|
To keep this thread open for discussion, please READ THIS BEFORE POSTING:The following types of posts are banworthy: - Nation bashing. - Significantly disrespectful posts toward any of the parties involved. Please familiarize yourself with some of the basics on the use of force in the United States before posting in this thread. If you feel the need to post a reaction to the news, post a comment on the youtube video. Don't bring it here. This thread is for a discussion on the topic, and your post better have substance to it. Low content posts will be met with moderator action. Here is a good post by someone with experience in escalation of force training. Read that too. This post might change your opinion of in the incident. |
On January 25 2012 17:01 DanceOnCreep wrote:
ya but the video with the car stop is a complete different situation, cuz he had no backup etc. the situation was far away from under control than in the video of the topic. for me its like u compare apples and tomatos. and in my opinion police officer is a hard job but u have to be on top of the decisions u make there is no room for mistakes, and in my opinon the topic video is a example when its wrong to use the weapon and when a officer should be punished with jail. thats my opinon and u wont change it.
I agree the 2 situations aren't directly comparable
the traffic stop situation had a suspect acting way less threatening than the guy in the OP. One of them was dancing and yelling like a crazy person, the other was swinging a fucking hammer at a cop. They are extremely different situations but they demonstrate a common principal.
A police officer should use exactly as much force as necessary (hopefully their training is good enough as to give them sound judgement on what force is required) to secure the situation. In all honesty if the traffic stop cop had just restrained the guy as soon as he got in his face the subsequent incident may have possibly been avoided. He didn't need to shoot the man just restrain him forcefully before he went back to his truck. But i really don't want to discuss what ifs in what is really a tragic tragic incident 
In the OP, there was no option to simply restrain or take down the suspect, he was about to violently assault an officer. If every cop who fired at someone attacking his partner was jailed; there would likely be a major decline in the number of people willing to enter the police force......
|
On January 25 2012 17:04 xrapture wrote:
If someone came at me with a frekin crowbar and was in the act of swinging it I would shoot him. I wouldn't shoot him in the chest, but that's the thing. Cops are trained (and rightly so) to go above and beyond what is needed to stop the threat. If the man shot the guy in the shoulder or leg, and he hit his partner in the face with the crowbar the cop wouldn't be doing his job.
I don't mean to call you a liar, but I honestly doubt that you would shoot them somewhere else but in the chest considering it is significant easier to land a shot aiming for the chest, not to mention all the adrenaline pumping as your life may be ended in a few seconds. It's easy for us to say that we could have handled it better, but we are completely ignorant of the atmosphere of the situation as we sit in the comfort and safety of our computer chairs.
|
On January 25 2012 16:29 Saryph wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 16:24 DDie wrote:''Police enforce social order through the legitimized use of force. Use of force describes the "amount of effort required by police to compel compliance by an unwilling subject" [1]. The levels, or continuum, of force police use include basic verbal and physical restraint, less-lethal force and lethal force. Police officers should use only the amount of force necessary to control an incident, effect an arrest, or protect themselves or others from harm or death.''http://nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/welcome.htmI'm sorry, but i just can't see how firing 10 rounds (5 of them while the suspect is down) is ''moderated, sufficient, and necessary'', in this particular case. It would have made a diference if the guy was only shot 2-3 times? Probably not, but 10 shots is WAY excessive, i guess its too much to ask for a law enforcer to keep his cool in stressfull situations? Its like no one reads the thread before posting. The guy was still standing after five shots, and they knew he was highly resistant to feeling pain(probably from drugs) due to him shrugging off a taser to the face earlier. If a guy who just charged you with a deadly weapon only took a step away and turned his back to you after being shot a few times by a low caliber weapon, you must assume he is still a threat. If you disagree with him still being up, watch the video, he doesn't go down until the second officer shoots him. Hell, he was still alive until after they took him away from the scene, ten bullets didn't kill him immediately...
He was barely standing and in clear retreat. A man with a close-quarter weapon was shot 5 times and was backing away. You shoot him 5 more times because he was standing?
And why do people keep ignoring this point: 10 shots in 3 seconds. That's not even enough time for a person to properly realize he's been shot.
Another point: The officers did not keep their distance! Though he did gesture aggressively, he did not make a full charge at the officers at any point in time.
|
On January 25 2012 16:38 DDie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 16:29 Saryph wrote:On January 25 2012 16:24 DDie wrote:''Police enforce social order through the legitimized use of force. Use of force describes the "amount of effort required by police to compel compliance by an unwilling subject" [1]. The levels, or continuum, of force police use include basic verbal and physical restraint, less-lethal force and lethal force. Police officers should use only the amount of force necessary to control an incident, effect an arrest, or protect themselves or others from harm or death.''http://nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/welcome.htmI'm sorry, but i just can't see how firing 10 rounds (5 of them while the suspect is down) is ''moderated, sufficient, and necessary'', in this particular case. It would have made a diference if the guy was only shot 2-3 times? Probably not, but 10 shots is WAY excessive, i guess its too much to ask for a law enforcer to keep his cool in stressfull situations? Its like no one reads the thread before posting. The guy was still standing after five shots, and they knew he was highly resistant to feeling pain(probably from drugs) due to him shrugging off a taser to the face earlier. If a guy who just charged you with a deadly weapon only took a step away and turned his back to you after being shot a few times by a low caliber weapon, you must assume he is still a threat. If you disagree with him still being up, watch the video, he doesn't go down until the second officer shoots him. Hell, he was still alive until after they took him away from the scene, ten bullets didn't kill him immediately... Someone with a close-range weapon, 10 feet away, on his back, and who just got shot 5 times, against two trained and armed officers is still a threat, LOL, ok, i guess that's a way of looking into it..
Do you read anything? Cus if you do you didn't address any of the following:
He was tazered and was still up.
He was shot 5 times and was still up.
He COULD most definitely still turn around and take out a gun.
How do you know he wasn't wearing body armor?
|
On January 25 2012 16:39 mTw|NarutO wrote:
Serious question: Are policemen in the US trained to shoot at the torso, because policemen in Germany for example are not. They are trained to hit legs/arms to not kill the target but make it immobile.
I have a hard time believing that... You're much more likely to miss if you aim for anything else the center of the body. How many times have you seen a target with a human silouhette have bullseyes on the arms ?
I've had a bit of police and military training in France and were also taught to shoot in the torso.
|
On January 25 2012 17:14 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 16:29 Saryph wrote:On January 25 2012 16:24 DDie wrote:''Police enforce social order through the legitimized use of force. Use of force describes the "amount of effort required by police to compel compliance by an unwilling subject" [1]. The levels, or continuum, of force police use include basic verbal and physical restraint, less-lethal force and lethal force. Police officers should use only the amount of force necessary to control an incident, effect an arrest, or protect themselves or others from harm or death.''http://nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/welcome.htmI'm sorry, but i just can't see how firing 10 rounds (5 of them while the suspect is down) is ''moderated, sufficient, and necessary'', in this particular case. It would have made a diference if the guy was only shot 2-3 times? Probably not, but 10 shots is WAY excessive, i guess its too much to ask for a law enforcer to keep his cool in stressfull situations? Its like no one reads the thread before posting. The guy was still standing after five shots, and they knew he was highly resistant to feeling pain(probably from drugs) due to him shrugging off a taser to the face earlier. If a guy who just charged you with a deadly weapon only took a step away and turned his back to you after being shot a few times by a low caliber weapon, you must assume he is still a threat. If you disagree with him still being up, watch the video, he doesn't go down until the second officer shoots him. Hell, he was still alive until after they took him away from the scene, ten bullets didn't kill him immediately... He was barely standing and in clear retreat. A man with a close-quarter weapon was shot 5 times and was backing away. You shoot him 5 more times because he was standing? And why do people keep ignoring this point: 10 shots in 3 seconds. That's not even enough time for a person to properly realize he's been shot. Another point: The officers did not keep their distance! Though he did gesture aggressively, he did not make a full charge at the officers at any point in time.
