I personally, do not find this shooting very ambiguous. The guy has a gun, he is a convicted felon, and he runs. After my kind of footchase(short) a brief struggle occurs and the suslect's gun goes off. Officer 2 then fires his duty weapon, while officer 1 uses Ther perp's gun.
Under TN v Garner(fleeing felon rule) police officers can shoot a fleeing felon for s serious crime if the escape of that subject presents an immediate threat to the community. Not knowing if he had another gun, plus the discharge of his gun prompted both officers to shoot this guy. This is also after they charged
, chased, and wrestled with the guy knowing he had a gun. That rules out calling these cops pussies of cowards.
I think, given the circumstances, the shooting was justified, and I think a reasonable officer, given the information available to the officers at that time, without 20/20 hindsight(he had no second gun), with the subject actively fleeing and resisting from a serious crime involving a firearm- would find this justified under the fourth amendment. These are the graham factors. So graham c connor and tn vs garner are both met here.
Here are my issues with this shooting. I believe the officers could have had a bit better communication skills in the very beginning. I think explaining why they were there, and what is going to happen could have helped. "Hey sir, we got a call that you were acting suspicious. I need you to come over here and talk to me. I am going to check you for any weapons, then we will sort this out. Do you have any weapons on your person at this time?"
That was just an observation. But what really bothered me was the lack of medical care immediately after shooting this guy. If I shot someone, I would have my fingers in every hole like Jody foster trying to stop(cause?) a leak in a dike. If he dies, he dies-but it would not be because everyone just watched for five minutes. You're at a convenience store. Grab a coffee and a handful of napkins and get to work.
Just my thoughts.
