You can get access to this video of the fatal Kelly Thomas beating — “murder” is a legal conclusion, so I’ll describe it just in the objectively undeniable terms of “fatal beating” for now — in a lot of places, but it belongs here too. YouTube suggests an age-restriction; we don’t monitor that, but we will note that this video is gruesome and likely to prove upsetting to viewers.
Time permitting, I’ll be writing about the Kelly Thomas killing later this week. Here’s a few questions for now, though, from the perspective of a lawyer (although not one who practices criminal law.) Note that answering them (or, though it’s more far-fetched, even reading them) could conceivably disqualify you as a juror, so choose whether to read on and respond with that caution in mind:
(1) What is your estimate for how common this sort of beating by police is, both locally and nationally? I don’t necessarily mean ones that end with the same fatal result, but simply ones where the police act in ways that seem unjustified and extreme under the circumstances?
(2) No amount of money can bring Kelly Thomas back to life, but monetary damages are one way that our society tries to offer some compensation to the next of kin — and to motivate the city to change its relevant practices. There’s nothing wrong with seeking monetary damages in such a case; it’s part of how we police our system. If this were the only evidence you saw in the trial, what amount of monetary compensation do you think you would find to be appropriate as a juror? What if any role would Kelly Thomas’s own quality of life and prospects for future earnings, which you may be surprised to learn absolutely does have a role in wrongful death cases, play in that decision?
(3) What do you see as being the responsibility of representatives of the city with regard to such a settlement? Should they deny even facts and inferences about the case that may seem obvious to many jurors? Should they keep silent with respect to issues of liability? Should they admit complete guilt outright on behalf of the agents of the city (which is what police officers are) who engaged in this activity? Should they do so without regard to whether those actions might move the amount of damages well beyond whatever estimate that you give in answering question (2)?
I think that some of the criticism of reactions by the City Council for appearing to think that the beating was no big deal is appropriate. But many of the criticisms have also involved attacking council members and candidates for not making statements — in law, we call them “admissions” — that could substantially increase the damages award that (I predict) will eventually be in place in this case.
I’ve never represented any entity in a case where they were accused of anything like this, but if I were doing so, and were watching this video with my clients, I would absolutely tell them that while they could and should express their grief to the family, they should keep their mouths shut about commenting on the issues that would be coming up at trial. I’d tell them that their salving their own consciences by making statements that might double or triple a damage award was selfish and unfair, because they would be paying almost none of those damages themselves. I’d tell them that I knew that that might look horrible to people, but that that was a part of the job they had to embrace when they chose to become the legally responsible representative of the city. I’d tell them that their energies should not go into admissions, but into instituting reforms.
I haven’t kept track of everything that the incumbents and the recall candidates have said with respect to this video and the legal questions arising in the case, but I wonder who among them would end up becoming, even if unwillingly, star witnesses for the plaintiffs should this go to trial. I wonder whether this has even been a consideration for candidates in speaking about this issue — and, if not, why?
For now, I’ll take my own advice. This video is sickening and painful to watch. I offer my deep condolences to Ron Thomas and his family — and my support for those working effectively to minimize the probability that anything like this happens again. I expect that there will be a huge award and I hope that it does motivate the changes in police procedures that meet that end. I also hope that there’s a functioning city left to police when the legal battle has ended.
As a disclaimer: as readers know, I am a candidate for State Senate, but if I wanted to improve my chances of winning my race this is not what I’d write. I’d jump with both feet onto the popular issue of condemning policy brutality in this case. Politically, that’s an easy call — especially if one doesn’t bother asking the larger questions about all of the other cases that don’t get caught on video.
At this moment, though, I’ll put those political considerations aside. I think that the moment calls for somber thoughtfulness — whether or not that is what we’ll see in the month ahead.
This is a two-way street, Greg.
Saying nothing and letting the anger linger for months and months invites opportunistic plaintiffs to file copycat lawsuits. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the attorney for the Thomas family now has THREE separate clients seeking civil damages against the City of Fullerton.
The video is going viral as we speak and I expect more copycat lawsuits in the coming weeks. People are pissed off and rightfully so. Greg, have you considered the possibility of widespread rioting as a result of this case? How do you corroborate keeping quiet when this possibility still exists?
Remember, happy people don’t file lawsuits or riot in the streets. Fullerton has done nothing over the past 10 months to instill happiness.