How can you be certain he didnt have a concealed weapon? AND his back was to the officers... come on man.....
clear retreat? What does that even mean he was recoiling from being shot, he is just as likely to pull a gun and go out in a blaze of glory as he is to "clearly retreat"
How would YOU have handled the situation? Did you watch the video of the officer who didn't shoot?
|
On January 25 2012 17:16 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 16:39 mTw|NarutO wrote:
Serious question: Are policemen in the US trained to shoot at the torso, because policemen in Germany for example are not. They are trained to hit legs/arms to not kill the target but make it immobile. I have a hard time believing that... You're much more likely to miss if you aim for anything else the center of the body. How many times have you seen a target with a human silouhette have bullseyes on the arms ? I've had a bit of police and military training in France and were also taught to shoot in the torso.
Yea I'd like a source on German police being taught to not shoot for center mass.
Must have some good shots over there; seriously
|
This seems perfectly legit to me, and I'm usually very sensitive to police brutality. Thing is, this happened in the US, where firearms are everywhere. Cops in the states have to shoot to kill in most circumstances, since hand guns are so small and so lethal. In most other western countries cops are not exposed to the same level of lethal violence, and so can afford to be more lenient in regard to force used to subdue a violent offender. Had this happened in Sweden I'd have been the first to cry foul.
|
On January 25 2012 17:13 Gunther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 17:04 xrapture wrote:
If someone came at me with a frekin crowbar and was in the act of swinging it I would shoot him. I wouldn't shoot him in the chest, but that's the thing. Cops are trained (and rightly so) to go above and beyond what is needed to stop the threat. If the man shot the guy in the shoulder or leg, and he hit his partner in the face with the crowbar the cop wouldn't be doing his job. I don't mean to call you a liar, but I honestly doubt that you would shoot them somewhere else but in the chest considering it is significant easier to land a shot aiming for the chest, not to mention all the adrenaline pumping as your life may be ended in a few seconds. It's easy for us to say that we could have handled it better, but we are completely ignorant of the atmosphere of the situation as we sit in the comfort and safety of our computer chairs.
Na, I would definitely shoot him in the belly, but I'd still have to be aware of the possibility that he could still be a threat. Cops can't take that chance. You stop the threat, period.
|
Goal of a use of firearms, among other things, the prevention of the escape of suspects or convicts and the defense present a significant risk of specific threats to life or limb (eg Amoklagen). Here, the addressee of the measure be harmed physically, eg leg by a shot. However, this need not always be the case - the gun can also be against things (shot at the tires of a fleeing vehicle) or be used as a threat (warning shot).
That the German standing of law. Source is the German Wikipedia: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffengebrauch_der_Polizei_in_Deutschland
|
On January 25 2012 17:19 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 17:16 Geiko wrote:On January 25 2012 16:39 mTw|NarutO wrote:
Serious question: Are policemen in the US trained to shoot at the torso, because policemen in Germany for example are not. They are trained to hit legs/arms to not kill the target but make it immobile. I have a hard time believing that... You're much more likely to miss if you aim for anything else the center of the body. How many times have you seen a target with a human silouhette have bullseyes on the arms ? I've had a bit of police and military training in France and were also taught to shoot in the torso. Yea I'd like a source on German police being taught to not shoot for center mass. Must have some good shots over there; seriously
I only have a german UN document (and as far as I can tell its not directly stating that you should shoot for legs or arms if possible) where it says that you should use the least amount of violenc necessary and always have to try to preserve the life of any involved parties. For any other german speaking person out there they can translate that for the other guys, I suck at translating german to english.
