Even drunks know when they are interacting with a uniformed Deputy.

Some may or may not.  That is not conclusive.


if he's so drunk he's incoherent, then it's very possible he did attack the Deputy for no good reason --  "not in-control of your faculties". That's his fault for getting that drunk, not the Deputy's

It is the victim's fault if he did indeed attacked the deputy sheriff, BUT the issue is whether the lethal force which resulted in a fatality was justified given all of the circumstances.

So they are at a lawyers office contemplating legal action for what? Money?

Of course.


Money ain't bringing the boy back to life.

100% True.


Mom and the boyfriend won't admit to failing to help the dysfunctional boy.

Don't know for sure.


But they sure jumped on the lawyer train fast.
 And we, the taxpayers, are going to pay if they decide to file a wrongful death suit.

You would too if the use of lethal force was not justifiable in lieu of the FACT that the deputy sheriff had less lethal means at his disposal.

You're assuming he had physical impediments that rendered him harmless.

No, anyone is capable of violence, but his impediments does not realistically support the accusation of the victim being able to successfully execute a headlock on a hand-to-hand trained sheriff's deputy, who also presumably was trained in close quarter grappling skills.


You're also assuming the Deputy was aware of the impediments.

The interview with the mother's boyfriend said Espejo didn't like to complain about his physical problems. So, how would the Deputy know if the guy hid them?  Even a limp can be compensated for and hidden.

If the sheriff's deputy was properly trained in situational awareness, he would/should have been able to reasonably size up and at least make a determination of the victim's overall physical capabilities.


 I just know a 28 year old with booze in him could be a handful for anyone to wrestle regardless of "impediments".

I would wager that the 28 year old you mentioned was not 5'3" and 102 lbs.

You would too if the use of lethal force was not justifiable in lieu of the FACT that the deputy sheriff had less lethal means at his disposal.

Sheriffs don't have Tasers

Sherrif’s deputies are not equipped with tasers or body cams. During Tuesday’s press conference, public safety officials said they were looking into acquiring that technology prior to this shooting.


But they do have pepper spray and batons as does HPD; why were those options not used?

Why is everybody not critically analyzing this FACT and only looking for ways to help justify the taking of someone's life, who at that point was only a suspect that should have been arrested and later tried for his violations.

But they do have pepper spray and batons as does HPD; why were those options not used?

Why is everybody not critically analyzing this FACT and only looking for ways to help justify the taking of someone's life, who at that point was only a suspect that should have been arrested and later tried for his violations.

According to the sheriff, his life was in danger - at that point less lethal would not be a good option to immediately stop the threat. Perhaps it was deployed and was ineffective against the drunken / doped up? suspect.

If he did make honest attempts of utilizing his pepper spray and/or baton and they were not effective to stop a 5'3" 102 lbs. disabled individual, then I would agree the sheriff's deputy had reasonably tried all less lethal options and had no choice, but to deploy his firearm as a last resort.  Let us remember, however, the victim was drunk and not under the influence of crack or other illicit drug as far as it has been reported.


According to the Star Advertiser:
Espejo has a criminal record of one conviction of liquor in public places and one conviction of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant. Both convictions are petty misdemeanors.

The victim of course was not an upstanding member of society, but he had no criminal history of assault or battery as far as it had been reported.



The Medical Examiner’s Office said Espejo was homeless.

So we have a person with a record of public intoxication and who was homeless.
We have seen what DUI has done to 7 innocent bystanders

Given those circumstances what would you have done?


I would have asked the suspect to cease his drinking and vacate the premises immediately all from a reasonably safe distance.  If he did not comply, I would call HQ to report, request instructions from my supervisor, and wait for back-up before physically approaching the suspect, who at that time was not a physical threat to any one.

I would have asked the suspect to cease his drinking and vacate the premises immediately all from a reasonably safe distance.  If he did not comply, I would call HQ to report, request instructions from my supervisor, and wait for back-up before physically approaching the suspect, who at that time was not a physical threat to any one.

What's a reasonably safe distance for a drunken person to be heard from you?

"What's a reasonably safe distance for a drunken person to be heard from you?"


I personally would employ the 21 foot standard, the referenced distance someone armed with a firearm needs to have against a person armed with a knife.

If the suspect can't hear my commands, I would report, ask for instructions, and wait for back-up before approaching the suspect to enforce the law.

21 foot standard? Pffft.

You asked “Why is everybody not critically analyzing this FACT and only looking for ways to help justify the taking of someone's life, who at that point was only a suspect that should have been arrested and later tried for his violations.”  Seems to me you’re the one rushing to judge YOUR side and YOUR beliefs. 

You then state that you would employ basically an “ask nicely” then “ask supervisor” for direction. Seriously? Lovely perfect utopia your mind lives in.

