Beeville,TX dashcam:LEO draws on drawn gun,kills BG w/3 rds

[Heartland Patriot]

I have a question that has been bothering me quite a bit. Why does everyone say something like "Now that cop and his family have to deal with the consequences", or some such and its not the legal side of things being discussed? I posted recently that I am re-reading a J. Frank Dobie book entitled "A Vaquero of the Brush Country". Most of it is the reminisces of a cowboy who grew up and lived during the latter part of the 19th century and the early 20th century. He talks of killing bad men as a matter of fact thing. Not gloating, but also not woe-is-me. I'm not saying that folks should be all "whoo-hoo" if they are forced to shoot and/or kill someone attempting to do them violent, deadly harm. But on the other hand, why should the armed citizen feel bad about it? They didn't initiate the violence; the other person did. Do the right thing, call an ambulance, of course. But to beat yourself up about someone else's bad choice just does not seem right.

In this modern age, "my baby didn't do nuthin" has replaced "he needed killin". The suspect could be brandishing a nuclear weapon while chewing on the entrails of a freshly killed newborn baby, with a lifelong history of violent crimes, and it seems that the families of these lowlifes rarely take responsibility for the scum they've raised.
Meanwhile, society has done a pretty good job of softening our heros. They're told they have to have feelings for the scum they deal with. Sympathy even.
Besides the trauma of dealing with the high stress situation of actually having to defend himself, the officer might still face a lawsuit or other such action by the family.
So, yes, there is alot more than it just being a good/no-good shoot vs. the good ole days.

I understand what you are saying...and that is the problem I have with this whole darned thing. I'm pretty sure that its a product of our modern Western-civilization that we are supposed to "feel bad". I remember that whole terrible business in Rwanda. Folks there running around hacking each other to bits with machetes...and I also have read about the "wave attacks" by Chinese soldiers during the Korean War. Somehow, I highly doubt that either of those groups of people put a lot of afterthought into who they killed or anything of that nature. And there is no way anyone can convince me that they were ALL certifiable psychopaths or sociopaths. They were folks who felt that the killing they did was justified by the circumstances...in the case of Rwanda, one ethnic group against another and in Korea, they were soldiers doing their jobs to fight and win, and stay alive if they could. I think we are in agreement on this one, for the most part. Once again, to qualify what I have said, I'm not saying that a person should be happy about killing another, just that if it was a case of kill or be killed that you didn't initiate, you shouldn't be made to feel YOU did something wrong.

[OldCurlyWolf]

"Heartland Patriot wrote:I have a question that has been bothering me quite a bit. Why does everyone say something like "Now that cop and his family have to deal with the consequences", or some such and its not the legal side of things being discussed? I posted recently that I am re-reading a J. Frank Dobie book entitled "A Vaquero of the Brush Country". Most of it is the reminisces of a cowboy who grew up and lived during the latter part of the 19th century and the early 20th century. He talks of killing bad men as a matter of fact thing. Not gloating, but also not woe-is-me. I'm not saying that folks should be all "whoo-hoo" if they are forced to shoot and/or kill someone attempting to do them violent, deadly harm. But on the other hand, why should the armed citizen feel bad about it? They didn't initiate the violence; the other person did. Do the right thing, call an ambulance, of course. But to beat yourself up about someone else's bad choice just does not seem right."

One must understand that the social mores were different back then in that taking down BG's was not looked on as a necessary "Evil", it was just looked on as necessary, like feeding the livestock, a chore to be done. Some were better at doing it than others.

Back in the 19th century a saying was coined in that: "There are more men that need killing, than horses that need stealing."

[Excaliber]

I have a question that has been bothering me quite a bit. Why does everyone say something like "Now that cop and his family have to deal with the consequences", or some such and its not the legal side of things being discussed? I posted recently that I am re-reading a J. Frank Dobie book entitled "A Vaquero of the Brush Country". Most of it is the reminisces of a cowboy who grew up and lived during the latter part of the 19th century and the early 20th century. He talks of killing bad men as a matter of fact thing. Not gloating, but also not woe-is-me. I'm not saying that folks should be all "whoo-hoo" if they are forced to shoot and/or kill someone attempting to do them violent, deadly harm. But on the other hand, why should the armed citizen feel bad about it? They didn't initiate the violence; the other person did. Do the right thing, call an ambulance, of course. But to beat yourself up about someone else's bad choice just does not seem right.

