he was clearly at the disadvantage, he still had the ability to carry through with the threat. "IF" that is the case, and given that he had fought with them previously, then it's a justifiable shooting.
Or not. We still do not know the results of the investigation yet.
And if it turns out to NOT be a justifiable shooting, then they have to pay for their actions.

[Doc]

I want to be sure we are talking about the same man. We are talking about the guy who walks out with empty hands and no shirt, right? I mean we can't see his left hand the instant the bullets enter his chest but we do see them seconds prior and there isnt a weapon, either blade or firearm. Now he could have had one in his rectum and retrived it while behind the car. If he did then those are excellent officers. But I find the assumptions folk are making because we can't see his left hand as he is shot are sort of bizarrre. I see them as pure speculation for justification based on nothing. I guess he could have had a bazooka, I mean we can't see so really don't know because there is a pole there, right??? So make something up, right? Why not.

[Darrell KSR]

I want to be sure we are talking about the same man. We are talking about the guy who walks out with empty hands and no shirt, right? I mean we can't see his left hand the instant the bullets enter his chest but we do see them seconds prior and there isnt a weapon, either blade or firearm. Now he could have had one in his rectum and retrived it while behind the car. If he did then those are excellent officers. But that the assumptions folk are making because we can't see his left hand as he is shot are sort of bizarre imo. I guess he could have had a bazooka, I mean we can see because there is a pole there, right???

If I had not seen a video that looked worse than this, where the "victim" had a gun hidden in the waistband behind him, I might buy your argument. If I'm not mistaken, somebody posted it here a couple of years ago. It looked horrible, until another angle showed the guy who looked like he was surrendering going for his gun in his waistband.

Sarcasm doesn't make your argument. A complete picture will.

[Darrell KSR]

Here's the film I was talking about.

The guy was clearly putting the rifle on the ground. His other arm was not apparent. Fortunately, an alert police officer saw him retrieving the hidden gun in his waistband and shot and killed him prior to him imparting any harm.

https://fbcdn-video-a-a.akamaihd.net/hvideo-ak-xap1/v/t42.1790-2/763749_670841799600687_701498731_n.mp4?efg=eyJybHI iOjU5NCwicmxhIjo1MTJ9&rl=594&vabr=330&oh=b4c866251c1e3ddb138050baa742d342&oe=55EA6834&__gda__=1441422682_b18949704c1e4261f9447817d89b94b 4

http://www.westernjournalism.com/9-second-clip-cops-shoot-man-putting-his-gun-down-but-hes-not-as-innocent-as-you-may-think/

By the way, I had to watch it two or three times, even though I knew what had happened, before I saw the hidden gun. It appeared the "victim" was doing everything in complying with the police officer's instructions.

My understanding is this is a training video. Everybody watching the video would've assumed that the "victim" here was murdered. Instead, he was shot to prevent innocent people from being harmed or killed, even though it certainly didn't look like that.

The truth on this one will come out. There is only one truth here. I'm not defending anyone; in fact, I think there's been unanimity in condemnation if the facts are as they "appear" on the video. But it doesn't require hiding a gun in a rectum to present a real danger, one that the common man overlooks as we all may.

[Doc]

+
If I had not seen a video that looked worse than this, where the "victim" had a gun hidden in the waistband behind him, I might buy your argument. If I'm not mistaken, somebody posted it here a couple of years ago. It looked horrible, until another angle showed the guy who looked like he was surrendering going for his gun in his waistband.

Sarcasm doesn't make your argument. A complete picture will.

There are execeptions to any rule. Sure you are going to find the rare exception were there is going to be the weapon and unfortunately that will result in the officer getting shot. However its ridiculious to take EVERY SINGLE INICIDENT where an person is shot by an officer and make it into a justified shooting by fabricating scenarios based on nothing. There is nothing to suggest the victim has a weapon. Here there is a pole that blocks his left hand so now we create the possibility there is a gun? The guy walks out with no shirt and raises his hands. While you say sarcasm won't make my argument, neither will creating situations based on nothing. This is part of the reason many people don't trust the police is situations like this. If what it appears happened, those concerns are justified. And when people try to hide those concerns by creating a smoke screen of bull crap, is it any wonder that there is a large group of people who are pissed? No individual should have the right to shoot an unarmed person who is not threatening them or any other person. That includes a law officer.

