https://www.click2houston.com/news/deliberations-continue-monday-in-terry-thompson-retrial

A little shocked at this to be honest.

so this went from 1 of 12 thought he was guilty of murder (first trial) to 12 of 12 thought he was guilty (second trial)

Going back to the initial mistrial, I didn't think he'd get sentenced for murder.

edit: just saw the older thread.

What prompted the mistrial the first go round?

jamaggie06 said:

---

What prompted the mistrial the first go round?

---

Jurors deadlocked. Most wanted to acquit.

His wife is on trial for murder next, I believe.

Never heard about this. What happened?

94chem said:

---

Never heard about this. What happened?

---

A guy choked a drunk guy to death because he was peeing outside a Denny's while his county Sheriff wife did nothing and cheered him on.

Saw the bumped thread. Looks like they were able to establish intent.

Boo Weekley said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

94chem said:

---

Never heard about this. What happened?

---

A guy choked a drunk guy to death because he was peeing outside a Denny's while his county Sheriff wife did nothing and cheered him on.

---

I thought he told the guy to stop peeing in front of his girls outside the restaurant and the guy attacked him?

Did i miss something?

---

Isn't this basically the crux of the trial?...how much of a conflict was there really to warrant choking the kid out like he did when there was no video of this part of the incident.

-If the kid absolutely flipped out on the guy in genuinely attacking him after the guy told him he shouldn't piss outside the Denny's, I understand the guy's strong reaction in choking the kid out.

-If the kid was simply trying to take a piss behind the restaurant and this guy aggressively confronted him and the kid didn't do much more than push the guy to leave him alone, then this guy escalated a situation way more than it needed to be, and he deserves what he's getting.

Guitarsoup said:

---

Bone6 said:

---

Quote:

---

He continued to apply pressure to his throat for nearly 4 minutes after the man gave up.

---

That's a long time.

---

And the prosecutor had everyone sit silently and watch the clock for that long.

Do that and count how many breaths you take.

---

Good lord. Admittedly I haven't followed this case very closely...had no clue it was that long, WTF.

I wonder for how much of that time there was a struggle and the victim was breathing. Surely he didn't sit there for 4 minutes with a limp dead guy in a choke hold? You can tell when someone isn't breathing/alive/conscious pretty easily.

Are there any details around how much of that 4 minutes was the guy putting up a fight/struggling? If it was after the man gave up, that seriously blows my mind. The animal definitely needs to go away for a looong time. How could a jury not convict him the first time around if he seriously was choking out a limp dead guy for 4 minutes in front of people?

Wycliffe_03 said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

Bone6 said:

---

Quote:

---

He continued to apply pressure to his throat for nearly 4 minutes after the man gave up.

---

That's a long time.

---

And the prosecutor had everyone sit silently and watch the clock for that long.

Do that and count how many breaths you take.

---

Good lord. Admittedly I haven't followed this case very closely...had no clue it was that long, WTF.

I wonder for how much of that time there was a struggle and the victim was breathing. Surely he didn't sit there for 4 minutes with a limp dead guy in a choke hold? You can tell when someone isn't breathing/alive/conscious pretty easily.

Are there any details around how much of that 4 minutes was the guy putting up a fight/struggling? If it was after the man gave up, that seriously blows my mind. The animal definitely needs to go away for a looong time. How could a jury not convict him the first time around if he seriously was choking out a limp dead guy for 4 minutes in front of people?

---

The guy tried to tap out and stopped struggling. Thompson kept choking him for 4 minutes after that. When he finally stopped choking him, his sheriff wife (that kept people from helping) had to immediately start CPR.

Where are you seeing all of these facts?

I'm assuming that he wasn't in open court to see the video. I'm not suggesting that his facts are incorrect, I'm genuinely curious as I'd like to read them. I haven't seen that level of detail in anything that I've read (at least from a trustworthy source).

Bassmaster said:

---

Where are you seeing all of these facts?

---

All of this was in the trial.

Guitarsoup said:

---

Wycliffe_03 said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

Bone6 said:

---

Quote:

---

He continued to apply pressure to his throat for nearly 4 minutes after the man gave up.

---

That's a long time.

---

And the prosecutor had everyone sit silently and watch the clock for that long.

Do that and count how many breaths you take.

---

Good lord. Admittedly I haven't followed this case very closely...had no clue it was that long, WTF.

I wonder for how much of that time there was a struggle and the victim was breathing. Surely he didn't sit there for 4 minutes with a limp dead guy in a choke hold? You can tell when someone isn't breathing/alive/conscious pretty easily.

Are there any details around how much of that 4 minutes was the guy putting up a fight/struggling? If it was after the man gave up, that seriously blows my mind. The animal definitely needs to go away for a looong time. How could a jury not convict him the first time around if he seriously was choking out a limp dead guy for 4 minutes in front of people?

---

The guy tried to tap out and stopped struggling. Thompson kept choking him for 4 minutes after that. When he finally stopped choking him, his sheriff wife (that kept people from helping) had to immediately start CPR.

---

That is highly disturbing if true. While hard to believe, I guess it's possible. But how could you not tell a guy was out cold? Choking a limp dead body for 4 minutes? What's the point? It even seems to go against basic human instinct...kind of like hitting someone who is dead or out cold. We naturally aren't programmed to do that. Fry this guy (if this info is accurate).

Has his fate been decided?

GEA89 said:

---

Has his fate been decided?

---

On the other thread I think BMX said 25 years. If he really choked out a limp dead guy for 4 minutes, I think that is too short.

Quote:

---

Prosecutors repeatedly pointed to video in which Hernandez is seen "tapping out," surrendering to Thompson. But Thompson continued to hold Hernandez for another three minutes and 36 seconds.