As you can see, I had not rushed to judgement, but your statements are making like 1) you think you’re perfect and would have handled the situation perfectly and 2) you hold LE to some standard like they aren’t human and don’t want to simply do their job and go home to loved ones. Bottom line, put yourself in the LE’s shoes. If I’m armed in that situation and a guy attacks me, it’s on. The attacker chose to cross the line and it’s on HIM, not the responder.

21 foot standard? Pffft.

You asked “Why is everybody not critically analyzing this FACT and only looking for ways to help justify the taking of someone's life, who at that point was only a suspect that should have been arrested and later tried for his violations.”  Seems to me you’re the one rushing to judge YOUR side and YOUR beliefs. 

The alternative would either be to shoot first and ask questions later, which what did happen or leave the man alone to do as he pleases.  The suspect clearly was doing something not allowed at the location he was situated.


You then state that you would employ basically an “ask nicely” then “ask supervisor” for direction. Seriously? Lovely perfect utopia your mind lives in.

I don't recall any accounts of what was released to the public saying the suspect was in the process of any violent crime necessitating an immediate life or death response.


As you can see, I had not rushed to judgement, but your statements are making like 1) you think you’re perfect and would have handled the situation perfectly

I was asked a specific hypothetical question by Ren and responded with my opinion.


 and 2) you hold LE to some standard like they aren’t human and don’t want to simply do their job and go home to loved ones. Bottom line, put yourself in the LE’s shoes. If I’m armed in that situation and a guy attacks me, it’s on. The attacker chose to cross the line and it’s on HIM, not the responder.


First of all, we only have the deputy sheriff's account were he claimed he was attacked.  Hence, this should not necessarily presumed to be as 100% factual.

Second, there is no account by the deputy sheriff to indicate that the suspect immediately attacked him upon sight.

Third, all we have is the deputy sheriff approached the suspect alone without back-up.  This tells us that he obviously felt no immediate danger or why would have he moved into hand-to-hand combat range if he thought otherwise.  And somehow an unarmed 5'3" 102 lbs. disabled and drunk suspect was able to outmaneuver a well-trained hand-to-hand combat law enforcement officer and get him into a headlock through which he willingly choose his firearm over the other less lethal tools on his person resulting in a fatality.

If the deputy sheriff felt the suspect was potentially more that he could handle by himself or potentially had a concealed weapon, there is no reason to believe that he would not either strategically retreat upon assessing what he was up against or call for immediate support.

The deputy sheriff's reported actions showed that he did not see no immediate physical danger or concealed weapons; felt confident going into hand-to-hand combat range; somehow got overpowered by a clearly physically disabled and alcohol impaired individual; but decided to employ his firearm killing the suspect when his less-lethal options were available.

Third, all we have is the deputy sheriff approached the suspect alone without back-up.  This tells us that he obviously felt no immediate danger or why would have he moved into hand-to-hand combat range if he thought otherwise.  And somehow an unarmed 5'3" 102 lbs. disabled and drunk suspect was able to outmaneuver a well-trained hand-to-hand combat law enforcement officer and get him into a headlock through which he willingly choose his firearm over the other less lethal tools on his person resulting in a fatality.

If the deputy sheriff felt the suspect was potentially more that he could handle by himself or potentially had a concealed weapon, there is no reason to believe that he would not either strategically retreat upon assessing what he was up against or call for immediate support.

The deputy sheriff's reported actions showed that he did not see no immediate physical danger or concealed weapons; felt confident going into hand-to-hand combat range; somehow got overpowered by a clearly physically disabled and alcohol impaired individual; but decided to employ his firearm killing the suspect when his less-lethal options were available.

the man was intoxicated and unable to hear/obey his orders to leave. Wondering if the man was in need of assistance, he approached the individual, knowingly placing himself within dangerous proximity should the man attack. Placing the man's welfare above his own, he walked closer to better communicate with him and determine whether medical assistance was needed.

"the man was intoxicated and unable to hear/obey his orders to leave. Wondering if the man was in need of assistance, he approached the individual, knowingly placing himself within dangerous proximity should the man attack. Placing the man's welfare above his own, he walked closer to better communicate with him and determine whether medical assistance was needed."


This possible scenario, if true, still does not negate the main issue of whether the use of deadly force was justified, when other less-lethal options were available.

Once again, your responses slowly uncovers your firm bias to the use of deadly force for any circumstance and that the use of less-lethal means of defending oneself against an unarmed opponent is never appropriate.

I guess a number of members of this forum is just hoping all law enforcement officers behave as Judge Dread of DC Comics, where cops function as judge, jury, and executioner.  Well, just remember you will be dealing with those same type of cops if the government decides to confiscate your firearms and you try to resist.

"What's a reasonably safe distance for a drunken person to be heard from you?"


I personally would employ the 21 foot standard, the referenced distance someone armed with a firearm needs to have against a person armed with a knife.

If the suspect can't hear my commands, I would report, ask for instructions, and wait for back-up before approaching the suspect to enforce the law.