Now I admit much of my frustration over this has been from reading mutliple boards. The number of people who justify this because they can't see the victim's left hand and that it "might have had a weapon" is staggering. There is no evidence at all for that argument, and if there was I have no doubt the police would have release that immediately.

[Doc]

Here's the film I was talking about.

The guy was clearly putting the rifle on the ground. His other arm was not apparent. Fortunately, an alert police officer saw him retrieving the hidden gun in his waistband and shot and killed him prior to him imparting any harm.

https://fbcdn-video-a-a.akamaihd.net/hvideo-ak-xap1/v/t42.1790-2/763749_670841799600687_701498731_n.mp4?efg=eyJybHI iOjU5NCwicmxhIjo1MTJ9&rl=594&vabr=330&oh=b4c866251c1e3ddb138050baa742d342&oe=55EA6834&__gda__=1441422682_b18949704c1e4261f9447817d89b94b 4

http://www.westernjournalism.com/9-second-clip-cops-shoot-man-putting-his-gun-down-but-hes-not-as-innocent-as-you-may-think/

By the way, I had to watch it two or three times, even though I knew what had happened, before I saw the hidden gun. It appeared the "victim" was doing everything in complying with the police officer's instructions.

My understanding is this is a training video. Everybody watching the video would've assumed that the "victim" here was murdered. Instead, he was shot to prevent innocent people from being harmed or killed, even though it certainly didn't look like that.

The truth on this one will come out. There is only one truth here. I'm not defending anyone; in fact, I think there's been unanimity in condemnation if the facts are as they "appear" on the video. But it doesn't require hiding a gun in a rectum to present a real danger, one that the common man overlooks as we all may.

So because this happens now the police can shoot any perpetrator? In essence that is the argument. He could have had a gun hidden behind his back, since this guy in this video did. No doubt the police need to be on their toes and ready. They need to be cautious and aware. They need to take ZERO chances. They need to do anything and everything to be sure they make it home each and every night. I don't disagree with that one bit. But because you present a video of one criminal making a move that looks like he is surrendering does not mean that every one is doing the same. There are two different cases that have nothing to do with each other.


I want to state here that I've not condemed the officers. You've stated the truth will come out. I agree 100%. I've avoided making assumptions like there is a weapon. There is were I find a problem. There is nothing to suggest there is one. So in the absence of anything, just fabricateing it doesn't make sense to me. What I stated was based solely on the video because that is all we have. As I stated, I hope more evidence comes out and shows the officers actions justified however solely on the video, I do not believe it was.

[suncat05]

I just suggested what could be. I never said that there was a weapon in his hand, I said there could have been. And I am going under the idea that maybe it was a blade of some sort, because that certainly is plausible, and why I mentioned the 21 foot rule.
What is also possible is that these two officers shot this guy in cold blood. If so, they need to pay for their actions. Plain & simple. And I am not taking either side on this, but I've been in this kind of situation before myself a couple of times, minus the gunshots.

So let's see what the facts of the case say when they're released? And if these Deputies did something wrong, then, yes, by all means, they need to suffer the consequences of their actions. Right is right, and wrong is wrong. I'm with you, Doc. 100% with you. But in all fairness, sometimes things that we see on video are not exactly as they seem. Reference the video that Darrell alluded to, which, IIR, you may have possibly originally posted? And as posted by those guys watching this incident from what appears to be a long distance away.

[KeithKSR]

News report says Flores had a knife, and an as yet unreleased video shows the knife. You can see his hand go behind him before he turns toward the officers.

I don't see a rush to defend the officers on here, I see a wait and see attitude. That attitude certainly seems justified after events of the last year have netted a bunch of erroneous rush to judgement events.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GDvhe6TF09c

[Darrell KSR]

+

There are execeptions to any rule.

Horribly naive to go beyond this, Doc, when you're dealing with life and death. Your rectum comments were absurd. Thank God you don't think like a thug, and I'm glad you're not trained as a police officer. Life is about exceptions. Death is, too.



Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

[Doc]

News report says Flores had a knife, and an as yet unreleased video shows the knife. You can see his hand go behind him before he turns toward the officers.

I don't see a rush to defend the officers on here, I see a wait and see attitude. That attitude certainly seems justified after events of the last year have netted a bunch of erroneous rush to judgement events.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GDvhe6TF09c


If that is accurate and there was a knife, then the question becomes was there a reasonable fear the officer or others lives were in jeopardy?

[Darrell KSR]

I just suggested what could be. I never said that there was a weapon in his hand, I said there could have been. And I am going under the idea that maybe it was a blade of some sort, because that certainly is plausible, and why I mentioned the 21 foot rule.
What is also possible is that these two officers shot this guy in cold blood. If so, they need to pay for their actions. Plain & simple. And I am not taking either side on this, but I've been in this kind of situation before myself a couple of times, minus the gunshots.

So let's see what the facts of the case say when they're released? And if these Deputies did something wrong, then, yes, by all means, they need to suffer the consequences of their actions. Right is right, and wrong is wrong. I'm with you, Doc. 100% with you. But in all fairness, sometimes things that we see on video are not exactly as they seem. Reference the video that Darrell alluded to, which, IIR, you may have possibly originally posted? And as posted by those guys watching this incident from what appears to be a long distance away.

Exactly.

The facts will prove out, whatever they may be. It may be a 99% chance they committed murder. It will be shown either way. It is absurd to suggest that a person can't have a weapon and present a threat because you see one arm up.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

[Doc]

Horribly naive to go beyond this, Doc, when you're dealing with life and death. Your rectum comments were absurd. Thank God you don't think like a thug, and I'm glad you're not trained as a police officer. Life is about exceptions. Death is, too.



Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk


And your bringing one instance in no less naive. There could have been a second shooter on the grassy knoll. I can present a video to show one of those too. I see that as the same type of argument. What happened in one event should only act as a reminder that the police need to be extremely cautious but not as anything more. I agree with that 100%. They should take no chances at all. However that does not give them a license to kill without cause in any situation. In my opinion, the "it could have" excuse isn't good enough when someobody dies. Others might disagree.

[Darrell KSR]

And your bringing one instance in no less naive. There could have been a second shooter on the grassy knoll. I can present a video to show one of those too. I see that as the same type of argument. What happened in one event should only act as a reminder that the police need to be extremely cautious but not as anything more. I agree with that 100%. They should take no chances at all. However that does not give them a license to kill without cause in any situation. In my opinion, the "it could have" excuse isn't good enough when someobody dies. Others might disagree.
I'm not at all naive. I am aware of many ways in which a weapon can be concealed. In fact, I have one of them myself. You simply aren't aware of them, and suggesting others who are possessed of more knowledge that you regarding the concealing of weapons are thinking in a bizarre manner is horribly naive and misguided.

Check out concealed holsters if you get a chance (and if you have any interest). The video I included isn't some rare Loch Ness monster sighting.

I meant it as a compliment that you don't think like a thug. It probably tells you a little about me that I do. When you have had your life threatened, as I have, and been trained, as I have, even a tiny percentage of what law enforcement officers have received, you learn to look for everything.

No offense intended, Doc. It's not what you think.

Now, having said all that, I am in complete agreement with you related to them not being given carte blanche to kill. I suspect you are dead right, no pun intended, and it is murder. Just let the facts come out, and it doesn't require a grassy knoll or a rectum reference for the situation to be different than what you and I both believe it is.


Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

[CitizenBBN]

If that is accurate and there was a knife, then the question becomes was there a reasonable fear the officer or others lives were in jeopardy?

If he had a knife it's not even a question. Suncat mentioned the 21 foot rule. Within seven yards a knife can match or beat a gun, you drop anyone with one esp if they are trying to catch you by having one and pretending to surrender.

[kingcat]

Given the current climate in this country that video should have been all over the news. It is what it is, and it could prevent any escalation in other parts of the country.

Just for sharts and gargles, if there is not a knife, what is everyone's opinion on how things should proceed?

[KeithKSR]

If that is accurate and there was a knife, then the question becomes was there a reasonable fear the officer or others lives were in jeopardy?

If he was in that close proximity and refused to disarm then there was cause for reasonable fear. When I was a kid sticking a knife in a target smaller than a body from 30 feet wasn't a difficult task.

[suncat05]

And the 21 foot rule I mentioned is if the suspect is standing still. If he/she is moving towards an officer, they most certainly can make contact within the blink of an eye. I know, because one of the two stabbings I have been a victim of was moving toward me and used another soldier to shield himself from me. I knew it was coming and managed to keep from being fatally stabbed by moving away as he stabbed me, but he still seriously injured me.
God was with me, that's all I can say. It wasn't my time then, and I fully believe that He taught me a valuable lesson and still saved me.
Look, I am not going to take any chances. If I think anything is hinky about the person(s) I'm dealing with, the H&K comes out and I create space. Period. I am not getting stabbed again if I can help it.

[kingcat]

The danger is in everyone getting an itchy trigger finger.

That, and citizens who begin to fear the everyday law officer. Such fear puts him or her in added danger, and will eventually become a catalyst for a rogue kind of force absent any protect and serve mandate.

Things like this video presents, MUST be resolved in the public's mind quickly, regardless of legal protocols.
Show the video. And if it doesn't exist, then it becomes a very ominous situation on a much larger scale

P.S. Suncat, I'm behind your stance 100 percent

[Doc]

I'll try again to make my points because I've done a poor job.

I believe all the hypotheticals that folks bring in to support the officers do a disservice to the discussion. If one wanted to support the victims side they could claim they think they see him saying he is giving up. Its as valid but nobody is willing to do that because we all want the shooting to be justified. What I often see is people pick a side the create evidence rather than discuss what is there. When the victims side does it as with the "Hand up, Don't Shoot" which was the Micheal Brown mantra, and it is totally false, then these hypotheticals are not a good thing. To me it works both ways. I discuss what's there but wait for what is to come out.

As for what I actually see in the video, and if the reports that he had a knife are accurate, and if they had been trying to apprehend him for some time: I still have a very hard time supporting the shooting. In my opinion killing a citizen should be a police officers absolute final option. Seeing a man with his hands in the air, even holding a knife, getting shot multiple times by the people who are charged with protecting ALL the people of this nation, even somebody they are attempting to arrest, is bothersome. Others may disagree but i don't see the office as being in danger. I see them as having the upper hand and in charge of the situation. They had at least 2 trained police officers with their guns aimed at a shirtless man in open ground, both hands visible and above his head, a knife in one hand. There is an old adage, you don't bring a knife to a gun fight. I believe there were other options and the police could have used them.

As more videos like this come out, is it any wonder that the police forces across the country are coming under fire? Humor me and let's say this is a bad shooting. Let's say the victim was surrendering and the officers had had enough of his antics, were pissed off and put an end to it (that happens too. I can link to ample videos of officers beating the crap out of cuffed perpetrators). The justification will be its was just a bad cop and not all are that way. I'm going to disagree. It comes down to "professional integrity" where the actions of any person in your profession reflects on all the people in your profession, like it or not. I'm sure the ambulance chasing shyster lawyer Darrell sees it every day, right? Every time a veterinarian gets popped for selling animal steroids to some muscle head at the gym I cringe because it affects my reputation. Its part of your responsibility to your profession where your action reflect on others. So long as any police officer anywhere doesn't take every effort to not use lethal in every situation, you are going to continue to see civil unrest when officers use it. Whether or not this turns out to be justified, it LOOKS bad. And after seeing something like that, I can understand why some would have a hard time supporting the police. That doesn't mean I don't. As I stared, I hope this turns out to be justified. As some may know my daughter boyfriend who has lived with us the last 5 years is graduating the police academy in the next month. Clearly I'm going to support the police since I'm not a liberal idiot. But I also try to be objective and look at things from the other side whenever I can. In this case I can see an issue

[Doc]

The danger is in everyone getting an itchy trigger finger.

That, and citizens who begin to fear the everyday law officer. Such fear puts him or her in added danger, and will eventually become a catalyst for a rogue kind of force absent any protect and serve mandate.

Things like this video presents, MUST be resolved in the public's mind quickly, regardless of legal protocols.
Show the video. And if it doesn't exist, then it becomes a very ominous situation on a much larger scale

P.S. Suncat, I'm behind your stance 100 percent

And I agree worth you 100%