There are two sides to this: the rational and the affective.

From a rational standpoint, it's pretty clear that using deadly force when there is no other reasonable option to preserve innocent life requires no apologies or regrets, especially when one gives thought to the consequences of failing to take that action when needed.

However, most species are hard wired against killing other members of their own species. This major internal obstacle must be overcome to perform the act in the first place, and it most definitely has a psychological impact on those who had to take that action. Ask any soldier, police officer, or armed citizen who has been there - it's a fact.

Taking such action does not necessarily devastate an individual or give him a case of post traumatic stress syndrome. Different people react differently, and whether or not they continue to see themselves as having no other choice in hindsight makes a considerable difference.

Several folks in my agency took the lives of criminals under classic "no other reasonable choice" circumstances at various times. Some were close friends I worked with all the time. All came through just fine and suffered no major untoward aftereffects, but none shrugged it off either, despite the fact that they were tough street veterans of many violent encounters and not "touchy - feely" types by any stretch of the imagination. They were simply good, moral men who committed the ultimate taboo of killing a member of their own species, although under justified circumstances.

The families of officers who have to take this action also see significant consequences in that, while a person deals with the feelings and emotions that come with killing, he or she is often much different for a time while those feelings get sorted out. They may be withdrawn, easily agitated or angered, push those closest to them away while they "retreat into a cave", or do other things that most definitely have an impact on the family.

For a better understanding of how this all works, I highly recommend reading Col. Dave Grossman's "On Killing" and "On Combat." They are required reading for some of our elite military and law enforcement organizations.

And the executioner at a prison?
Genuine question.

I don't know. I've never seen any good information on that.

Since the act in that situation is not a surprise and not involuntary, my initial thought would be that whoever volunteers for that position is probably OK with the idea going in. I have no idea what changes he might find coming out.

[Excaliber]

I don't know the man's name, but a long-serving warden or other top Texas Department
of Corrections executive at Huntsville prison was interviewed on a radio program. Can't recall which one.

But he said that even though he knew that the men being executed had done horrible harm to others, the
warden still had a heavy heart after each execution.

If someone can remember this man's name, I believe that he wrote a book about his experiences which would
be more descriptive than the little that I remember.

SIA

I read an article in the paper a long time ago. The following is drawn from memory.

I believe the TDC executioner is not an employee of the prison system but a volunteer that was a law enforcement officer at that time. He traveled to Huntsville for executions. I believe he was paid a token amount. From what I remember he said that executions did not bother him.

I suppose what bothers me is that if a soldier or LEO must kill another human being, he/she is considered somehow inhuman if it doesn’t affect them in some profound way.

The death of an innocent had a profound effect on me, not the death of a criminal or an adult that caused their own death.

As an example, after being out of law enforcement for about four years I stopped one night to help at an accident. A young couple walking along a dark road was hit by a pickup truck. The driver got out to help them and a car hit the pickup truck, knocking it into him. I could not help any of the three, as the girl was dead and the two males would die in minutes.

I had severe PTSD with sudden unexpected flashbacks for about a year. Counseling did not help. As a matter of fact it was still difficult to write the above account.

I truly believe that “the normal reaction” established by society sometimes causes more problems for the LEO or soldier forced to kill another person than the event itself. As a matter of fact I believe this holds true for many crime victims.

By stating “these are the long term affects a “normal” person would have from this experience” one could be made to feel guilty or abnormal by not having those affects. This in itself could cause that person to will themselves into having those effects in order to feel normal.

I believe the effect any traumatic experience has on a person depends on that individual. I believe it depends on that individual’s upbringing, life experiences, and many other factors, but I believe each case is an individual and unique situation.

Edited to add – I did not accept medication for the PTSD but that was my decision. Some could benefit from it such as the Vietnam Vet I know of who hung himself.

I would very much agree here - there is no "normal" reaction, and different people react differently to causing the death of another depending on the incident situation and prior background, training, beliefs, and experiences. As recounted here, even being present at the violent deaths of others can leave long lasting effects.