Do you honestly think that had the Council majority not minimized concern over the outset and had properly expressed condolences to the Thomas family that there would not be lawsuits — including from others seeking damages from the city? Of course there would — and if they’re meritorious, then I would not call them “copycats” and there’s nothing wrong with their being filed. (If not, the likelihood is that they’ll be tossed out.)
“Happy people don’t file lawsuits?” Sure they do. Does the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association seem morose to you? People file meritorious lawsuits because they want a court-ordered remedy — money or other relief. In any event, Ron Thomas has reason to be unhappy well beyond discourteous treatment by the Council majority and should be suing in any case.
Widespread rioting? Unless it’s ginned up — and that would be a dangerous game for any financier to play — I very much doubt it. What exactly would they be violently protesting — maltreatment of the homeless? If they cared about that, you’d have seen them down at “Necessity Village” in Santa Ana — or they would be trying to duplicate it in Fullerton. Rioting against the police? Aside from being tactically stupid, given how the public reacts to riots, most of the protesters have too much to lose. (Have they even engaged in civil disobedience?)
Aside from being angry, rioters tend to be either desperate (like the poor) or privileged (like college kids acting out after a national championship). I don’t think that the most desperate people in and around Fullerton really see this battle as being fought on their behalf, though I’d love to see some interviews with them about that. (In West and South Fullerton, I’m told that they would mostly like the cops to respond promptly to calls.) Privileged rioters can usually count on gentle treatment by the cops — not this time, though! So no, I don’t expect any actual rioting.
That’s some really flawed logic you have there. All around, in fact.
One of the copycat lawsuits was from a guy who showed up at a protest outside the Fullerton Police Department. Somebody prodded him to talk with Ron Thomas’ lawyer who happened to be present. Protesting would have occurred regardless, but not to the same degree if the police brass and city council acted quicker and said more.
Your reasoning is all over the place because in another post, you admonished the thought of municipal bankruptcy to curtail pension obligations. Then, above, you said “…and if they’re meritorious, then I would not call them “copycats” and there’s nothing wrong with their being filed” — which seems to imply you’re perfectly fine with an abundance of lawsuits leading up to a potential municipal bankruptcy. You seem to forget these lawsuits are bad news for government employees and their pensions.
What about out-of-towners coming here to riot if a judge or jury rules in favor of the police officers? Thanks to the internet, people all over the world are following this case. The Fullerton PD took the threat seriously last September because they trained in riot gear before charges were announced.
I think that one successful (if spurious) municipal bankruptcy makes others more likely. I think it’s the rare person who will intentionally go out to get themselves beaten to death by cops — even “out of towners.”
So I guess it’s ok for someone to steal your mail and then run AND RESIST the police? People, really, Kelly resisted. I’m not condoning the police tactics, but Kelly would not comply. Furthermore, he keeps yelling. If you can yell, you can breath.
I’m bothered by the whole incident, and ultimately Kelly’s death. But I’m also bothered by people who will not acknowledge Kelly’s responsibility and actions that led to this tragedy.
I’m also very bothered by reporters like you who are determined to try the case in the media.
I’m happy to see this case tried in court, not in the media. This evidence is now public, I see nothing wrong with my commenting on it. I’m sorry that it “bothers” you, just like Kelly’s death “bothers” you.
I think I’ll just leave your first paragraph there uncommented upon, to twist slowly in the wind, as I try to figure out how many Taser-butt slams in the face you think that Kelly’s “resistance” justified.
Kelly Thomas was NOT in fear for his life. Yes, Ofc. Ramos told him that he would be f’d up IF he did not comply and Kelly answers, “Start punching dude”. That does not sound like someone who was in fear for his life.
People need to start looking at the WHOLE truth and not pick and choose.
Kelly was homeless because he did not want any responsibility and DID NOT want to be told what to do. Kelly’s own father admits (in Orange Coast Magazine) that he at times had to use force in order to restrain him.
His own mother had a restraining order taken out against him.
When police departments from ther cities where Kelly was known to roam contacted Ron Thomas about his son, he told them in no uncertain terms that he (Kelly) was their problem now.
Why is everyone especially the media so afraid to ask the hard questions?
Also, why does everyone keep publishing OLD photos of a Kelly Thomas? The mug shot is what he really looked like. Print that one.
Thanks “Whole Truth, my point exactly.
You said it better than I did .