I can't say that I find fault with the officers first volley of shoots and I
think most feel the same way. Which means that Sammy was very much responsible for what happened to him. Possibly entirely responsible, as the lethal blow may in fact have been dealt in that first volley. But that alone doesn't change how we should perceive what happened next. Its quite clear from the video's that Sammy is on the ground after the first volley. It then appears(in the gray & white video) that he moves one of his legs while on the ground and this is(possibly) what triggered the second volley of shots. I'm not faulting the officer for that action yet at this point, as all the facts have yet to be presented. As the officer may have simply been following protocol or his training i.e. even if the suspect collapses on the ground, any kind of movement is still to be perceived as a threat. But its difficult to fathom how Sammy could of been perceived as a imminent threat to the officer at that moment, even if he is still holding the knife, considering his position on the floor of the streetcar and the position of the officer. Its also hard to fathom why some don't seem to understand why many of us have concerns with what transpired.
Nobody knows for sure at this point, but from my observation of the vids, he did go down on the first 3 shots, but that officer did not move in yet fired more shots, leaving me to believe that Sammy was injured but still capable of causing harm in the eyes of the shooter.
Currently your only evidence for such is; because he fired 6 more shots that automatically means that Sammy was still viewed as threat to the officer. Logically that makes sense, but
only if you assume that all officers apply good judgement and reasoning in all their actions at all times. I would agree that the
vast majority of the time those in the position of law enforcement give us little reason to doubt that they don't uphold that standard. But we don't live in some utopian society and there are no absolutes in this world. The evidence for which you can find in a simple goggle search such as ''police officer negligence'' which yields 8.68 million results.
Furthermore you do not know what the officers actual thought process was. For all we know the office in question may have already admitted to the SIU that the shooting was in bad judgement or that he was functioning on adrenaline or perhaps he was simply following police protocol. The latter of which would of course absolve him of any wrongdoing.
But I question why only this particular officer perceived Sammy to be such a threat, when
no other officers in the immediate vicinity discharged their guns included at least one
standing directly beside him who also had his gun drawn at Sammy.
Even after all 9 shots are fired, the body language of all the officers still keeping their distance means the situation was still not clear. It was only after the one officer carefully approached and tasered him did the rest seem to look safe and they all rushed in.
Notice they were still ordering him to drop the knofe after he was shot, as well as when he was tasered. The suggestion that all of these cops concocted some silent conspiracy on the spot to pretend Sammy was still alive and dangerous when he was dead is a theory you can't possibly ask me to take seriously.
I don't see how you could possibly use that to substantiate your claim that Sammy was still a threat requiring lethal force. First off most of the officers appear to be positioned such that they do not have a clear view of Sammy while he's on the ground inside the streetcar. Therefore they have no idea what hes actually doing and whether or not he still a threat. Obviously they're not just going to lower their guard until the suspect's status is clear to them. How careless would that be? Besides that, it's standard protocol to behave as cautiously as they did. They're not amateurs who are just going to walk around casually after a shooting.
It means you have committed to killing them.
That's utterly preposterous.
The intent of lethal force is not to kill someone per say, its to stop someone by any means necessary even if that results in their death. It's a subtle but important(and clear) distinction, but one that is completely lost on you. The end goal of lethal force is NOT the suspects death.