The pattern is much akin to the psychological and physical changes that happen during a life threatening encounter - tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, involuntary urination, etc. There's no combination of any or all of them that is either normal or abnormal - what is experienced varies with the individual, and may well vary with different events experienced by the same individual at different times.

In the same way, someone who has been forced to kill to save himself or others does not necessarily experience guilt, deep remorse, or PTSD. All of the folks I knew regretted having to take a life, but none were guilt ridden over it, none experienced PTSD symptoms, and all continued to perform with courage and competence through long careers.

One thing that is fairly common though not commonly mentioned is the so called "mark of Cain" effect where those who have never had to fight for their lives or the lives of others pull back from and shun someone who has had to do those things. It can leave the defender seriously doubting whether he did the right thing and whether there is something wrong with him because he did. Folks in this position need support to help understand why this happens, and that it has nothing to do with what they did and everything to do with the fears of others.

[speedsix]

...some interesting comments/observations/info from fellow officers...

http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Safety ... -Mart-lot/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Heartland Patriot]

One thing that is fairly common though not commonly mentioned is the so called "mark of Cain" effect where those who have never had to fight for their lives or the lives of others pull back from and shun someone who has had to do those things. It can leave the defender seriously doubting whether he did the right thing and whether there is something wrong with him because he did. Folks in this position need support to help understand why this happens, and that it has nothing to do with what they did and everything to do with the fears of others.

I went to an NCO school some years ago (I'm just an aircraft mechanic, BTW). One of my classmates was a man who was an Air Force forward observer embedded with an Army unit during the assault on Baghdad and he told me a story. Normally, he worked the radios and called in air support when necessary. But on one occasion, the BGs got in too close, and he was on the firing line right along with the soldiers. I could tell, as he told me the story, that it was pretty emotional for him and it seemed he worried a bit about what you are describing. He didn't try and make the story sound all cool, simply a matter of fact. I told him that I was proud to know him and that he did what he had to do and I'm sure the soldiers he was with were the only ones who could make any calls about his actions. I won't use his name here since it really doesn't matter to this discussion, but that guy was as close to a hero as I have ever been. Not because he did anything that the others didn't do, but because he was a blue-suiter, as they say, and he didn't do any less. And I tell you, I'd be mighty irritated if anyone ever told me anything to the contrary. That's the last thing I'll post on this thread. I'm sure I've said enough already.

[ELB]

...One thing that is fairly common though not commonly mentioned is the so called "mark of Cain" effect where those who have never had to fight for their lives or the lives of others pull back from and shun someone who has had to do those things.
..., and that it has nothing to do with what they did and everything to do with the fears of others.

These comments -- and the ones on "normal" reactions -- touch on or remind me of something I have been thinking about for some time. This is not a complete coherent theory, just some thoughts that have been rattling around over the years.

First an introductory ramble: I think there is such a thing as a "normal" range of reactions to anything, but defining that range is a bit subjective. Things outside of it are not necessarily wrong, but might be cause for some thought. In times when people died younger, from a lots of causes, people were less distanced from it, I am sure this shaped people's psyche in a different way from that of someone raised in a society where people live longer and are not exposed as much to direct violence. I think a society with a relatively distant relationship with death and violence is a rather recent creation. I think humans have had a much closer relationship with them for thousands of years. Thus society's conception of "normal" has changed.

I think we touch on this when we make remarks about "sheeple," "condition white," "a conservative is a liberal who as been mugged," etc -- someone who has lived in a relatively safe society, who has his mental equilibrium disturbed by the intrusion of less-ordered society, either by crime or by going to less-ordered realms (e.g. violent crime-ridden neighborhood, war-zone) is going to suffer some disruption of his "normal." He is going to change and adapt, and to his former peers, who have not had this experience, might very well appear "abnormal." And if he more-or-less "joined" that "disordered society" by killing in self-defense or in service to country, might even appear even more "abnormal," or at least different. This is probably a "normal" reaction by those who have not experienced the less-disordered state.

(Altho I think those who were able to act on their own behalf in such an instance are probably better off than those who were not. I suspect that most violent crime victims who were able to fight back/defend suffered less in the long run than those who were unable or unwilling to do so. Likewise, being able to render aid to an injured person, even it is ultimately futile, probably helps one cope better than being utterly unable to do anything about it).

