TexasCHLforum.com

http://mysoutex.com/view/full_story/143 ... ry_stories

The above link is a dashcam video from the Beeville, Texas police department.
FYI - Beeville is in Bee County, which is NW of Corpus Christi.

The officer is confronted with a suspect who exits his auto with a cigarette in his mouth and a handgun
in his hand, held in a casual manner pointed at the ground, but of course an immediate threat.

The officer, confronted with a handgun, immediately backs up, draws, and has to kill the BG with 3 rounds.

The officer gave the suspect CPR to try and save him but the man died.

The officer was no-billed by the grand jury, as was to be expected.

The dead man was from Three Rivers, Texas (Live Oak County), somewhat close to Beeville, and relatives say that he was never
the same once he returned from his military duty in <Iraq or Afghan>. He had a lenghty criminal record and
this incident seems to be a case of suicide by cop.

SIA

i feel for the officer and his family that now have to deal with the aftermath of this...

newb question: i cant help but notice the long pauses between the shots... any reason besides making "sure" he hit him?

rqFLSTFB wrote:i feel for the officer and his family that now have to deal with the aftermath of this...

newb question: i cant help but notice the long pauses between the shots... any reason besides making "sure" he hit him?

really not long between shots. We can't see the distance between the suspect and the officer and he may have just been re-aquiring the target between shots. You only shoot until the threat is stopped, so after the first two, the guy may have been raised back up and presented a threat again, hence the slight delay in the third shot. Once that was made, apparently the threat was no longer there and he was able to deal with the subject

Didn't seem like very long between shots 1 and 2, and only slightly longer for shot 3..... Aim time.
Seems the officer was quick and accurate, rather than spray and pray. Kudos to him. Is faster possible? Always.
But under those conditions [backing away from a guy walking towards you with a gun], seemed the shots were plenty fast.

Bad mojo all around... The officer will have to live with that for the rest of his life, even though he did nothing wrong.

surprise_i'm_armed wrote: relatives say that he was never
the same once he returned from his military duty in <Iraq or Afghan>. He had a lenghty criminal record and
this incident seems to be a case of suicide by cop.

SIA

Just another reason why our vets are not getting the help they need when they return home. Its really shameful.

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.

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.

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.

rqFLSTFB wrote:i feel for the officer and his family that now have to deal with the aftermath of this...

newb question: i cant help but notice the long pauses between the shots... any reason besides making "sure" he hit him?

The positions and movements of both officer and suspect aren't shown in the dashcam video for the actual time of the shooting.

The WalMart camera would likely have captured that, but that video wasn't attached to the article.

It's very likely that the suspect's position change in response to the first two shots, and the officer had to reacquire a new sight picture to continue the engagement without firing errant rounds. This is just a guess because we don't have enough information to say for sure, but it is something that happens a lot during shooting incidents.

Excaliber wrote:

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.

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 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

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:[ and relatives say that he was never
the same once he returned from his military duty in <Iraq or Afghan>.

SIA

I will say this just once, for myself mostly, as those who understand do not need to hear it, and those who do not understand or inclined to not listen it will fall on def ears .


nonsense.. I am so tired of hearing excuses like this,,, from family members, from military members, from the media.. The war made me do it..... It's crap 99% of the time.. and of those it is a factor in, I'd bet money, they were screwed up to begin with.

are there some who can not cope with what they did, saw,, yes, and they do not get or seek help, turn to self medication, spiral out of control..etc etc,, yes a few.. like those who truly have PTSD.. the few, the proud, the medicated.. for most, it;s an excuse to be a low life, a non performer, a cheat.

PTSD is real, it's also really over diagnosed and used an an excuse.

/ RANT OFF

If this guy was the exception and truly an at risk Vet who lost it, then I can feel some sorrow for him, and the LEO who was forced to defend himself. But skeptical I do remain.

surprise_i'm_armed wrote: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.

bronco78 wrote:

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:[ and relatives say that he was never
the same once he returned from his military duty in <Iraq or Afghan>.

SIA

I will say this just once, for myself mostly, as those who understand do not need to hear it, and those who do not understand or inclined to not listen it will fall on def ears .


nonsense.. I am so tired of hearing excuses like this,,, from family members, from military members, from the media.. The war made me do it..... It's crap 99% of the time.. and of those it is a factor in, I'd bet money, they were screwed up to begin with.

are there some who can not cope with what they did, saw,, yes, and they do not get or seek help, turn to self medication, spiral out of control..etc etc,, yes a few.. like those who truly have PTSD.. the few, the proud, the medicated.. for most, it;s an excuse to be a low life, a non performer, a cheat.

PTSD is real, it's also really over diagnosed and used an an excuse.

/ RANT OFF

If this guy was the exception and truly an at risk Vet who lost it, then I can feel some sorrow for him, and the LEO who was forced to defend himself. But skeptical I do remain.

Amen

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.

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.

Members of the Bee County Grand Jury were shown the videos the Thursday immediately after the shooting and they quickly returned a no-bill, refusing to charge the officer.
Read more: mySouTex.com - Videos detail shooting

There is, at least, some remnant of common sense left in the world...