As chl holders we don't wear body cameras and have an excuse of "reaction time." If they find bullets in the concrete bellow the body, you just went from a self defense scenario to murder.

The guy deserved the rounds he took from the male officer. He did not need and the situation did not warrant a single shot fired from the female officer.

Yup. Scientists just make up "excuses".

So because she has shit for" reaction time" that's reason to fire at a man on the ground who is no longer a threat?

I'm not defending the guy who got dead. I'm questioning if I was in the same situation and acted in the same manner as the woman officer, would my self defense shooting just be turned into charges of murder.

From the looks of things the only charge the female officer might be guilty of is Abuse of a Corpse.  I really don't think her shots made the slightest difference as far as the overall outcome is concerned.

This.  

Entirely preventable by the Perp / Victim / Dumb Ass....

I'm glad the officers had cameras to clearly show they were in the right to light up Dumb Ass for pulling the Faux-1911 on two Cops armed with Real Glocks.

Maybe he believed the stories that those Glocks would "grenade" and the explosions would take out those police officers and his police problem would then be over...  

The Lady cop was late to the party, but the Perp is sole responsible for giving the invitation to that PoPo Pistol Party ...

If you were really concerned about getting charged with "murder" I would imagine that you would be feverishly researching this stuff so you would know how to defend yourself.

Competent would not be a word used to describe her.  Frankly the only reasons she's not in trouble is because the perp was white and her partner, most likely, was the only one to actually hit the perp.  

As others have said if a CHL shot a guy on the ground the CHL would be in deep shit.

That's horseshit. The bad guy turned, then turned back and pointed his gun. He was still trying to fight. When he went down he was still trying to turn and face the cops.





You want to stop getting shot? Drop your gun. As long as you have the gun, you're still fighting.





 

I doubt it. If he still had the gun then he was still in the fight. No Texas jury is going to convict someone for shooting a guy with a gun.



Hell, look at that guy down by Houston a few years back. He shot two illegals, one in back and at a distance of several yards while the police were telling him to stay in the house, and the grand jury refused to indict.





 

The Charles West shooting in Coppell

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pefvPhzcNy8

I guess he rubs people the wrong way, always getting into trouble. Good news is that he was picked up as a BYU football player, he can be Utah's problem after he heals up from his gunshot wound. Adios hombre!

I guess so!



 

Every combative handgun class I have ever taken which is Tom Givens 1&2, specifically reiterate don't shoot a hostile on the ground unless they are actively engaging you.

Male officer fired something like 9-10 rounds and the man was on the ground layed out. Seconds go by and then she fires at him. Yea, if he would have been black, her ass would be all over the news. If I did that as the hostile was black, I would be George Zimmerman right now.

If you're so knowledgeable on the situation, please explain other than making open ended bullshit comments with not a single ounce of creditable proof or legal merit. Simple fact is, you shoot someone on the ground, you have a nice probability of being tried for something that will cost you alot of time, money, and possibly your life by way of a nice stay in a state sponsored brick 8x8 room with three meals a day. What is saving this woman is she is a woman and the perp is a white male.

I'm not going to do the research for you. All the information is out there. You're the one making a generic, "You don't shoot somebody on the ground!"

Watch the video. There is less than a second in between the male officer stop shooting and when the female officer fires. At the moment the female officer fired, the suspect was on his left side, not even completely on the ground. She already made the decision to fire way before when the suspect was still standing with the gun.

How do you feel about somebody getting shot in the back? When you make the decision to fire, the time it takes for you to actually fire is enough time for somebody to turn completely around.

I did watch the video. Guy could have possibly had up to a dozen combat effective hits from the other officer and was on the ground.

Again, open ended comment with zero credibility or fact behind it. How does one search for "shooting people on the ground"  case law?

Now you are just being silly. You're statements of the facts of the video keep on changing.

Just because somebody is on the ground does not mean they are no longer a threat either.



Where did I tell you to search for case law?

This.

All of it.

It's easy to armchair quarterback critique that shit from the safety of your home. Not so much when the bad guy is 3 feet away from you with a firearm.