---

https://abc13.com/deliberations-continue-in-deadly-dennys-fight-re-trial/4622703/

Quote:

---

"At the moment 24-year-old John Hernandez gives up," said Harris county Assistant District Attorney John Jordan, "At the moment 24-year-old John Hernandez taps out and you continue, it's certainly not self-defense and it's murder."

---

I couldn't disagree more with this. It's a case by case deal imo. This isn't UFC or play-fighting. If you think a guy is a violent threat, you don't just operate on the honor system necessarily and let him go, although there are times where maybe it would make sense. Obviously once he is clearly out for more than a few seconds you should let him go.

So there is no video of the choking for 3:36 seconds or was it not allowed to be shown in the court room? Did they just go on witness accounts and just waited silently to demonstrate how long that is? This could have been open and shut if someone just kept the video rolling. I wonder if it was taken by his wife and deleted once she realized how bad it could be?

Wycliffe_03 said:

---

Quote:

---

"At the moment 24-year-old John Hernandez gives up," said Harris county Assistant District Attorney John Jordan, "At the moment 24-year-old John Hernandez taps out and you continue, it's certainly not self-defense and it's murder."

---

I couldn't disagree more with this. This isn't UFC or play-fighting. If you think a guy is a violent threat, you don't just operate on the honor system necessarily, although there are times where maybe it would make sense...case by case scenario imo.

So there is no video of the choking for 3:36 seconds or was it not allowed to be shown in the court room? Did they just go on witness accounts and just waited silently to demonstrate how long that is? This could have been open and shut if someone just kept the video rolling. I wonder if it was taken by his wife and deleted once she realized how bad it could be?

---

They did have the video and they did show it to the jury.

The guy that died was significantly smaller than the killer and he was fall down drunk. There is no way that Thompson reasonably thought his life was in danger by Hernandez.

Guitarsoup said:

---

Wycliffe_03 said:

---

Quote:

---

"At the moment 24-year-old John Hernandez gives up," said Harris county Assistant District Attorney John Jordan, "At the moment 24-year-old John Hernandez taps out and you continue, it's certainly not self-defense and it's murder."

---

I couldn't disagree more with this. This isn't UFC or play-fighting. If you think a guy is a violent threat, you don't just operate on the honor system necessarily, although there are times where maybe it would make sense...case by case scenario imo.

So there is no video of the choking for 3:36 seconds or was it not allowed to be shown in the court room? Did they just go on witness accounts and just waited silently to demonstrate how long that is? This could have been open and shut if someone just kept the video rolling. I wonder if it was taken by his wife and deleted once she realized how bad it could be?

---

They did have the video and they did show it to the jury.

The guy that died was significantly smaller than the killer and he was fall down drunk. There is no way that Thompson reasonably thought his life was in danger by Hernandez.

---

Then what is the point of sitting there silent for that amount of time to illustrate how long it is? The video has to be traumatic. If I am a prosecutor and want to win the case, I show the video again one last time instead of doing a demonstration.

Makes no sense to me but I'll quit asking questions since I am judging this from afar and wasn't a juror. I am sure it all made better sense to them. Sorry, the articles I have read are confusing as hell. They always say they showed video of the altercation them make it sound like they continued to sit silently for 3:36 seconds to demonstrate how long that amt of time is...making it sound like they cut the video off.

if they showed video of the whole thing it is utterly shocking that this guy wasn't convicted the first time around.

Wycliffe_03 said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

Wycliffe_03 said:

---

Quote:

---

"At the moment 24-year-old John Hernandez gives up," said Harris county Assistant District Attorney John Jordan, "At the moment 24-year-old John Hernandez taps out and you continue, it's certainly not self-defense and it's murder."

---

I couldn't disagree more with this. This isn't UFC or play-fighting. If you think a guy is a violent threat, you don't just operate on the honor system necessarily, although there are times where maybe it would make sense...case by case scenario imo.

So there is no video of the choking for 3:36 seconds or was it not allowed to be shown in the court room? Did they just go on witness accounts and just waited silently to demonstrate how long that is? This could have been open and shut if someone just kept the video rolling. I wonder if it was taken by his wife and deleted once she realized how bad it could be?

---

They did have the video and they did show it to the jury.

The guy that died was significantly smaller than the killer and he was fall down drunk. There is no way that Thompson reasonably thought his life was in danger by Hernandez.

---

Then what is the point of sitting there silent for that amount of time to illustrate how long it is? The video has to be traumatic. If I am a prosecutor and want to win the case, I show the video again one last time instead of doing a demonstration.

Makes no sense to me but I'll quit asking questions since I am judging this from afar and wasn't a juror. I am sure it all made better sense to them. Sorry, the articles I have read are confusing as hell. They always say they showed video of the altercation them make it sound like they continued to sit silently for 3:36 seconds to demonstrate how long that amt of time is...making it sound like they cut the video off.

if they showed video of the whole thing it is utterly shocking that this guy wasn't convicted the first time around.

---

It is effective. People don't like to sit and do nothing for periods of time.

Try to hold your break and sit and watch a clock tick for 4 minutes and think about that guy being choked for that long after giving up.

Extremely effective and has been done for a really long time.

Wycliffe_03 said:

---

GEA89 said:

---

Has his fate been decided?

---

On the other thread I think BMX said 25 years. If he really choked out a limp dead guy for 4 minutes, I think that is too short.

---

Not short enough. Bullets are faster.

Quote:

---

The video has to be traumatic. If I am a prosecutor and want to win the case, I show the video again one last time instead of doing a demonstration.

---

Jim Jordan is probably the best prosecutor in Harris County. Not sure why he wasn't tabbed for the first trial, but he is the one that went with the demonstration of silence for almost 4 minutes.

I'd say it was pretty effective given the outcome.