Funny you mention political bias. There is a non political motive on my answers today as I'm looking at the shooting itself rather than what's behind it. The only thing that would make this exchange more surreal would be
@Rasputin_Vol or
@DEFENDTHISHOUSE coming in here and defending the cops...
Anyway...
Basically, the standard for such things, and
@lawgator1 can confirm (don't know if he will), is the "objective reasonableness" standard and judging the actions from the officer's perspective. Having been in high stress (and far more violent as mentioned) situations like this, tensions would be high, communications/information spotty at best and even fear could creep in. So, I'm kind of surprised there was only one shooting.
Anyway, taking those factors into account, I still have to judge the "threat" by three standards prior to using deadly force:
Intent - was her intent to cause harm or death to others? This one has a slight gray area so long as the officer can explain why he perceived her to be threatening
Capability - did she have the capability of inflicting harm or death on others. She had no weapons, so, this one certainly wasn't met
Opportunity - was she in a position to cause harm or death to others? She was attempting to climb through the window, so this one is really thin. Plus, she hadn't made it through. Now, one of the arguments someone will make is "she was advancing towards the officer." Which is complete BS because he advanced laterally towards her before shooting. I.E. he was putting himself in a position to have to use force. Which brings me to my next point...
Were all other measures of force used or could be used prior to enjoying deadly force? He was a plainclothes DC Metro officer, so I don't know if they have less than lethal capabilities in that uniform. The problem comes in that if all you have is a hammer (firearm) all problems look like nails. I don't blame the officer necessarily for that since carrying a bunch of LTL items in a suit isn't practical.
But the three biggest things that stand out to me are:
That lobby had a whole hoop of uniformed officers already inside. If she was a "threat" why didn't they take issue with it from their side?
No warnings were given, regardless of the useless video PJ wants to post where someone "claims" they were given fair warning. First day of investigator school it was hammered into our heads "eye witness accounts are beyond useless in these situations." Something a lot of people refuse to understand or belive these days. It's not what you hear from a third party, it's what you can prove through evidence.
And last, but not least, the advancement of said cop towards the threat. The video is quite clear. He takes two steps towards her, fires a single shot, then retreats back to his position. Why is this important?
Because if a known threat was coming through that door, he put himself at greater risk by exposing his body to open/broken windows before taking the shot. You can clearly see him on the videos moving out of a somewhat covered position to take the shot. If this crowd was as "violent" as some let on and you suspected them to be armed, you never,
never remove yourself from cover and expose your flank like that.
Long winded answer to a complicated question and removing the political angle. But in my mind, using knowledge and known facts, this was not a valid shoot at all.
