You're right. It was a sloppy reload. Lots of room for speed improvement.After watching this video again this morning, and the first 25 seconds specifically multiple times, the cop was really zealous with his pistol imo. He fired a total for 13 or 14 rounds at the perp, then reloaded. And after firing 12 or 13 rounds and perp clearly away from victim, he briefly pauses and fires his last round @ vic then reloads. I mean like what threat did the perp pose after the first 12 rounds, writhing on the street 3 or 4 feet from the victim? Sure he still had knife in hand but wasn't nearly close enough to anyone to pose a direct threat. And he just absorbed multiple rounds to the torso (maybe 6 or 8 at least). Cop then fires his last round. And seems to have zero concern for the other fellow standing on the sidewalk, in the background, of the officer's line of fire. Or any possible ricochet.
Why the pause, then the last round given the circumstances? I mean I get the use of deadly force to stop a knife wielding attacker, but why the last round fired?
Will be interesting to see how this one plays out in the end.
Sloppy reload, questionable initiation of force while the innocent party was behind/underneath the perp/target, would like to see the version without the blur as it looked like the perp "got down" immediately upon command and the blur blocked the knife position before the shooting started, tough situation for anyone to be faced with.
The chances of rehabilitating a person like the perp, that treats another human like that, is just about 0%. The end result likely saved the taxpayer millions and prevented future victimization of people.
If a regular citizen shot a police officer who had a gun pointed at an innocent person, and kept shooting once the gun was pointed in a safe direction, not many would excuse or cheer for the citizen. Rightfully so...no special privileges, overkill is nothing to cheer about.
Sloppy reload, questionable initiation of force while the innocent party was behind/underneath the perp/target, would like to see the version without the blur as it looked like the perp "got down" immediately upon command and the blur blocked the knife position before the shooting started, tough situation for anyone to be faced with.
You should be less fragile about differing opinions.
*edit* Bullet fragments can kill too...the blur did block the hand position.
The threat was stopped before the last round, pretty obviously, he's not going to stab someone while 6ft away and seizing.
That is absolutely what he did, moved into a better position before firing, and that was never part of my debate. Wanting to see the non-blurred out portion doesn't mean I think the LEO was wrong, just that it would make things less questionable.
The scumbag perp laid down exactly when and where the LEO told him to. Yes, it was on top of the victim.
If he had moved to a clear spot he would -not- have been obeying the command to get down, and he'd have been shot...you know this. If he had thrown the knife aside and done the same thing he'd probably still be alive.
I actually did not say that the LEO did anything wrong, except that he was overzealous in his "stopping the threat" with the last shot. That's just my opinion.
The girl is lucky that she didn't get fragments in her.
Otherwise, questioning something is not accusing of wrongdoing. The LEO/pro-authoritarian staff here struggles to understand that apparently, that in reality not everything LEOs do is correct or perfect...and that they can improve.
Do I think the LEO is a murderer that deserves prison? No...not at all.
It was a "Tough situation for anyone to be faced with."
It's not like a LEO stopping traffic at a blind corner for non-moving offenses, so they can get extra pay through court appearance time on their check before Christmas, victimizing people for their personal gain while pretending to provide a public service with a smile. That's not tough, just unethical.
Again, at what timecode is the blur that has you so concerned?
No, I do not know this. In fact, I would say you are probably the only one who does know this. Cops don't shoot people for not following directions. The guy could have stood there, even holding the knife, and it's unlikely he would have been shot. The guy could have slowly taken 5 steps away from the victim, even while holding the knife, and it's unlikely he would have been shot. To imply the guy was shot because he followed the cop's command to a T is just dishonest. He was shot because his actions were threatening to someone else.
Yes she is. But if you take a poll, I'd bet you would find that the overwhelming majority of people would prefer a little bit of fragments over a knife in the chest.
"questionable initiation of force while the innocent party was behind/underneath the perp/target"
"would like to see the version without the blur as it looked like the perp 'got down' immediately upon command"
"If a regular citizen shot a police officer who had a gun pointed at an innocent person, and kept shooting once the gun was pointed in a safe direction, not many would excuse or cheer for the citizen."
So the fact the cop even pulled the trigger is questionable. And the cop shot someone who was complying with the cop's command. And he got away with everything because he's a cop. Gee, now why would anyone think you're accusing the cop of wrongdoing.
The LEO's on here already know not everything LEO's do is correct or perfect. The only struggle is in dealing with the people who believe LEO's are never correct.
Oh, are you referring to that non-blind blind corner right off LSU's campus?
You are that same guy who calls Internal Affairs for a cop you perceive to be speeding in his unit, and then call again the next week because you dialed 911 and they weren't arriving fast enough for your liking.It's not like a LEO stopping traffic at a blind corner for non-moving offenses, so they can get extra pay through court appearance time on their check before Christmas, victimizing people for their personal gain while pretending to provide a public service with a smile. That's not tough, just unethical.
I assure you that I have never called the police to help me with a problem, nor have I ever called IA on a LEO.
I have called police for/to:
-Report a dead body in a dumpster.
-Report reckless drivers with unsecured children in the vehicle, where I could provide LP#.
-Arrest a DUI that I stopped myself. (His would-be 10th DUI, police testified on his behalf, got the judge to deny my testimony, and got him a reckless operation. His lawyer is a former cop. Another cop yelled at me outside of the courtroom, because "some of those DUIs were 20 years old!" It must have been a cop or family member, and I hurt some feels. He crapped all over himself and peed into his own shoe/on his phone, because he was too drunk to get his seat belt & pants all the way off. You be the judge.)
But go on...because that is some funny stuff lol!
The funny thing is that he thinks those tickets end up in a court battle making us Christmas money
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro