I do. I was typing quickly and not thinking.
The police version is that the subject was hiding in the girls restroom. Police found him there and he bolted from the restroom. Police chased and the subject had a knife and the police shot and killed him.
My question is how come the body is so far away from the shell casings ? The shell casings are all in the same general place so the shooter was stationary and not running.
The subject appears to be a "safe" distance away from the officers if he only had a knife.
This department is well known for shooting unarmed people.
Thank you for providing yet another example of the kind of "logic" that I would expect from the anti-cop types.
Implicit in your statement about the subject appearing to be a safe distance away from the officers, based on what appears to be locations of casings vs. the body is
...
wait for it...
Your assumption that the reason/justification for the police shooting was self defense. That is the only situation where the person being a "safe distance" from the police would be meaningful.
Under deadly force justification (3) (read on), the farther away the subject is from the cops, suggests GREATER not less justification...
hmmm...
Nothing in the article or statements by police that i have seen would lead me to CONCLUDE that they shot in self defense.
There are several other justifications that meet constitutional scrutiny and are written into most state's laws explicitly.
It is justified in certain circumstances where a person is escaping from jail/prison
for example, in WA deadly force is authorized:
To prevent the escape of a person from a federal or state correctional facility or in retaking a person who escapes from such a facility; To prevent the escape of a person from a county or city jail or holding facility if the person has been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of a felony;
Ok, THAT doesn't apply here. So, what is the THIRD type of situation where deadly force is justified? Heck, you are assuming that a shoot in self defense was NOT authorized
Ok, ASSUMING that is true, the person (not you) who actually understood the law/constitutional restrictions on deadly force situations faced by police officers realizes there are essentially 3. (1) is self defense (2) is escape from jail/prison etc
What is (3)?
The following conditions must be present...
(1) a police officer has reasonable cause to believe the person has committed a crime involving the use of deadly force or threatened deadly force
Ok, is that the case here? Most definitely.
Oh, HELL ya.
Prior to their encountering him at the school, they knew he was "A man suspected of setting the apartment of his ex-girlfriend and their 2-year-old son on fire and then setting his mother's home ablaze"
Does that meet (1)? Of course.
He was suspected of attempted murder and arson. That condition (1) has been met is irrefutable.
Furthermore,
“He threatened his family and threatened to kill police if confronted,”
SO, given that condition (1) has been met- not subject to debate. Crystal clear. AND
assuming arguendo, the cops did not shoot in self defense. Iow, assuming it wasn't even their intent./reason for shooting, as well as the assumption that even if that WAS the cop's intent, it would not have been justified due to the distance...
What could have justified it? In your eyes, nothing. Because you forget about the third justification for deadly force, which is
GIVEN condition (1),
Deadly force is then justifiable (I am paraphrasing from memory, but feel free to look it up. WA's version is RCW 9a.16.040) if a police officer has probable cause to believe that if they don't apprehend the suspect, he poses a "threat of serious physical harm to others". Given the type of crime he is accused of , and his further threats (not necessary but nice), and his running around the school armed etc.
POLICE MAY USE DEADLY FORCE TO PREVENT ESCAPE.
hth
Note that "when practicable" a verbal warning should be given. The RCW and most penal codes mention that. e.g. "Stop, or we will shoot". As long as it's practicable, make the warning!
CRUCIALLY, note that in the case of the fleeing violent felon, IN CONTRAST to a self defense shooting, there need NOT be an "imminent" threat. That is not necessary.
Cop haters always say there was no imminent threat. Many times they are wrong, but in many cases, such as shootings under prong (3) , imminence is irrelevant.
I can think of countless examples. Cops have shot armed bank robbers in the back, as they flee a bank and are about to get away. Totally justified.
We had an incident a little ways back where during our debrief and review, the number one criticism the officers had of their own actions was they did NOT shoot the person after he had committed a serious violent crime agsainst a family member, and they located him outside another one of his relative's house. They gave ample warning, he turn and ran, forcing his way into the house. ABSOLUTELY should have shot him. To his credit, my sgt and a few others, ran into the back of the house that they had been surveilling as part of their perimeter, and rushed an occupant out of the house, possibly saving her life.
But regardless, the review as well as opinions from a couple of attorneys (one of whom was a prosecutor), that would have been a classic justified shoot.
It was an example where restraint was actually TOO much. cop critics would never concede sometimes cops are too restrained in deadly force, but that case was a perfect example.
Many people don't know about the fleeing felon rule. Others, think it was removed due to Tenn v. Garner. Not true. It just narrowed the justifiction to fleeing felons who have threatened or used violence. Not mere felons, like a burglar or car thief.
Sorry to be snarky, but it gets so tiresome when cop critics and ESPECIALLY cop shooting critics are so woefully ignorant of deadly force law. It is NOT that complicated, but "justification 3" so to speak is poorly understood by them ime. Just like you
Of course, another possibility is that where the body is seen LYING, allegedly too far from where the cops were presumed to have been standing as evidenced by where the casings apparently lie...
is NOT where he was shot.
People can run, or turn and run after being shot multiple times. So, the location of his body is not necessarily the location that he was in when shot
Any person who is qualified to analyze deadly force incidents would NEVER assume that a body lying at position X = that police shot him at position X
You can't even get the simple stuff right.
Ill give you a little slack, because you clearly don[t have the background, training, or education in deadly force law, as well as knowledge of scenarios of deadly force, that would give you some perspective and understanding and allow you to consider the various circs where this shooting would be justified.
Note: I am not saying this shooting was justified. Or not justified. There is NO way whatasoever to draw a conclusion based on what we know at this point.
I have no idea, nor do you
hth