In regards to the court case (reason for seperate thread)
Contrary! I agree he was part and parcel, an armed man, legally when the first shot was fired. But it is still beside the point on the second shooting. I do feel that in this case we have 2 separate shooting events, not one. The first was a very legit SD use of lethal force. The second event is what is in question and being prosecuted.
One thing the ME is going to see is spatter evidence. If it lines up with arms laying down, than it is pretty obvious the guy wasn't aware enuff to posture defensively. If the guy was moving, crawling, trying to right himself doesn't, in and of it self, make him a threat. If the kid has a face full of .410 pellets and is unable to see, and has no weapon drawn, he is not a threat.
Brent
Irrelevant. As part of a group that attempted armed robbery, he is a legit target.
BUT NOT A LEGIT BULLET OPERATED PINATA!!!he is a legit target
Contrary! I agree he was part and parcel, an armed man, legally when the first shot was fired. But it is still beside the point on the second shooting. I do feel that in this case we have 2 separate shooting events, not one. The first was a very legit SD use of lethal force. The second event is what is in question and being prosecuted.
One thing the ME is going to see is spatter evidence. If it lines up with arms laying down, than it is pretty obvious the guy wasn't aware enuff to posture defensively. If the guy was moving, crawling, trying to right himself doesn't, in and of it self, make him a threat. If the kid has a face full of .410 pellets and is unable to see, and has no weapon drawn, he is not a threat.
Brent
Last edited: