Bad Shoot

[carlson1]

I am kind of like the commentators where I try not to comment on too many shootings that have police involved because me having background in law enforcement. I know how things can be taking out of context or just trying to say what you would do not being the officer on scene. However I think this is a BAD SHOOT period.

[Paladin]

No question that shooting NINE TIMES was excessive force.

The use of force would be reasonable... agree with the vid that tipping the chair, OC, or taser would be appropriate.

Does it personally upset me that an armed robber fleeing police into a store was killed? No. First and foremost I am happy that no innocent people in either store were hurt.

I just wish the officer had been more judicious, because it was not his place to execute the man.

[srothstein]

I would point out that deadly force would be authorized under Texas law for that incident. I don't know Arizona law, of course, and their might be different. People are reporting it that he had shoplifted, which is theft. But when he pulled the knife on the loss prevention officer, it becomes aggravated robbery. Robbery is any theft or attempted theft where force is used to commit the theft or to flee after the theft.

The officer is wrong based on the Garner v. Tennessee and Graham v. Connor decisions. But remember that non-officers do not have to worry about those two decisions, just police officers.

[03Lightningrocks]

That may or may not be a "technical" good shoot but that seemed beyond excessive for the situation. Maybe a taser. Or how about just tumping over the wheel chair. The guy would have been flopping around on the ground defenseless.

[Texas_Blaze]

How’s an officer to know that the guy is actually a cripple? Just being in a motorized chair isn’t conclusive. He could be faking it. Had he gone in store with his knife and assuming he’s not a cripple then there is real danger, especially to the person near the door.

[FastCarry]

How’s an officer to know that the guy is actually a cripple? Just being in a motorized chair isn’t conclusive. He could be faking it. Had he gone in store with his knife and assuming he’s not a cripple then there is real danger, especially to the person near the door.

He doesnt know, but thats the same reason you dont rapid fire 8 rounds, then one more for good measure, because you dont know if hes a serious threat or not.

[Texas_Blaze]

How’s an officer to know that the guy is actually a cripple? Just being in a motorized chair isn’t conclusive. He could be faking it. Had he gone in store with his knife and assuming he’s not a cripple then there is real danger, especially to the person near the door.

He doesnt know, but thats the same reason you dont rapid fire 8 rounds, then one more for good measure, because you dont know if hes a serious threat or not.

To the officer he is a threat and the unknowns are part of creating that threat.

[FastCarry]

How’s an officer to know that the guy is actually a cripple? Just being in a motorized chair isn’t conclusive. He could be faking it. Had he gone in store with his knife and assuming he’s not a cripple then there is real danger, especially to the person near the door.

He doesnt know, but thats the same reason you dont rapid fire 8 rounds, then one more for good measure, because you dont know if hes a serious threat or not.

To the officer he is a threat and the unknowns are part of creating that threat.

You dont get to fabricate the seriousness of a threat out of thin air to justify killing someone.

[Texas_Blaze]

How’s an officer to know that the guy is actually a cripple? Just being in a motorized chair isn’t conclusive. He could be faking it. Had he gone in store with his knife and assuming he’s not a cripple then there is real danger, especially to the person near the door.

He doesnt know, but thats the same reason you dont rapid fire 8 rounds, then one more for good measure, because you dont know if hes a serious threat or not.

To the officer he is a threat and the unknowns are part of creating that threat.

You dont get to fabricate the seriousness of a threat out of thin air to justify killing someone.

Ok. You win. Now I’m convinced.

[The Annoyed Man]

How’s an officer to know that the guy is actually a cripple? Just being in a motorized chair isn’t conclusive. He could be faking it. Had he gone in store with his knife and assuming he’s not a cripple then there is real danger, especially to the person near the door.

He doesnt know, but thats the same reason you dont rapid fire 8 rounds, then one more for good measure, because you dont know if hes a serious threat or not.

To the officer he is a threat and the unknowns are part of creating that threat.

It’s worth pointing out that both John Correia and his cohost are retired LEOs, and the shoot was, in their opinion, murder. The officer in question has been fired, and as of yesterday, the local DA was considering which charge to charge him with……but it is certainly going to be some degree of homicide. It also seems unlikely that the officer will have any of the legal protections usually afforded to officers who are involved in questionable shootings.

[RPBrown]

Granted, he had a knife in his hand, but I never saw him direct the knife toward the officer. That plus 9 shots to the back is a bad shoot. Taser or pepper spray should have been the first choice here I would think.
Does anyone else find it odd that in calling for backup, in his description of the suspect, he never said he was in a wheelchair?

[surferdaddy]

Is it possible that there are other specifics of this incident that may justify this shooting…sure? Maybe he had a gun on him that we cannot see; I’m not sure but I am quite certain that if there are such extenuating circumstances they will be revealed in a courtroom. However just looking at the footage is hard to watch, ooof.

Surfer

[oljames3]

How’s an officer to know that the guy is actually a cripple? Just being in a motorized chair isn’t conclusive. He could be faking it. Had he gone in store with his knife and assuming he’s not a cripple then there is real danger, especially to the person near the door.

He doesnt know, but thats the same reason you dont rapid fire 8 rounds, then one more for good measure, because you dont know if hes a serious threat or not.

To the officer he is a threat and the unknowns are part of creating that threat.

It’s worth pointing out that both John Correia and his cohost are retired LEOs, and the shoot was, in their opinion, murder. The officer in question has been fired, and as of yesterday, the local DA was considering which charge to charge him with……but it is certainly going to be some degree of homicide. It also seems unlikely that the officer will have any of the legal protections usually afforded to officers who are involved in questionable shootings.

John Correia is not retired LEO. He has never been LEO. https://activeselfprotection.com/our-ow ... n-correia/
Mike Willever is a retired special agent with the US federal government. https://activeselfprotection.com/podcast/

Correia is highly trained and skilled as a self defender and instructor. If you get the opportunity to train with him, do so. The ASP National Conference 2022 is worthy of your consideration, especially if you missed out on TAC-CON 2022. https://activeselfprotection.com/asp-na ... bles-2022/

[The Annoyed Man]

John Correia is not retired LEO. He has never been LEO. https://activeselfprotection.com/our-ow ... n-correia/
Mike Willever is a retired special agent with the US federal government. https://activeselfprotection.com/podcast/

Correia is highly trained and skilled as a self defender and instructor. If you get the opportunity to train with him, do so. The ASP National Conference 2022 is worthy of your consideration, especially if you missed out on TAC-CON 2022. https://activeselfprotection.com/asp-na ... bles-2022/

I could have sworn that Correia has stated in a number of his videos that he was with Phoenix PD. Maybe I misunderstood him. Regardless, I’ve found his analyses to be spot on … at least to the extent that they tend to confirm my own biases.