http://www.un.org/depts/german/conf/ac144-28c.pdf (page 3)
|
On January 25 2012 17:18 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 17:14 plogamer wrote:On January 25 2012 16:29 Saryph wrote:On January 25 2012 16:24 DDie wrote:''Police enforce social order through the legitimized use of force. Use of force describes the "amount of effort required by police to compel compliance by an unwilling subject" [1]. The levels, or continuum, of force police use include basic verbal and physical restraint, less-lethal force and lethal force. Police officers should use only the amount of force necessary to control an incident, effect an arrest, or protect themselves or others from harm or death.''http://nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/welcome.htmI'm sorry, but i just can't see how firing 10 rounds (5 of them while the suspect is down) is ''moderated, sufficient, and necessary'', in this particular case. It would have made a diference if the guy was only shot 2-3 times? Probably not, but 10 shots is WAY excessive, i guess its too much to ask for a law enforcer to keep his cool in stressfull situations? Its like no one reads the thread before posting. The guy was still standing after five shots, and they knew he was highly resistant to feeling pain(probably from drugs) due to him shrugging off a taser to the face earlier. If a guy who just charged you with a deadly weapon only took a step away and turned his back to you after being shot a few times by a low caliber weapon, you must assume he is still a threat. If you disagree with him still being up, watch the video, he doesn't go down until the second officer shoots him. Hell, he was still alive until after they took him away from the scene, ten bullets didn't kill him immediately... He was barely standing and in clear retreat. A man with a close-quarter weapon was shot 5 times and was backing away. You shoot him 5 more times because he was standing? And why do people keep ignoring this point: 10 shots in 3 seconds. That's not even enough time for a person to properly realize he's been shot. Another point: The officers did not keep their distance! Though he did gesture aggressively, he did not make a full charge at the officers at any point in time. How can you be certain he didnt have a concealed weapon? AND his back was to the officers... come on man..... clear retreat? What does that even mean he was recoiling from being shot, he is just as likely to pull a gun and go out in a blaze of glory as he is to "clearly retreat" How would YOU have handled the situation? Did you watch the video of the officer who didn't shoot?
Again with the "what if". "What if" is not a legal defense. There has to be -some- indication of a hidden weapon before acting under the assumption of a hidden weapon. I would be okay if the suspect suddenly turned again to face the officers and was shot 5 more times. Making a sudden movement like that could mean discharging a hidden firearm. But no, he was shot in the back. Do you understand?
|
Shooting the torso is the safest, aiming for his legs and having bullets possibly ricochet into civilians standing around everywhere is a bad idea. I'm guessing the shots after the initial few were adrenaline, and the dog is more for a suspect fleeing the scene, why would you send your dog at a guy with a crow bar to possibly kill the dog? Not really much to talk about, the guy was being an idiot and didn't obey orders.
|
On January 25 2012 17:29 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 17:18 stokes17 wrote:On January 25 2012 17:14 plogamer wrote:On January 25 2012 16:29 Saryph wrote:On January 25 2012 16:24 DDie wrote:''Police enforce social order through the legitimized use of force. Use of force describes the "amount of effort required by police to compel compliance by an unwilling subject" [1]. The levels, or continuum, of force police use include basic verbal and physical restraint, less-lethal force and lethal force. Police officers should use only the amount of force necessary to control an incident, effect an arrest, or protect themselves or others from harm or death.''http://nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/welcome.htmI'm sorry, but i just can't see how firing 10 rounds (5 of them while the suspect is down) is ''moderated, sufficient, and necessary'', in this particular case. It would have made a diference if the guy was only shot 2-3 times? Probably not, but 10 shots is WAY excessive, i guess its too much to ask for a law enforcer to keep his cool in stressfull situations? Its like no one reads the thread before posting. The guy was still standing after five shots, and they knew he was highly resistant to feeling pain(probably from drugs) due to him shrugging off a taser to the face earlier. If a guy who just charged you with a deadly weapon only took a step away and turned his back to you after being shot a few times by a low caliber weapon, you must assume he is still a threat. If you disagree with him still being up, watch the video, he doesn't go down until the second officer shoots him. Hell, he was still alive until after they took him away from the scene, ten bullets didn't kill him immediately... He was barely standing and in clear retreat. A man with a close-quarter weapon was shot 5 times and was backing away. You shoot him 5 more times because he was standing? And why do people keep ignoring this point: 10 shots in 3 seconds. That's not even enough time for a person to properly realize he's been shot. Another point: The officers did not keep their distance! Though he did gesture aggressively, he did not make a full charge at the officers at any point in time. How can you be certain he didnt have a concealed weapon? AND his back was to the officers... come on man..... clear retreat? What does that even mean he was recoiling from being shot, he is just as likely to pull a gun and go out in a blaze of glory as he is to "clearly retreat" How would YOU have handled the situation? Did you watch the video of the officer who didn't shoot? Again with the "what if". "What if" is not a legal defense. There has to be -some- indication of a hidden weapon before acting under the assumption of a hidden weapon. I would be okay if the suspect suddenly turned again to face the officers and was shot 5 more times. Making a sudden movement like that could mean discharging a hidden firearm. But no, he was shot in the back. Do you understand?
