Anyone else freaked out about the Kelly Thomas murder?

Post Reply New Topic

If what you say is true and is determined by the Feds, then I expect they would jump in with charges of their own. Last I heard, the Feds were investigating the acquittal. Let's see if that's what they find.

I think I understand what Fnord is trying to say here and in some respect I agree with him - except that there comes a point when nothing you do helps and the person just gets lost to you or you have to let go yourself. It's just not easy black and white, have them committed, done and settled. And even if you do have them committed, they'll get out eventually. I think it's a bit overboard to suggest the parents are responsible.

I think it's all just a big attempt at deflection. There is decent evidence suggesting that these officers may have violated Kelly Thomas's civil rights. That's what's important in this conversation, not on whether there was anything anybody else could have done.

It's just like blaming a woman for rape because her skirt was too short; you have to remember: it was the rapist that chose to engage in the egregious violation of the woman's bodily autonomy and it is the rapist who must be held to account for it. Talking about the woman's clothing choices is just deflection and completely ignores the context in which those clothing choices occur.

Not the fact that his death could have been prevented by his parents exercising their due diligence in line with their alleged concern for their son?


Was this woman's last name be "Strawman" by any chance? Your analogy fails in that it was not Mr. Thomas's clothing that attracted attention from the police; it was his suspicious and unlawful behavior instead. Note too that I am blaming the parents only for their lack of concern and responsibility, and not Kelly Thomas (or Mr. and Mrs. Strawman's daughter) for being a victim.

Unfortunately, even schizophrenia is not a "Get Out of Jail Free" card when it comes to suspicious and unlawful behavior. Mental illness should never be an excuse for breaking the law and resisting arrest, nor should it automatically condemn people who act in self-defense or otherwise within the limits of the law when confronted with an unruly or violent person with a mental illness.

Even if the there really is decent evidence suggesting that the officers actually violated Kelly Thomas's civil rights, then the federal investigation will reveal it. Until then, I suggest that anyone with a mentally-ill person in their family do all that they can to keep that person out of harm's way, or abdicate any claim to civil compensation for any harm that befalls their children who are living on the streets.

Were it that the officers committed civil rights violations against their son, then the problem would have clearly been with the civil rights violations (and the social issues that led to them). If it turned out it weren't, but the officers didn't know how to deal with people with severe mental illness, then that is a general social problem. It's not, Let's lay it all on the parents and ignore the social problems.


Was this woman's last name be "Strawman" by any chance? Your analogy fails in that it was not Mr. Thomas's clothing that attracted attention from the police; it was his suspicious and unlawful behavior instead. Note too that I am blaming the parents only for their lack of concern and responsibility, and not Kelly Thomas (or Mr. and Mrs. Strawman's daughter) for being a victim.

Unfortunately, even schizophrenia is not a "Get Out of Jail Free" card when it comes to suspicious and unlawful behavior. Mental illness should never be an excuse for breaking the law and resisting arrest, nor should it automatically condemn people who act in self-defense or otherwise within the limits of the law when confronted with an unruly or violent person with a mental illness.
[/quote]

He engaged in unlawful behavior before being confronted by the police? That's news to me. Looking at the video, I don't see where he resisted arrest; it appeared the officers were the aggressors. Then again the video is kinda grainy and fuzzy, so i don't know.



Well, I would hope so, but that is a weird way to decide when to suggest or not to suggest. Do you mean to say you would stop making that suggestion if it were found that Kelly Thomas's civil rights were violated by the officers?

Nothing cops do surprises anymore, they act with almost total impunity in this country. They think they are above the law.

Honestly, I've wondered the same thing. I work in a public library and I have seen many schizophrenic people on their own. A few of them are homeless. I'm sure that it's hard for people (especially parents) to look after them and I'm sure that the schizophrenic person doesn't want to be watched over, but I don't think that it's right to expect them to just take care of themselves.

I'm still not sure where I stand with american gun laws. I do agree that many police are too keen to shoot without ample warning. However, we have had a lot of trouble with tasers too. Because they're "non-lethal" they tend to overuse them.

I see this "it's the Thomas' fault" argument to justify the killer cops. Do you people know what their options were in this situation? Sitting in judgement of them, as sitting in judgement of Thomaas himself, is what those who want to praise the killer cops do.

