Mike Glover

Which is that threshold beyond their First Amendment protected right.

Because immediately, one, immediately they become felons and they're in the conduct or execution of committing a felony, right?

Which is different in the perspective of how you would view or judge them, right?

If the person wasn't committing a crime and then randomly shot in the back, obviously that would be murder.

if they're in the conduct of committing a felony, they're being stopped or prevented, then that changes the standard, right?

It becomes more objectively reasonable via the standard.

So here's the problem, and you've alluded to this already.

One, was it a good shoot?

In my opinion, it was not a good shoot.

I agree.

One of the things to consider though, is based on what perspective?

Because most of the analysis and people who are judging this, some experts, some not, is that they're analyzing it from a perspective from a cell phone camera perspective, like even this camera perspective right here.

This is not the perspective of the officer's senses.

You can't.

and and and so if you take the standard and we're talking about somebody who's objective and reasonable would other officers feel the same well apparently only two officers shot right so that would be the question like wait a minute well if it was reasonable why didn't nobody else shoot well here's a problem one as they're wrestling with this guy

One of the officers sees that he has a firearm and a holster underneath the shirt and announces gun.

Now, it's hard to find out what that SOP means per the department, but in our line of work, downrange, if you said gun, somebody was getting killed.

Yeah, but we're not downrange.

This is Minneapolis.

Just as a contrast, if we were downrange and we said gun, that would be our SOP.