“Thats complete bs you’re out of danger if you have the weapon. Total bs. Especially when you’re already injured.”
Then display please anything written in the article of further aggression right before the chest shot when Diarra shot the thief and after he took control of the gun.
“Diarra proceeded to turn the firearm on the potential thief and shot him in the chest.”
There is nothing in there to indicate any further aggression. Diarra was identified as the attendant with the gun, which he wrestled from the thief, and “turned it” on him insinuating he had the gun identified and had to turn it on the thief.
I was law enforcement in the military for combat actions and if the combatants had ceased aggression, it was over. The same films were used at that time by the Tampa Police Department. If the individual in front of you is no longer a threat, then you can’t cap him as that is a new criminal act. We need more information than the article is presenting.
wy69
Like you've already alluded to, the article left out a whole lot stuff.
The suspect shoots the victim twice, the victim somehow gains control of the gun. Forget the BS media article for a minute.
Would it not be *reasonable* or possible to expect the suspect to struggled to regain control of the gun from the victim, after the suspect just wounded the victim?
No reason not to believe he wouldn’t wait for the injured shot guy to black out or let down his guard to go after the weapon, given immediate past deadly behavior.
Many faint giving up to refroup/resume an attack.
The person right there is the one who has to fear their life is still in danger, not me. He made the call. I wouldn’t say it was the wrong one given what I know from the article.