Look again.Originally Posted by Hauptmann
Look again.
What am I missing? I blew the video up to the point where he puts his hands in the air and the shooting starts. Given the distance from the camera to the incident, you can tell there is a slight sound delay.......so, it appears the first shot occurred with hands up, and he bend over after the impact.
It's hard to see but he has a knife in hand and starts to bring the knife down right about the time you hear the sirens of the first back up unit.
The call was for a domestic in which Flores slashed a woman's head with the knife. She was holding a baby when she was slashed and it was initially reported Flores had slashed the Baby also but it turned out to be the mothers blood. Flores himself called 911 and said he would force a suicide by cop. There was about ten minutes of confrontation prior to the start of the second video. During that time, Flores charged the Deputies and slashed the ballistic shields they were holding. This, combined with the failed taser deployment on the video as well as the original assault and the 911 calls all lead to the Deputies decision.
Let me play devils advocate for a second.
Based on what you've said happened prior to the second video, they had plenty of justification for shooting him when they were up close and personal and he was slashing their shields. But why shoot him when they did? They could hear more units coming, perhaps with another taser? He had a knife, not a gun so he had to be close enough to stab them.. So there's a difference in lowering his hand with a knife vs. lowering his hand with a gun. They'd been letting him chase them away for a few minutes like it was no big deal, so what suddenly changed their mind to we have to shoot this guy NOW?
I'm positive they were justified in shooting him at some point during that encounter, just curious what suddenly made them shoot him at that point when it seems they were more than justified in shooting him earlier.
Justification for deadly force can come and go during any encounter. I'll be interested in what happens with a civil suit down the road and whether the court decides the "objective reasonableness" window for shooting him had passed by the time they actually shot him.
Formerly known as xpd54.
The opinions expressed in this post are my own and do not reflect the opinions or policies of my employer.
www.gunsnobbery.wordpress.com
This may literally be the million dollar question.
not crazy UOF but you'll see what the deal is..
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=90c_1450137787
Infantilization of mankind. Suck it up. The officer was nice to you and you were resisting exactly at the point you said you were cooperating. Bag of dicks! I'm so tired of pusillanimous crap like this.
Fairness leads to extinction much faster than harsh parameters.
Every LEO has dealt with this...
"Stop resisting!"
"I'm not resisting!"
"Well then put your hands behind your back."
If there is anything else other than them complying they are resisting.
Start subpoenaing these idiots into court every time they show up on one of these as witnesses. They either get a warrant issued for not showing up, or get to sit in court for several days waiting around for the wheels of justice to spin in their normal slow fashion. They ll decide quickly that maybe they don't want to be so involved.
Just a Hairy Special Snowflake supply clerk with no field experience, shooting an Asymetric carbine as a Try Hard. Snarky and easily butt hurt. Favorite animal is the Cape Buffalo....likely indicative of a personality disorder.
"If I had a grandpa, he would look like Delbert Belton".
Now that would be justice.
"Gunfighting is a thinking man's game. So we might want to bring thinking back into it."-MDFA
Beware of my temper, and the dog that I've found...
Reply With Quote