Vegas carjacking media briefing

[Wrango]

12 hours ago, Maser said:

 

Okay, now you're just trolling me.  Not sure what exactly you're trying to bait me into posting, but I said all that I needed to say already about the incident. 

No, no, he is asking a straight forward question.  It's a yes or no thing.  So what's it gonna be?  Yes or no?  You're not being baited into anything other than making a decision based on what you've seen and opined on.

[Historian]

3 hours ago, EdTracker said:

How much lead did they pull out of the perp?

 

The guy was pointing a gun at people and obviously a threat. How is this not a good shoot??? 

 

Some people just need a killin and this Hawaii'n jackhole obviously needed one.

He was an armed dangerous felon who did not respond to orders to drop his weapon and surrender.  Instead he chose to turn in the direction of responding officers while armed.  He was shot from the direction most likely to achieve success in protecting the responding officers and citizens of the community.

[janice6]

The claim that a criminal was shot in the back has been dealt with routinely, when an expert witness explains the tendency of a human being, when being hit with almost any projectile, natural or otherwise,  will rotate their body to protect their front, and doesn't show any tendency to withdraw, just to protect them selves from the projectiles.

This is a common response coupled with a return to previous activity after the projectiles stop if they have the capability.  The sequence of shots sometimes shows this reaction.  

[Historian]

I was in fear of my life and those i serve with and those citizens within the area.  He was clearly armed with a shotgun and had used it an a felony. He refused to comply and i used force to protect myself and others.

Edited April 27, 2020 by Historian

[Pima Pants]

It looked as if he was either dead or unconscious as he fell. No arms out trying to break his fall nor any bending of his knees to hit the ground slower. Simply DRT as he fell to the ground kind of stiff-legged.

Just a recap of how the events unfolded (in my observation) which justified the shooting:

First, the suspect points a shotgun at an innocent citizen, ostensibly to steal the vehicle. Officers were justified at that point in using deadly physical force to protect the citizen. Secondly, the suspect turns towards the officer with his shotgun at "low ready". Officers were justified in using deadly physical force to protect themselves. What I am not sure of is when the officers began firing; while the bad guy was pointing the shotgun at the citizen or after said bad guy turned toward the officer. Not that it really matters, I'm just curious. I couldn't really tell from the videos.