Kerrville Police Shooting Caught On Tape

Wayne are you an LEO? I just wonder because you sound as though you are under personal attack in this thread. That is certainly not the case.

Here is something to consider. The cops knew he was suicidal, that is supposedly the reason that they were after him. Cops everywhere, even in little Kerrville, should be well aware of the "suicide by cop" syndrome. Yet these cops couldn't have set a better table for a suicide by cop scenario. Pull over a known suicidially intent person, surround him with barricaded cops aiming weapons at him and yelling at him to get out of the car? The odds that will end with a shooting are so high as to be a near certainty. That alone is questionable judgement. How do you stop a suicide? Not by begging him to committ suicide by cop.

Ramirez may not have even committed a crime that justified being pulled over, and the cops may be guilty of violating his rights under the law with an unlawful stop. If true then the entire situation was the cops' fault for acting illegally and with poor judgement and shooting before shooting was necessary to boot.

Immediate threat. I hope you really don't think an irrational person brandishing a gun in hand isn't an immediate threat
Click to expand...
We certainly have a difference of opinion on how much danger the cops were actually in. It appears that we are on opposite ends of the probability spectrum on this - your opinion is that if there is any chance at all that a cop may be injured that it is OK to shoot. My opinion is that if there is a less than realistic chance of a cop being injured then it is too soon to shoot. In this specific situation, watching the video, the chance of a cop being injured at the time of the shooting was less than realistic. In this case the shooting was a preemptive strike, and that is not what cops should be doing.
 
Butch,

Let's look at it this way-

A man breaks into your home. He might be a burglar; he might be mentally unstable. You confront him in your living room and see he's got a gun-you order him to drop it repeatedly, but instead he takes a two-handed grip.

How long are you going to wait to do something? He *might* be suffering severe depression. He *might* be a drunk who's broken into the wrong home-it's happened many times before-and is simply confused. He *might*be a visitor who doesn't speak English-remember that Chinese boy?

ANY of those are possible. What's probable, however, is that he's a burglar, and he's getting ready to shoot you. How many seconds are you going to wait, realizing that action is faster than reaction and he CAN raise the gun and shoot you faster than you can pull the trigger in response? How will your family feel if you guess wrong?

I don't harbor any ill-will toward you. You seem like a genuinely compassionate person, and that's commendable. The problem is, there are rules in society-some written, some unwritten-that people have to abide by for it to work. Listening to the police is one of them, especially when they're pointing guns at you. That's one reason 'suicide by cop' continues to work; there simply isn't a reasonable alternative (yet-they're working on it) to shooting a person who's holding a gun and refusing to yield. Not unless you are willing to accept that police should DIE finding out if that's the situation they're in, and that simply isn't right. The good guys shouldn't die, regardless of whether the citizen is motivated by criminality, mental illness or simple confusion.


Larry
 
You really are dumb, huh? I mean jesus christ, how in the hell do you think someone who has broken into your home compares to someone that is being pulled over my police officers? Did you drop out in the 8th grade and miss the proficency test where you had to analyze analogies?
 
Tsavo, hurry off to school young man. Your 1st period teacher is waiting to grade that homework boi.
Butch. Quote-No sir, reasonable and rational people do not act that way. His actions definitely led to his being shot. End Quote. :D I was very surprised to see you come to the light this morning, hallelujah. :D I am very glad we finally agree.
P.S. Did you see the MPD shooting incident i ressurected? :D :) All in good fun butch, I have thoroughly enjoyed this.
Respectfully,
Brian
 
OOOPSSS. Sorry TSAVO. I forgot it was sunday! Go outside and play cops and robbers young man. Why don't you be the bad guy! :confused: I crack me up!! :D :) :p ;)
 
The more he posts the more he defines himself. Still going about the "Unlawful stop" thing when he's been given the information/knowledge he's lacking in that area.
That shows bias, unwillingness to "take the answer".
 
You really are dumb, huh? I mean j(J)esus c(C)hrist, how in the hell do you think someone who has broken into your home compares to someone that is being pulled over m(b)y police officers? Did you drop out in(of) the 8th grade and miss the proficency(proficiency) test where you had to analyze analogies?
Click to expand...

'Lil help, there Tsavo.

You're welcome. :)


Larry
 
DT Guy: A better scenario would be if you broke into your neighbors house and decided you had to shoot him before he shot you. Unless someone can explain to me the legality of the stop, it looks like they made an illegal stop. The idea that you can stop a suicide by shooting him first has some major irony to it.

2 Rugers - I have always seen that his actions were extremely unbright. Yet when professional cops are sent to do something with a person that they believe to be mentally disturbed, they should not shoot prematurely. In this case they shot prematurely. Shooting someone preemptively because they might be about to do something, when you probably shouldn't even be there to begin with, has a bad smell to it.

Tsavo, you should go back under your bridge and eat some more moss or something. It bothers me that you are on the same side as me.

Again, how do you stop a suicide? Kill him first. It doesn't add up.
 
