Lunge at him is the words of the guys (guy) who shot and killed him. A more accurate description is likely he was fleeing as fast as he could and the more severely injured victim was in his way. They do when they are amped up and ready to conduct a military style entry with improper training. This isn't a good enough performance. A few cops getting automatic weapons and doing some drills on the weekends doesn't make a HRT.
And likely you are right. Winkler and the first victim were probably just trying to get out of there as fast as they could. But look at it from the cops' perspective. They're called in for an armed robbery where the suspect is a white male, thin build, black shirt. When they get there, two people run out and one of them matches the suspect description. They don't call for help or identify themselves, and in that quick reaction, any hesitation by the cops could mean harm for them. They have two choices: shoot or don't shoot. If they shoot, they think they neutralize the suspect. If they don't shoot, Winkler could be the suspect and knife the cops. In that situation, which would you choose? The higher probability says that Winkler was the suspect and you would shoot him to preserve your safety. Unfortunately, they were wrong. And they know they were wrong. They're not high fiving each other and thinking they did the right thing for shooting a victim. But given the circumstances at the time, it's hard to fault them since that is likely how any other cop would have reacted.
Sorry but you are confusing two perspectives. That of a common person is different than that of a first responder. If I was going to my apartment minding my own business and carrying a weapon for personal defense my choice should be under less moral scrutiny. I had to make a split decision based upon little knowledge and only self preservation. But time and time again such an act is the subject of the most legal scrutiny, where the police officer who is supposedly trained will likely never face a grand jury. First responders forego their own safety to ensure the safety of others. This was not the case here because multiple officers fired upon a person who was not armed with a knife or a gun but was simply fleeing. The cause is this: their mindset was not one of responding to save, but of making a military style entry. They might understand the outcome was not positive but they are, and you are, justifying their actions which generated this outcome.
Just goes to show Cops first and foremost priority is themselves. The saftey of the public comes second.
Imagine if NBA refs carried guns and they saw Jeremy Lin jump up in air then lunge in a panic with no where to go and no one to pass too They probably shoot him before he hit the ground
I still can't believe Harrison Ford believed he was a human in Blade Runner. Tosh.0 is a really annoying show on Comedy Central that is basically America's Funniest Home Videos except with internet videos.
I saw a study a couple of years ago on how often police hit their target and the percentage is much, much lower than you'd think. I want to say it is something like 30% of the time, even over very short distsnces, like 10-15 feet. I remember the only time that police were above 50% was against dogs, and when the police were shooting back after being shot at, the percentage dropped to like 10%. I believe the general rule is that the target has a weapon and the officer feels they are potentially in danger, they aren't supposed to use the taser. That is also why police don't ever try and shoot someone in the leg or arm to disable them. The training generally is, if your (the officer's) life is in danger, shoot to kill.
if true, that's horrible training. and no surprise we get a bunch of unskilled shooters out there firing in panic and killing innocent people instead of judiciously firing under control.
To the guy defending them because they feared for their life, what were they afraid of? They see two guys fleeing a room, neither of whom was carrying a weapon. Did they take a split second to see if either man had something in his hand? They were fearful of being killed by the knife the two men didn't have? This was just terrible sorry. Two unarmed men ran out of a room where there were known to be hostages and a single armed man and the cops managed to shoot both of the people they saw first. So even if they thought the guy they killed was the perpetrator (who had somehow lost his weapon) they still managed to shoot the one they believed to be the victim.
Hmm I'm surprised no one has mentioned the felony merger doctrine. The prosecutors are attempting to charge the defendant with felony murder--in California assault cannot be used as the underlying charge for felony murder. The prosecutor is attempting to charge the individual with torture and will have a difficult case in showing that his death was foreseeable. He did not brandish a gun and, as we have seen from the public reaction, you wouldn't expect the cops to shoot one of your victims who had fled the apartment.
I believe you're trained to use a weapon that is 1 level higher than what the attacker has. If they have a knife you go gun. Might be an HPD only rule. I doubt there would be a penalty for breaking that particular rule but people love using orders and protocol to justify their actions. I wonder if Tosh O. will make a joke about his death. Wouldn't put it past him.