Tasers are effectively used as cattle prods. A man was also tortured to death with these on video in Louisiana a few years back, the jury was presented with this, and they acquitted the killer. Clearly they have inculcated this idea that to not "comply" is sufficient to be subject to potentially lethal weaponry... the stupid cops could have picked the person up! Oh, it's too much trouble. Can't get their hands dirty. Typical of the cop-worshippers out there. So if someone is truly incapacitated, well, comply! No? Then die! What, you could not move for real? Too bad!

I don't think that anyone was saying that is was the Thomas' fault or that the officers were justified in what they did. In fact, if you look at Fnord's post, it seems more like he isn't referencing a particular arrest but instead talking generally about police protocol for responding to mentally unstable people.
...Fnord, care to elaborate or correct me? You have been making some very headstrong claims and, whether they be true of false, I think that you should explain them a bit more. Text is a somewhat limited medium and it is very easy to misinterpret the meaning of someone's post.
Also, I DO believe that those police officers were invading Kelly Thomas' rights by harassing him. I don't think that he fought back enough to count as being aggressive, either. If an officer abused me I'd probably fight tooth and nail to get out of the situation. I wouldn't consider that to be out of my rights.

xenon13, The parents should not be blamed for this. However, we do have a problem with mentally unstable people left out on the streets. Maybe this is a government issue? Honestly, I have no idea what kind of programs are available for these people and their families.

Simple: It is my opinion that when parents do nothing to keep their adult children from becoming a nuisance and a burden to society, they should have no right to sue for damages when those children are killed in the commission of a crime or if those children die as a result of resisting arrest. It is also my opinion that if parents can provide extended care for their children, they should provide that care, or abdicate any claim to damages as a result of their adult children's deaths. Thus, it is also my opinion that Kelly Thomas' parents -- while not the direct cause of their son's death -- are somehow culpable for their son's death.


Were you there? Did you personally witness the events that led up to Kelly Thomas' death? While I do not agree 100% with the jury's verdict, I have to abide by it because I was not there when it happened, I was not there when the evidence was presented in court, and a jury of twelve ordinary citizens made their determination after reviewing the evidence and testimony submitted by both sides. Second-guessing the events after they've been filtered through the Media is not exactly progressive thinking.

The police did what they did. The criminal trial exonerated them of any criminal liability. All that remains now is to determine any civil liability and be done with it.


The police are the physical embodiment of the government's authority, so this WAS a government issue! It became a case where one person's personal issues fell under government authority because: (1) the individual was no longer able to care for himself, (2) the family had "lost control" over the individual (or given up on him), and (3) no one else was either willing or able to take Kelly Thomas in and take responsibility for his care. If families really care for their less fortunate members, then it should be up to the families to care for those unfortunate members, and not leave their care (and their fates) up to any random passers-by or the police.

Family, Church, Business or State? Which should be charged with taking care of individuals who can not take care of themselves?

Ever heard of the process of deinstitutionalization? Lots of mentally disabled people have been discharged over the years from mental health facilities due to budget and population problems and left to fend for themselves on the streets. It's especially bad in large cities. Kelly was let down by the whole system and the officer responsible should be lynched.

I remember that it started in the 1950s, and a way of being "kinder and gentler" to mentally-ill people who were otherwise locked away and medicated into insensibility. There were government subsidies, but those have diminished in recent years. Now people whose families have abandoned them are doomed to living on the streets at the mercy of gangs, cops, and other homeless people.


Tell that to the judge and jury who examined the evidence from both sides and came to their determination of an acquittal. The legal system says that they are "Not Guilty", so their lynching would be illegal, and the lynch mob would be no better than the people they would lynch. Wait for the civil trial, but don't expect any compensation for the family who abandoned Kelly Thomas.

This case just happened to have been videoed, but there are tons of others that were not. This is not unusual.
The FBI is investigating this now.
Quick reality check, most mentally ill people like Kelly are harmless. People just ignore them and go about there daily lives.

What has happened? Are we now living in a police state?
What could this mean for the future if left unchecked?
As the general public begins to en-mass realize what has happened, they will no longer report crimes. Why would you call the police when you could wind up the victim of a beating or worse. You see this in most third world countries, no one trust the police. They are rarely called for anything. They are at the beckon call of the wealthy elites.
A large number of states do not have the financial ability to cover pension liabilities. This is because politicians gave police whatever they asked for. But the new financial realities are coming home to roost. Pay and benefits are being cut for new police hires. This would accelerate as the public en-mass looses faith in the police, politicians would be less willing to pay the police what ever they wanted. Police would become progressively more corrupt and ineffective. They would be more or less a gang of bullies that everyone will avoid. Organized crime would likely step in to replace some of the police functions.