Butch still a dolt

I will explain this one last time to Butch since he is still convinced that the subject's Constitutional Rights were violated when he was stopped. Under Texas law, police are REQUIRED to restrain someone when there is sufficient cause to believe that he is an imminent threat to himself or others. The "probable cause" for that belief is based on a totality of the circumstances, including statements made to police by the subject's mother and statements made to police by the subject while they were on the phone with him. It really only takes "reasonable suspicion" to detain someone to ascertain whether they are engaged in criminal activity or are a danger to themselves. Under Texas law, they were REQUIRED to datian the subject to question him. Whoever said that suicide was ILLEGAL in Texas was incorrect; however, if someone is deemed to be a danger to themselves, police are REQUIRED to take them into custody and complete an Application for Emergency Detention and Treatment. The subject, rather than being taken to jail, must then be released to a licensed mental health care facility. Once there, he/she may be held no longer than 72 hours for evaluation and treatment. If the pyschiatrist determines that there is still a need for further care, they must get a warrant (signed by a judge) to hold them longer. Like it or not, Texas LE is required to protect the insane, and even the stupid, from themselves. You may still believe this to be a violation of his rights; however, LE is sworn to uphold the laws and Constitution of the state without regard to what Butch50 might post about it on The Firing Line
 
Butch still a dolt

I will explain this one last time to Butch since he is still convinced that the subject's Constitutional Rights were violated when he was stopped. Under Texas law, police are REQUIRED to restrain someone when there is sufficient cause to believe that he is an imminent threat to himself or others. The "probable cause" for that belief is based on a totality of the circumstances, including statements made to police by the subject's mother and statements made to police by the subject while they were on the phone with him. It really only takes "reasonable suspicion" to detain someone to ascertain whether they are engaged in criminal activity or are a danger to themselves. Under Texas law, they were REQUIRED to datain the subject to question him. Whoever said that suicide was ILLEGAL in Texas was incorrect; however, if someone is deemed to be a danger to themselves, police are REQUIRED to take them into custody and complete an Application for Emergency Detention and Treatment. The subject, rather than being taken to jail, must then be released to a licensed mental health care facility. This is not a criminal charge. Once there, he/she may be held no longer than 72 hours for evaluation and treatment. If the pyschiatrist determines that there is still a need for further care, they must get a warrant (signed by a judge) to hold them longer. Like it or not, Texas LE is required to protect the insane, and even the stupid, from themselves. You may still believe this to be a violation of his rights; however, LE is sworn to uphold the laws and Constitution of the state without regard to what Butch50 might post about it on The Firing Line
 
1st, he should have left the gun in the car when he got out. I would have.

2nd, while watchng the tape, it appears he had three orders to put his hands in the air.

Police officers these days do not take thier own safety for granted and they will make sure you go down before they do.

some things to remember.

Lets hope the victim/criminal decides on a swift and complete life change.
 
"Wayne are you an LEO? I just wonder because you sound as though you are under personal attack in this thread. That is certainly not the case."

LEO? Does it matter? Anyone who keeps a gun for self-defense is under attack in this thread.

"In this case the shooting was a preemptive strike, and that is not what cops should be doing."

This is what anyone who thinks he's about to be shot should do. Preemptive? Of course it's preemptive. Shooting in self-defense doesn't work unless you place shots on target first.

I can't imagine anyone thinking this guy has to send bullets flying throughout the neighborhood before he should be taken seriously as a threat.

They didn't shoot him to keep him from commiting suicide, they shot him to keep him from taking somebody with him. It wouldn't be the first time someone reached the end of his rope and killed a few people before he put the gun to his head.

"Ah yes, at least one day past the point where the thread should have been closed."

Yup. We're beating on a dead horse here.
 
What it boils down to is that we have two differences of opinion:

1. I don't think the cops had a legal basis for pulling him off to the side of the road.

2. I think he was shot too soon, before he was a realistic threat.

As far as I am concerned, yes it is a dead horse. See you guys around on other threads.
 
I don't think ...
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree more.

The problem is that you project your "opinion" as a factual matter of law. It's not.

Those who have both knowledge and experiance in matters have already explained there's no issue with the stop (and the fact that the family and attorney haven't raised the issue should be a BIG clue to you).
 
1. I don't think the cops had a legal basis for pulling him off to the side of the road.

2. I think he was shot too soon, before he was a realistic threat.
Click to expand...


1. IF he was wanted for questioning for some other activity (involving a child?as suggested by others) or apparently IF he threatened suicide or to kill a cop, the officers are entirely justified in pulling him over and detaining him.

2. Perhaps, perhaps not. Bad video angle. If I (yes, an LEO) had the sight picture in the case, I might have waited half a second longer. Maybe, maybe not.
 
Jcoii: Good Post.

Since you are an actual LEO, please explain to me if it is a crime to threaten suicide, and if it is not (and if they had no other reason to pull him over) would pulling him over for threatening suicide be a lawful stop?

Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top