worst bullshit argument in the history of getbig. shoot him 1-2 times cause they didn't know if a man who showed zero gun, might have one? Shit. Rock bottom time here lol.
While I generally try and scroll past your comments regarding anything outside of the political realm, I'll respond to this
In any given situation, the totality of the circumstances are looked at. The courts have held many times that it is from the point of the officer at that time that we must review it. Not with 20/20 hindsight from the safety of our desks.
In this situation, the subject was not responding to direction, was armed with a knife and was possibly under the influence of a mind altering substance. There is a commonly taught 21' rule when dealing with subjects armed with a knife. The common school of thinking is that within 21 feet the subject becomes a potential deadly threat. Add the sudden movement just before the shots (It appears to me the movement came before the shots, but I could be wrong) and with the knowledge of action verses reaction, I believe it was not an unreasonable response. If he did produce a handgun during the spin, you would potentially lose the gun fight as the subject would fire first. The officer could have perceived the movement as beginning a charge at an officer as the movement was a sudden change in behavior.
It will be up to the jury to determine what was reasonable. They will have access to all the information. I was discussing this the other day with a co worker and the interesting thing for me will be how they separate the actual shooting, as in "Was deadly force authorized due to the circumstances?" if yes... how are they going to address the "Was 16 shots reasonable?". If not.. how do you go about sentencing for that.. IN other words, you had every right to use deadly force, however, you used too much?
