Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: freedomwarrior998
The only "witnesses" so far who seem to indicate he was a "threat" to anyone are the cops and, presumably, the leftist b*tch store clerk who called them. Both have a motive to state that now because their a$$es are on the line.

The bystanders who saw it are almost unanimous in saying they did not think he was a threat. Quite the contrary, there are multiple witnesses who saw him peacefully exit.

245 posted on 07/13/2010 9:47:02 AM PDT by conimbricenses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies ]


To: conimbricenses

http://www.lvrj.com/news/man-did-not-pull-gun-on-police-at-costco—lawyer-says-98279344.html

But the 72-year-old man, in addition to another witness reached Monday, said they did see the weapon and did see Scott reach for it.


249 posted on 07/13/2010 9:48:40 AM PDT by School of Rational Thought (Need work. MBA, CPA, Black Belt. Diverse industry and cross border experience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies ]

To: conimbricenses
We have two witnesses who say that the man reached for a gun. Contrary to what you see on TV, the police do not have to wait until a gun is pointed at them before they fire. In fact, waiting that long is a deadly mistake. Are you familiar with the tueller drill? If a person is standing 21 feet from you with a knife, then can cover that distance and stab you before you can draw and fire a weapon. Why? Action beats reaction. The brain has to process that a threat is taking place, and then cause the motor response to pull the trigger.

Likewise, if a person has a gun in their waistband and makes the decision to draw and fire it, they automatically have the advantage over someone who must process that threat and respond. Thus, if officers wait until the gun starts to come up, it's too late.

If you reach for a gun, you are in the midst if initiating a deadly force encounter. We don't judge incidents with 20/20 hindsight. We judge them from that moment in time, from the perspective of a reasonable officer.

Thus, the only thing that we examine, is whether it was objectively reasonable to fire at someone who reached for a weapon (according to two separate eyewitnesses) after being told not to move.

Remember, the police in that situation do not get the benefit of knowing all the extra information that you get to examine after the fact. They know that they have a guy with a gun in front of them, and he reaches for the weapon. That's it. Make an objectively reasonable decision in less than 2 seconds.

259 posted on 07/13/2010 10:05:22 AM PDT by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson