You have some good points, Roger.. I didn't notice trhat the deputy stepped away from the line of vision. ...But then again, if i am the deputy and
hear some suspicious sounds coming from inside, i may well step away from a direct line of fire that may come through the door.
Yep, and they're trained to do exactly that. If a perp is going to fire on an LEO at the door, they're going to fire through the door, not the wall to either side. They're also, (most likely), trained to be suspicious of
every sound on the opposing side of a closed door.
I suppose if I were the occupant, In would have been wary, especially if for some reason ..I expected hostiles at my door..but I don't expect people
with dangerous intentions to be at my door..
If that is the case, it would be easier to understand the airman's caution, but still, answering the deputy's call with gun in hand, seems like an
unnecessarily risky procedure.
What we don't know is the crime rate(s) of the area, or the apartment complex itself.) If this was the only place that airmen could afford, it could be a risky place to live, and thus his caution was well-intentioned. But in the deputy's defense, the airmen could have simply not opened the door, or talked through it to establish a few facts.
True, he didn't have the gun raised, but how quickly can one raise a gun to shoot, keeping in mind the inherent dangers of answering "domestic" calls
I'll concede your point, but it seems fair to assume that he didn't attempt to raise the weapon at all. I also saw his left hand was away from the doorknob, and was splayed out in what I interpreted as a benign, de-escalating gesture. (You ony get about a 1/2-second to see it, due to cropping of the video.) The deputy had to un-holster, then raise his in order to take the shot, and he didn't stop with a double or triple-tap.....no, he fired five rounds. Seems to me to be obvious over-reaction on his part.
I can tell you this.....in the army guard, every time I got some handgun training, it was triple-tap......2 to the body, and the third to the head after a short hesitation. The idea was that if the target wasn't on it's way down after 2, body armor was involved and #3 finished the task at hand. (But then, that's armed combat on a national scale.)
in any case, some are trying to make a "racial" thing of it, when it seems obvious to me at least, that it is a terrible accident.
I cannot believe that the deputy went there, intending to kill somebody, since even beyond the social repercussione, he would have to face
possibly losing his job as well as his freedom.....for a long time..
Not suggesting he did go with a deadly intent, only saying he over-reacted. (I'll leave the racial thing alone, being as that's akin to beating a dead horse.)
BUT.....we can armchair this until the sun burns out, so I guess we've said about all that we can, until more facts come to the surface.
Roger
