re: #351 McSpiff

Guns can turn rather mundane situations into a life or death situation very quickly. Conflicting testimony usually indicates a confusing situation. Seems like the cops, based on the evidence they had acted within the bounds of the law to protect themselves from a perceived deadly threat. Maybe not medal worthy, but I’m not sure what they should have done differently.

They entered in confrontation mode instead of making a calm approach. From testimony they basically came in and yelled at the guy to freeze, drop weapon, etc. Since there were two of them what they could have done was a split approach so one officer flanked and moved somewhat behind while the other made a calm, “Sir, may we talk to you a moment” approach. The flanking officer could have had hand on weapon for immediate use while the speaking officer used an open spread (hands slightly wider than shoulder width, waist level, open).

The key tell in officer approach and expectation, I think, is the fact that even though the guy reached for his weapon it was still in the holster when he was shot.

Putting it simply, I think that by the technical measure the officers were right - they thought they were entering a high threat situation and reacted to the perceived threatening move - but their entry expectations created a self-fulfilling prophecy. ie, they thought they were going to have to shoot, and their preparations ensured they had to shoot.