Former Army officer, West Point&Duke grad shot by police

Originally Posted by Rider79

And I know the officer who shot the fleeing handcuffed murder suspect in the back who escaped from a patrol car wasn't charged.

Depending on the circumstances and the articulation used; I can see how that would be a justified shooting.

Originally Posted by NCPatrolAR

Depending on the circumstances and the articulation used; I can see how that would be a justified shooting.

Not trying to sharpshoot you or hijack the thread, but could you explain how shooting a man in the back could be justified? I think I might have an idea, but I'd like to hear a hypothetical situation or two to see if I'm on the right track. Thanks.

Originally Posted by murphy j

Not trying to sharpshoot you or hijack the thread, but could you explain how shooting a man in the back could be justified?

The fact that a person's back is to you the shooter does not mean that the threat he poses to you has necessarily ceased, or that his threat to others has necessarily ceased.

...and that's assuming you were aiming at his back in the first place. In a highly dynamic situation it is entirely possible for a person to completely change aspect between the time a shooter gets the gun on target and the time the gun launches the round. It takes the human brain time to recognize that something is happening and time to act on it, meaning that while guy A is actually in the process of trying to fire the shot guy B can figure out what's happening and start to move. There's a video somewhere out there of a guy who tried to rob a hotel. The clerk behind the counter drew and shot the guy 3 or 4 times. All of this happened within a couple of seconds. The bad guy was hit in the back because between the time the good guy got the gun up where the bad guy could see what was coming and the time he broke his first shot the bad guy had turned and started beating feet for the door....but it was still a good shoot.

It's impossible to judge the justification of a shot merely by where it hit. It's more complex than that. You wouldn't think that a guy who was shot in the back of the head from point blank while he was prone on the ground could possibly be a good shoot...but there's video of exactly that shot happening and it was justified. The guy on the ground hit the ground while trying to pull a gun on a trooper. He had a hand on the gun and was trying to get into position to shoot the trooper. The trooper did what he had to do. If someone just looked at the bullet hole it would have looked like a close range execution shot. When viewed in the context of the dashcam video it's clear that the trooper's actions were reasonable and justified.

Originally Posted by murphy j

Not trying to sharpshoot you or hijack the thread, but could you explain how shooting a man in the back could be justified? I think I might have an idea, but I'd like to hear a hypothetical situation or two to see if I'm on the right track. Thanks.

I dont know how the laws in NV are; but in NC a LEO can used deadly force under the following circumstances:

A law‑enforcement officer is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person for a purpose specified in subdivision (1) of this subsection only when it is or appears to be reasonably necessary thereby:

To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force;

To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person who he reasonably believes is attempting to escape by means of a deadly weapon, or who by his conduct or any other means indicates that he presents an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to others unless apprehended without delay; or

To prevent the escape of a person from custody imposed upon him as a result of conviction for a felony.

As you can proaby see; the shooting of a fleeing homicide suspect might be justifed under certain circumstances.

I get what you're saying. Not exactly what I was thinking, but similar veins of thought and much better articulated than I could have done for my halfway thoughts. Thank you.

So what would motivate the DA to put the hearing on hold as he goes over the witness list?

Originally Posted by NCPatrolAR

As you can probably see; the shooting of a fleeing homicide suspect might be justifed under certain circumstances.

That's what they determined in the inquest for that one, because he was under arrest for murder and a known gang member, he was considered a threat to the community.

As for the one where the 2 officers were restraining the handcuffed suspect, the officer who fired his weapon said that he thought the suspect was going for the weapon of one of the 2 officers. Of course, he did shoot the guy from 30+ feet away, which may have led to the inquest finding the officer's actions excusable, not justifiable.

Originally Posted by Littlelebowski

So what would motivate the DA to put the hearing on hold as he goes over the witness list?

The large number of witnesses.








Or Gillespie being up for reelection in November.

Originally Posted by Littlelebowski

So what would motivate the DA to put the hearing on hold as he goes over the witness list?

I learned long ago that trying to figure why a DA does something isn't worth the effort

My uneducated, uninformed guess is that it sounds like the DA is taking charge of the investigation for some reason and wants a complete list of witnesses from both sides of the debate. Maybe to appear to be unbiased? Maybe for an election?