It seems to me that it is possible that those who are really outside the historic range of human "normal" (and thus perhaps pschologically impaired) are those that have not been exposed to and have not consciously prepared themselves for death or violence, even tho in many parts of the US and Europe (for example), they constitute the majority of people. It might be that a large part of society hase incorporated a false view, a less-mature one, or even an actual mental defect, into our conception of "normal." Thus when confronted with a violent act, many are unprepared for it, and for their own physical and mental responses to it. And those who do take the time to prepare themselves are looked at as borderline cases at least, that must be controlled with uniforms and organizations and structure (e.g. necessary "evils" such as the police and military.")

IOW, the definition of normal (wrt use of violence) may have been turned on its head by the successes of society.

[Excaliber]

...One thing that is fairly common though not commonly mentioned is the so called "mark of Cain" effect where those who have never had to fight for their lives or the lives of others pull back from and shun someone who has had to do those things.
..., and that it has nothing to do with what they did and everything to do with the fears of others.

These comments -- and the ones on "normal" reactions -- touch on or remind me of something I have been thinking about for some time. This is not a complete coherent theory, just some thoughts that have been rattling around over the years.

First an introductory ramble: I think there is such a thing as a "normal" range of reactions to anything, but defining that range is a bit subjective. Things outside of it are not necessarily wrong, but might be cause for some thought. In times when people died younger, from a lots of causes, people were less distanced from it, I am sure this shaped people's psyche in a different way from that of someone raised in a society where people live longer and are not exposed as much to direct violence. I think a society with a relatively distant relationship with death and violence is a rather recent creation. I think humans have had a much closer relationship with them for thousands of years. Thus society's conception of "normal" has changed.

I think we touch on this when we make remarks about "sheeple," "condition white," "a conservative is a liberal who as been mugged," etc -- someone who has lived in a relatively safe society, who has his mental equilibrium disturbed by the intrusion of less-ordered society, either by crime or by going to less-ordered realms (e.g. violent crime-ridden neighborhood, war-zone) is going to suffer some disruption of his "normal." He is going to change and adapt, and to his former peers, who have not had this experience, might very well appear "abnormal." And if he more-or-less "joined" that "disordered society" by killing in self-defense or in service to country, might even appear even more "abnormal," or at least different. This is probably a "normal" reaction by those who have not experienced the less-disordered state.

(Altho I think those who were able to act on their own behalf in such an instance are probably better off than those who were not. I suspect that most violent crime victims who were able to fight back/defend suffered less in the long run than those who were unable or unwilling to do so. Likewise, being able to render aid to an injured person, even it is ultimately futile, probably helps one cope better than being utterly unable to do anything about it).

It seems to me that it is possible that those who are really outside the historic range of human "normal" (and thus perhaps pschologically impaired) are those that have not been exposed to and have not consciously prepared themselves for death or violence, even tho in many parts of the US and Europe (for example), they constitute the majority of people. It might be that a large part of society hase incorporated a false view, a less-mature one, or even an actual mental defect, into our conception of "normal." Thus when confronted with a violent act, many are unprepared for it, and for their own physical and mental responses to it. And those who do take the time to prepare themselves are looked at as borderline cases at least, that must be controlled with uniforms and organizations and structure (e.g. necessary "evils" such as the police and military.")

IOW, the definition of normal (wrt use of violence) may have been turned on its head by the successes of society.

Very interesting thoughts, and I agree there's lots more to be explored here.

Another way of looking at this is that what we call "civilized behavior" is a very thin veneer overlaid over natural aggressive behavior that existed on the surface for thousands of years. What many people think is "normal" is actually a fragile artificial construct that makes life a lot more pleasant as long as it holds together. It cracks in instances that we call crimes, and it breaks down quickly and almost totally when a disaster denies easy access to the necessities of life.

That is the reality, but it's not pleasant to contemplate, and many delude themselves into thinking that a polite and orderly society is a permanent structure that is as dependable as gravity.

Think about the crimes you read about constantly, and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

It is not.

