Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazzgun
WVsig
That is very thought provoking. It does give me pause to ponder. However, I wonder if we would be having this same debate of sorts had it been a male off duty officer vs a female.
I don't think in all the video we saw that she could have been certain he was no longer armed. She only used her foot to make him turn over and pin him down so to speak. She did not lean down to frisk him. He could still have had another weapon on him.
She had her foot on him and gun pointed at his head. She could feel if he moved. She needed to give instructions to the crowd, whatever it was she was telling them to do.
I have tried to imagine myself in that same situation, with foot on his back, gun to his head, not knowing the extent of his injuries or if he still had a weapon and not having a back-up. I think I would keep my foot on him too, just so he felt and I felt I had him more under my control.
JMO
|
It has nothing to do with gender. My point is I would have never put my foot on him. I would have kicked the gun out of the way like she did. Secured it and then backup up onto the sidewalk between the perp and the others. From there issuing verbal commands to keep his hands visible and to turn over onto his stomach. If he did not comply with the commands I would take that as aggression and any movement towards me and I would have shot him again.
This is just my take on it. If the perp had a weapon standing on him with her foot in his back did not put her in a better position to defend herself and others. She could have covered him from distance and it would have been just as effective. She could have stood at the position she was in at :34 seconds in the video and accoplished the same thing without putting herself in danger. It would be different in my mind she was moving in to cuff him. IMHO