This doesn't matter in the first place as the suspect had a known deadly weapon still in his possession and had already charged the police with weapon at the ready. Suspect was already screwed if you're talking law, and the police were within their right to defend themselves from a deadly threat.
|
On January 25 2012 17:18 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 17:14 plogamer wrote:On January 25 2012 16:29 Saryph wrote:On January 25 2012 16:24 DDie wrote:''Police enforce social order through the legitimized use of force. Use of force describes the "amount of effort required by police to compel compliance by an unwilling subject" [1]. The levels, or continuum, of force police use include basic verbal and physical restraint, less-lethal force and lethal force. Police officers should use only the amount of force necessary to control an incident, effect an arrest, or protect themselves or others from harm or death.''http://nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/welcome.htmI'm sorry, but i just can't see how firing 10 rounds (5 of them while the suspect is down) is ''moderated, sufficient, and necessary'', in this particular case. It would have made a diference if the guy was only shot 2-3 times? Probably not, but 10 shots is WAY excessive, i guess its too much to ask for a law enforcer to keep his cool in stressfull situations? Its like no one reads the thread before posting. The guy was still standing after five shots, and they knew he was highly resistant to feeling pain(probably from drugs) due to him shrugging off a taser to the face earlier. If a guy who just charged you with a deadly weapon only took a step away and turned his back to you after being shot a few times by a low caliber weapon, you must assume he is still a threat. If you disagree with him still being up, watch the video, he doesn't go down until the second officer shoots him. Hell, he was still alive until after they took him away from the scene, ten bullets didn't kill him immediately... He was barely standing and in clear retreat. A man with a close-quarter weapon was shot 5 times and was backing away. You shoot him 5 more times because he was standing? And why do people keep ignoring this point: 10 shots in 3 seconds. That's not even enough time for a person to properly realize he's been shot. Another point: The officers did not keep their distance! Though he did gesture aggressively, he did not make a full charge at the officers at any point in time. How can you be certain he didnt have a concealed weapon? AND his back was to the officers... come on man..... clear retreat? What does that even mean he was recoiling from being shot, he is just as likely to pull a gun and go out in a blaze of glory as he is to "clearly retreat" How would YOU have handled the situation? Did you watch the video of the officer who didn't shoot?
So it's okay to shoot someone because they MIGHT at some point in the future reach for a firearm they POSSIBLY have tucked away in their pants, and for some reason haven't pulled out already?
Not going to be as bombastic with my judgement as 90% of the people posting here, but I know for a fact that justifying 5 more rounds after the first 5 would be VERY, VERY hard in for instance Norway, and probably any other western European country.
The situation in the US however, is different, the police are allowed to use alot more force alot sooner so it will be interesting to see if this has any repercussions for the police officer.
A good question here is, did he fire the last 5 round because he feared for his/other officers life, or because he was so stressed and "lost" it? If he lost it and killed a man because of it, I think the police officer deserves some form of punishment. If he feared for his/someone elses life, well then he shot to prevent bodily harm, and then I assume you have to show that your fear was justifiable.
|
|
|
People are upset in this thread that a guy with enough drugs in him to not feel a taser in the face was shot while standing only a few feet away from two officers, while he was wielding a deadly weapon and had just charged at them with the weapon raised and ready. His back was to them, obscuring their view of what he was doing with his hands, though they knew he was armed with a a deadly weapon. Yeah....
|
The two posts outlined in the OP (on the methodology of force and 0.42-0.45) are very valid and a good summary of what I suppose I could say here. As with any death - it's clearly tragic, but I wouldn't nail this one down to something the Police officer should be entirely charged with murder or something similar. Given all of the tools, training and context available, the outcome was well within the borders of expected and the discussion comes down to entirely if the force was reasonable. However, as the citing of 0.42-0.45 outlines, training and conditions could be improved that might have resulted in a "better" outcome with no loss of life. Nevertheless, that's something that can only be said in hindsight - the officer made a seeming mistake that aggravated the situation, and may have used too much force. However, the core of the action to defend against an aggressor seems entirely appropriate, and in those situations it is hinging on a great deal of instinct and muscle memory - hence procedure is the primary concern here, I feel.
|
1) Handguns are NOT death-dealing machines like what you see in the movies. It often takes many, many shots to hit the CNS which is when the bad guy drops.
