Self defense shooting, debrief/analysis

[PaulWest]

In the following video, an officer shoots and kills a man who nearly takes possession of another officers gun:

[video=youtube;PBSzm5ns5TU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBSzm5ns5TU[/video]

As you can see, the male officer shoots the bad guy once (perhaps a burst of multiple rounds) and seemingly disables him. The officer then fires again (what appears to be multiple rounds) to finish the job, so to speak.

I believe this officer ended up being legally justified. I believe I agree...though thats what I'm hoping to discuss and understand here.

It appears to me there is a span of time between when the bad guy was shot the first time and when he was shot (and killed) the second time. Does this span of time, as well as shooting a man who is already shot and on his back and POTENTIALLY incapacitated "not matter" (for lack of a better phrase)? Is this small pause of time one of those things a bystander can see after the fact far easier than a shooter could in the moment? Would a "regular" citizen who acts exactly the same be treated the same - as justified?

In an effort to understand the laws and tactics of this kind of encounter, I thank anyone who can dissect and analyze the X's and O's as well as the laws governing this kind of situation.

 

[obijohn]

At first blush, when the miscreant fell to the floor, he was treating himself for shock. This means that he may be down, but not out of the fight. I'll look at the video later.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Xs and Os: the 1st officer lead with her gun and almost ate it when he sucked her in and then counterattacked. Never understood why cops always want to rush into places but I understand it is unrealistic for police trianing to de-program all of human nature.

Laws governning: defense of others. Textbook example.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Slightly NSFW....

and I gotta lol, over the commentator talking about "sight picture." That was pure point and shoot.

 

[Nojoy621]

That bus driver is lucky he didn't catch a round.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Geez, that chick was worthless. She'd be dead if that other officer wasn't there.

 

[phylodog]

It appears to me there is a span of time between when the bad guy was shot the first time and when he was shot (and killed) the second time. Does this span of time, as well as shooting a man who is already shot and on his back and POTENTIALLY incapacitated "not matter" (for lack of a better phrase)?

It most definitely matters, especially due to it being caught on video. Whenever someone is involved in a deadly shooting their actions will be judged by people who have most likely never experienced anything even remotely similar. The human brain does not function normally under that type of stress. Perceptions of time and distance can change, tunnel vision and auditory exclusion are very common and none of these make good decision making easier or more efficient. It takes time for our eyes to see or our ears hear something, relay that information to our brain, our brain to process that information, compare it to previously acquired data, formulate a plan, send the necessary signals back out to execute that plan and it takes time for those signals to reach their destination and for the work to be performed. When that work is the act of pulling a trigger we are talking about an extremely short period of time, not necessarily to initiate shooting but to recognize that the dynamics have changed and to stop shooting.

All of this has been studied and is well documented but unfortunately it is not absolute. Performance under this type of stress varies dramatically based on many factors but familiarity/experience functioning in high stress environments seems to have the most significant impact.

Is this small pause of time one of those things a bystander can see after the fact far easier than a shooter could in the moment? Would a "regular" citizen who acts exactly the same be treated the same - as justified?

Absolutely it is. Whether or not a regular citizen involved in a similar situation will be treated the same is likely going depend upon how much information is provided to the jury to explain what I mentioned above. A quality legal defense is not cheap, especially if subject matter experts need to be brought in to explain things that the average person has never experienced. Whether is a police officer or a citizen the outcome is going to hinge on how much information is presented and whether or not the jury believes they are experts based on what they've seen on television and in movies (which is a very real problem in our society).

 

[PaulWest]

Geez, that chick was worthless. She'd be dead if that other officer wasn't there.

I'd say she lost her part of the fight. He, on the other hand, won.

I saw a video once of a female fire fighter who couldn't break down an interior door during her training. The let her skip the obstacles she couldn't complete and passed her. Real lives are now in her hands, similar to this lady cop...

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I'd say she lost her part of the fight. He, on the other hand, won.

I saw a video once of a female fire fighter who couldn't break down an interior door during her training. The let her skip the obstacles she couldn't complete and passed her. Real lives are now in her hands, similar to this lady cop...

That was training, not her gender.

Sucking the cops in and then counter-attacking is a very old and effective mope tactic.