[speedsix]

...I've worked with several cops who had to kill...more than once...I've seen it harden their exterior...seen it make them quiet and dark...seen them cry...only saw one who bragged and boasted...he killed 3 in the space of 3 years...one was questionable...he was nuts in my opinion...it's not something we want to do, not even in our dreams...
...the veneer of niceness is very real and very thin...the heart of man hasn't changed, but we've adapted to live/function in a "nice guy" society...IT is in there...in every one of us...we are built emotionally to survive.

[Hoi Polloi]

These comments -- and the ones on "normal" reactions -- touch on or remind me of something I have been thinking about for some time. This is not a complete coherent theory, just some thoughts that have been rattling around over the years.

First an introductory ramble: I think there is such a thing as a "normal" range of reactions to anything, but defining that range is a bit subjective. Things outside of it are not necessarily wrong, but might be cause for some thought.

There's a saying among those I work with that there's a "normal reaction to an abnormal situation." It doesn't mean that every person is going to have the same response, but that there's a consistent pattern of responses when someone encounters a specific type of abnormal situation. Interestingly, if you google that phrase now, almost all of the returns are about soldiers and war. It's obviously a big topic of discussion for many today.

[Keith B]

I was involved in two different shootings as LEO. I was not the one who killed the individuals; was another officer. In both of these cases, the officers were totally justified.

In the first case, He was shooting at us, and the other officer returned fire and killed him. Investigation after one shooting revealed the person had hacked his Mom and Dad to death with a hatchet 6 hours earlier. This was truly a case of 'the guy needed killing' and the officer that took this guys life, another responding officer and myself were all OK with the fact this person's life was ended while saving our own hides.

In the second case, the individual was robbing a Quick Stop and the officer gained access through the back storage area to confront the suspect. I arrived as backup and looked into the window just in time to see the individual swing around with the shotgun toward the officer and the officer fire and kill the guy. The guy had a past rap sheet as long as your arm on armed robbery and burglary. In this case, the officer was clearly defending himself. And, while he was totally justified, it did weigh on him some. However, this officer went on to join a larger department, and just recently retired as Captain over the SWAT team. He is also a nationally known expert on development and use of less-lethal force weapons and is a big advocate of them.

So, depending on the circumstances, it boils down to the reason you have to take a life and your upbringing. Every person will handle it differently. Just like soldiers, you have to be able to handle the change that it makes in you and psychologically deal with the incident and any after affects. Some do well and others don't.

[Hoi Polloi]

Any ex-Marines here? I have heard that the training for Marines (maybe specific types of Marines--I don't know) includes a whole lot of breaking down of traditional boundaries concerning death and building from scratch a culture and psyche that is able to handle it, but that these same "killing machines" have a very difficult time with re-integrating into "normal" society after the fact. Anyone able to correct or expound?

[Excaliber]

Any ex-Marines here? I have heard that the training for Marines (maybe specific types of Marines--I don't know) includes a whole lot of breaking down of traditional boundaries concerning death and building from scratch a culture and psyche that is able to handle it, but that these same "killing machines" have a very difficult time with re-integrating into "normal" society after the fact. Anyone able to correct or expound?

I think you've gotten some bad information.

I've known many marines, past and present. Virtually all were honorable gentlemen of the highest order and I was proud to serve with those I worked with and enjoyed the company of those I knew socially.

They were also, to a man, not people to be trifled with.

My definition of "gentleman" is a man who is gentle with good people by choice, and a skilled and courageous warrior who strikes fear in the hearts of those who would do harm to him and his.

The marines I've known have fit this to a "T."

[E.Marquez]

Any ex-Marines here? I have heard that the training for Marines (maybe specific types of Marines--I don't know) includes a whole lot of breaking down of traditional boundaries concerning death and building from scratch a culture and psyche that is able to handle it, but that these same "killing machines" have a very difficult time with re-integrating into "normal" society after the fact. Anyone able to correct or expound?

TV and media Hype, not reality.

[40khammer]

I grew up in Beeville and when I read this article I started to worry. I had a friend in high school with the same name as the guy that was killed in this incident. My friend is only 25, not 29 though and is still alive. I don't remember Officer Vasquez though.

The Huntsville Unit(AKA The Walls, for its large red brick walls) is where the executions are held. On execution day the entire unit is silent. Even the inmates are quiet(which is not often) I believe the current warden of the Huntsville Unit is actually against the death penalty, but you don't get to pick where you work. The warden has to oversee every execution.