2) We don't know how many of the bullets actually hit. Again, most people don't realize just how easy it is to miss from even that range, especially if you're shooting one-handed with a freakin' dog on your other hand and adrenaline pumping like crazy.
3) They tased him, he shrugged it off. Probability of drug use higher from police's POV, which means that more shots are probably needed to put him down.
4) People don't shoot to kill, they shoot to stop whatever the threat was. That is, when you know they're on the ground and not moving. Unfortunately this has the side effect of usually killing or severely wounding the person. The guy could easily have had a pistol hidden on his waistband.
5) Imagine its your close friend who's being lunged at by some lunatic that may be on drugs with a freakin crowbar. You'll want to put an end to that immediately, I'm pretty sure most will agree.
|
On January 25 2012 17:35 Saryph wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 17:29 plogamer wrote:On January 25 2012 17:18 stokes17 wrote:On January 25 2012 17:14 plogamer wrote:On January 25 2012 16:29 Saryph wrote:On January 25 2012 16:24 DDie wrote:''Police enforce social order through the legitimized use of force. Use of force describes the "amount of effort required by police to compel compliance by an unwilling subject" [1]. The levels, or continuum, of force police use include basic verbal and physical restraint, less-lethal force and lethal force. Police officers should use only the amount of force necessary to control an incident, effect an arrest, or protect themselves or others from harm or death.''http://nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/welcome.htmI'm sorry, but i just can't see how firing 10 rounds (5 of them while the suspect is down) is ''moderated, sufficient, and necessary'', in this particular case. It would have made a diference if the guy was only shot 2-3 times? Probably not, but 10 shots is WAY excessive, i guess its too much to ask for a law enforcer to keep his cool in stressfull situations? Its like no one reads the thread before posting. The guy was still standing after five shots, and they knew he was highly resistant to feeling pain(probably from drugs) due to him shrugging off a taser to the face earlier. If a guy who just charged you with a deadly weapon only took a step away and turned his back to you after being shot a few times by a low caliber weapon, you must assume he is still a threat. If you disagree with him still being up, watch the video, he doesn't go down until the second officer shoots him. Hell, he was still alive until after they took him away from the scene, ten bullets didn't kill him immediately... He was barely standing and in clear retreat. A man with a close-quarter weapon was shot 5 times and was backing away. You shoot him 5 more times because he was standing? And why do people keep ignoring this point: 10 shots in 3 seconds. That's not even enough time for a person to properly realize he's been shot. Another point: The officers did not keep their distance! Though he did gesture aggressively, he did not make a full charge at the officers at any point in time. How can you be certain he didnt have a concealed weapon? AND his back was to the officers... come on man..... clear retreat? What does that even mean he was recoiling from being shot, he is just as likely to pull a gun and go out in a blaze of glory as he is to "clearly retreat" How would YOU have handled the situation? Did you watch the video of the officer who didn't shoot? Again with the "what if". "What if" is not a legal defense. There has to be -some- indication of a hidden weapon before acting under the assumption of a hidden weapon. I would be okay if the suspect suddenly turned again to face the officers and was shot 5 more times. Making a sudden movement like that could mean discharging a hidden firearm. But no, he was shot in the back. Do you understand? This doesn't matter in the first place as the suspect had a known deadly weapon still in his possession and had already charged the police with weapon at the ready. Suspect was already screwed if you're talking law, and the police were within their right to defend themselves from a deadly threat.
Deadly threat only because they moved into the range of the weapon. There is video evidence to prove that. The officers availed themselves to the threat without taking proper precautions i.e. maintaining a distance.
The threat also has to be imminent. From a proper distance, a man with a crowbar, with bullet wounds, is no longer an imminent threat - unless he gestures to begin a charge or an attack of some sort.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
