The cops are in a no-win situation (which is often the case). I know Cordex frequently participates in police exercises. I'd like his perspective, then IU give you my experience on the wrong end of that scenario.
I'm not sure I can really contribute anything to judging what went on in the video since when I watched it I couldn't see beans. Thus I've got no firm opinion on whether or not in this case it was a justified shoot on the part of the cop. If anyone watched that video and came up with a sure and certain verdict (as a number of us apparently have) then they've apparently got much better eyes than I have to say nothing of their TV-show worthy video processing software. Regardless of whether or not it was justified, it absolutely sucks that an innocent man was killed because of some petty argument between some man-children.
This scenario is a particularly sucky one because the appropriate response to the situation as described is absolutely wrong for the situation that actually existed and
vice versa. In this case, that disparity does not appear to be the fault of the cops.
As far as speculation ...
Why does he have to? Some guy yells at you from across the street and you have to obey? Or you die? No.
If you're being held at gunpoint by multiple police as a suspect in an active shooter call, yes. Yes you do. Or you die. You freeze in position with your hands as high above your head as they can go and you do absolutely nothing else except slowly and deliberately in response to direct orders. And, as we've seen in other incidents, you still might die because it is always dangerous to have guns pointed at you.
Being held at gunpoint is the absolute wrong time to put on your "YOU AIN'T THE BOSS OF ME" pants. When you're a sneeze or startle-reflex from dying it's probably best to think very carefully about every movement. If you want to survive the event so you can hire an attorney to sue the city for all they're worth then you shouldn't get petulant and defiant.
Again the cops did not investigate. They did not know who was in the house they essentially shot a random person for the "crime" of not being fully aware of the situation.
Don't be ridiculous. The report was for a murder and active shooting event. I'd love to hear your educated opinion on how the police should be expected to conduct an in-depth investigation before the scene has been secured.
I am not a police officer nor have I ever been, but had I pulled the trigger on someone under those circumstances (as a non-LEO), I would be in prison.
Without commenting on the specific circumstances shown in the dark, grainy, and low-resolution footage we've got in this case, non-LEOs who have killed an innocent person while justifiably in fear for their lives often go free too.
Correction -- you don't "know" any of this. You only know that this is what someone has told your dispatch center. You can't ignore it -- that's why you're there. But you also can't automatically assume that it's true without at least some indications to support the veracity of what the caller told dispatch. It's like the "man with a gun" calls when a libtard sees a licensed gun owner carrying in a Walmart and calls the cops. Instead of immediately calling out the SWAT team, the dispatcher should be doing some preliminary investigation by asking pointed questions.
1. In a case of a reported murder, intended arson, and active shooter, you want the dispatcher to react incredulously and delay the response? Huh. Tell me more about your (obviously) well-informed theories on emergency response.
2. I don't know how it works everywhere, but in our neck of the woods the dispatchers don't have a lot of freedom when it comes to call triage (likely for liability reasons). As I understand it, the way it works is there is a call taker who exclusively communicates with the caller. Their conversation is monitored by a dispatcher who then actually gets on the radio and communicates the situation to police and can ask the call taker to request additional information. Often by the time the call is dispatched the caller is no longer even on the phone and if additional details are needed they have to call back. If someone reports something that is not actually illegal the cop can radio back that no crime has been reported, but if someone demands a police response the cops are essentially required to respond. Even if it is "that guy" or "that gal" who always calls in worthless crap. As an example, there was a road rage incident locally where during the interaction one party got out of his car and lifted his shirt to expose a gun. Then got back in his car and drove away. In our state if it ends there then nothing illegal has taken place, so in response to the call the cops radioed back to dispatch and said as much. The reporting party demanded that they respond anyway so they did but there was nothing to act on.
3. Of course the police don't "know" anything when they responded. Before they can investigate they have to secure the scene. When the scene in question is reported to involve someone who has actually killed and threatened further murders they're going to rightfully handle it differently than a report of aggravated jaywalking or litter with intent. Once the scene has been secured, then they can start sorting out the truth.
And if there was anything that actually looked like a threat, the entire team would have lit him up.
But there was only ONE shot.
So your insight is that a single shot proves even
harder (since you'd already convicted the cop in your mind) that these were trigger-happy cops? Sure, a single shot may have been negligent but it also shows significant training and restraint on behalf of their team.
Let's put you in a scenario holding someone at gunpoint. You're standing near a friend that you trust with your life who also has a gun on the bad guy. If your buddy start shooting do you just stand there because you can't see exactly why they're shooting, or do you join in? I'd probably trust that they saw something that I didn't see and join in. It's called sympathetic fire and it is extremely common in police and (so I've heard) military shootings. That in this case it didn't go further than one shot tells me that at least the rest of the team was not allowing themselves to succumb to shooting based on startle reflex or sympathetic fire.
What's funny is that if the whole team had blasted the guy into the dirt, I'm guessing you would have lambasted them for that too.
