[flyflicker123]

Wrong curious canuck...Clearly shows the man backing up avoiding confrontation..Take a self defense course, learn .

[flyflicker123]

you can beat some one to death just fine.

[M.F.D.B.]

Originally Posted by CuriousCanadian ↗

If someone advances on you carrying a knife, you can shoot them cuz your life if in serious danger. Shooting someone because they're advancing to "possibly" beat you up = thats not self-defence nor is your life in danger.

Not true, advancing on someone who has you at gun point is proof they intend to take your gun and use it against you; there is no duty to let them do so before protecting yourself...

That being said, I think they could have easily handled this better from the start, especially being a trained cop!

[M.F.D.B.]

Originally Posted by CuriousCanadian ↗

Not from a distance they don't! How do you do damage from 6 feet away from someone? You can't.

When he is choking you on the ground and about to snap ur neck - then your life is in danger THEN you can use self defence. Not when he's approaching you using harsh language!

If he pulls out a knife and is jabbing at you when you are subduing him - then yes, you may be ok to snap the neck BUT you could also release him and jump away to a safe distance.

Please step away from YouTube and NetFlix...

If someone already has their hands on you, and is trying to kill you (snap your neck), you deserve to die by your own handgun...period...

[Dennislp3]

Not to mention if you are being "chocked out on the ground and about to have your neck snapped" self defense is a little too late...if you are in that position you are likely gonna lose because you let yourself get in that position...

[30564U]

Based on my experience, this was a completely justifiable self defense shooting. The rules of engagement for the use of deadly force are fairly uniform throughout the US and Canada. If you look at the incident from a purely unemotional point then it becomes clear that this was a good shoot...not a perfect shoot, but a justifiable use of force.

I love how everyone, based on years and years of TV and movie training, thinks it's somehow wrong or patently illegal to shoot someone who isn't armed, shoot someone in the back, or shoot someone multiple times. I can tell you absolutely, from thirty years of first hand experience, that it is neither illegal, immoral, unlawful, unethical, or untoward to shoot someone, exhibiting a clear and present threat/danger either to you or another, who is completely unarmed, squarely in the back, or shooting multiple bullets at them.

Let me explain before some of you literally give birth to a cow. First, just because someone doesn't have an obvious weapon doesn't mean that they are incapable of doing significant, permanent, and deadly physical damage to you. In this case, the off-duty officer used a limited reasonable escalation of force (physical presence, verbal commands, and finally physical force in attempting to subdue or detain the bad guy) and realized that the bad guy wasn't going to comply. Fearing for his life and after seeing that the bad guy had clearly committed a potentially felonious crime by physically grabbing the off-duty officer. The off-duty officer drew his firearm from an ankle holster, pointed it at the bad guy and gave further verbal commands to comply...all which clearly failed to impress the bad guy and he continued to chase the off-duty officer. The off-duty officer then incredibly and in risk to his life retreated numerous times all the way around the parking lot with the bad guy moving directly at him. The bad guy made numerous lunging movements and threatening full arm gesticulations toward the off-duty officer and his drawn firearm. When the bad guy finally started to move faster toward the off-duty officer and almost grabbed his drawn firearm...the officer fired an unknown number times hitting the bad guy and dropping him to the ground. Clearly the off-duty officer was in fear for his life and would have been prudent to feel that the bad guy was actively attempting to take his drawn firearm thus committing yet another felony.

It is generally accepted in every state in the US that you have a right to defend yourself with lethal force. Whether you exercise this right legally is based on the "reasonable man" or "reasonable officer" doctrine. In other words, would a reasonable person/officer in the same situation be likely to use deadly force in self defense?

What would be considered reasonable? Well, deadly force is justified only when undertaken to prevent imminent and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to an innocent person. To make this somewhat easier, most agencies look for three elements to determine whether the use of deadly force is justified. 1.) Ability-Did the attacker have the ability to cause death or grievous bodily harm? This means, did the bad guy have a lethal weapon, such as a gun or knife? The use of deadly force against an unarmed attacker may also be justified, such as when you are faced with multiple attackers or a single attacker who is causing you serious harm. However this can lead to a claim of "disparity of force" and make self defense claim more difficult. 2.) Opportunity-Was the bad guy close enough to carry out the attack? If the bad guy was unarmed, he would have to be within or near arms length. If the bad guy had a weapon, he would have to be close enough to use the weapon against you. The big question is how close is close enough? It depends on the weapon, the circumstances, and what the jury or judge might think about it. Opportunity also means the attack must be right here and right now. Thinking that someone may harm you at a future date or at another place is not a legally acceptable justification for using deadly force. 3.) Jeopardy-Did the bad guy intend to cause you harm? Was your life or another's in jeopardy? Someone can have a gun and be standing right in front of you but have no intention of causing harm. On the other hand, someone jackass can run at you full speed with a baseball bat screaming they're going to kill you. In the first, there is probably no jeopardy. In the second, there probably is.

What it comes down to is...do you honestly believe you are in immediate grave danger? And, is using a firearm the only means of ending the threat? Assuming that you didn't initiate the conflict, you do not have a duty to retreat...and if you honestly believe you are in immediate grave danger, your use of a firearm may be justified...maybe.

[nyazzip]

Are you kidding? Maybe in this situation that's might be true. But once again, here we go with people taking one man's situation, and justifying ALL of the police shootings across America as if they all were the same person. Trevon Martin was an individual who was not tied to this person. MIchael Brown was an individual as well, who had nothing to do with this guy. Yet, because they are black, they are paying the price for crimes that other men commit who are black, and for crimes that were committed years after they were killed. And people think it's justified based on this video here.

treyvon martin's killer was not a cop. and please produce the video of michael brown's killing. and while you are at it, please produce the multitude of videos showing american police unjustifiably killing suspects. please. or else shut the fuck up.

[Trunkzdbz]

[vondeckbar72]

Another Darwin Award candidate!! I don't care what your race is, when a cop has you dead to rights just do what the fuck you are ordered to do. If you feel "mistreated" or "disrespected" then file a compliant after you get out of jail or call a lawyer!!

[30564U]

Originally Posted by vondeckbar72 ↗

Another Darwin Award candidate!! I don't care what your race is, when a cop has you dead to rights just do what the fuck you are ordered to do. If you feel "mistreated" or "disrespected" then file a compliant after you get out of jail or call a lawyer!!

No truer words have been said...thank you. It's that simple.