Alex Pretti was ‘known’ to feds, and had rib broken in anti-ICE protest a week before he was killed by Border Patrol

[OODA_Loop]

Imminent means something is about to happen, likely to occur very soon, or hanging over you, often implying something significant, serious, or even dangerous is coming at any moment, like "imminent danger" or "an imminent strike". It describes an event that is close in time and impending, rather than immediate (which means right now).

• Definition:
  Likely to occur at any moment; impending.

Translate this (of course still lacking a citation of applicable law from you) to the NYPD shooting.

When would that situation become imminent in your LE experience?

 

[postman]

As a cop shooting an armed assailant who is fighting you is not murder.

Pretti was disarmed BEFORE they shot him.
We see in the video, an agent with nothing in his hand reaching down at Pretti, and then a moment later he had a SIG in his hand, as he walked away.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Pretti was disarmed BEFORE they shot him.
We see in the video, an agent with nothing in his hand reaching down at Pretti, and then a moment later he had a SIG in his hand, as he walked away.

Please detail what each of the officers saw in the "moment" (about 1 second) before the call of the gun and the first shot.

 

[gipper]

Please detail and support what each officer saw in the one second before the gun is believed to be discovered and the shots.

You can seriously justify murdering a disarmed man lying face down. Can you?

 

[postman]

When does someone who has barricaded himself in room with innocents and charges LE with an edged weapon become an imminent threat exactly.

Depends how he's holding the edged weapon. If he's holding it by the blade, prepared to throw it, then the minimum safe distance would be around 30 feet.

Holding it by the handle, in order to stab someone, minimum safe distance is around 10 feet.

Using lethal force outside of those ranges and circumstances would not be justified.

 

[OODA_Loop]

You can seriously justify murdering a disarmed man lying face down. Can you?

I can seriously justify shooting an armed person fighting myself and other officers until the threat is neutralized.

If officers are using deadly force, they’re usually trained to not pause their fire and to shoot in quick succession – taking a break to assess the suspect they’re shooting at could give that suspect time to harm them or others, he said.


And legally, the number of shots officers fire often doesn’t matter, he said: Under the Fourth Amendment, officers must have had reason to believe the suspect they fired on was a threat who could’ve killed them or caused great bodily harm. The court determines whether the officer was reasonable in making that assessment, not whether the number of shots fired was reasonable.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/26/us/why-police-shoot-so-many-rounds-trnd/

 

[postman]

Please detail what each of the officers saw in the "moment" (about 1 second) before the call of the gun and the first shot.

They saw a man who was just disarmed of his weapon, and pinned face down on the ground.

 

[postman]

I can seriously justify shooting an armed person fighting myself and other officers until the threat is neutralization.

What you leave out is, the suspect was UNARMED.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Depends how he's holding the edged weapon. If he's holding it by the blade, prepared to throw it, then the minimum safe distance would be around 30 feet.

Holding it by the handle, in order to stab someone, minimum safe distance is around 10 feet.

Using lethal force outside of those ranges and circumstances would not be justified.

Where did you get your LE training?

Please demonstrate how the Tueller Drill and standards is inaccurate.

The Tueller Drill is a situational awareness and reaction-time exercise designed to illustrate the danger posed by an attacker armed with a melee weapon at close range, that underscores how quickly a close-range threat can escalate. Tueller did his tests and studies at 21 feet (7 yards) because it was already common for officers to train to shoot from this distance. Tueller found that a person would be in danger if an attacker came at him from this distance.[1] According to NRA publication Shooting Illustrated, the Tueller Drill evolved into a "21-foot rule," which is the idea that an attacker can close a distance of 21 feet within 1.5 seconds, and that therefore 1.5 seconds is generally taken to be the minimum response time facing a threat

Tueller Drill - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[OODA_Loop]

They saw a man who was just disarmed of his weapon, and pinned face down on the ground.

How do you know this with certainty ? Please post your source.

Answer in advance: You don't.

 

[OODA_Loop]

What you leave out is, the suspect was UNARMED.

One second from when the gun is seen on some video footage and the first shot.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Jumped and mugged by violent thugs for blowing a whistle

According to the media who - holy hell - lied about him in every possible way.
A testament to - people believe what they want to believe.
Media you like says something you like - instant gospel, 100% true.
Media you don't like - all lies, conspiracy and rightwing MAGA

 

[pknopp]

According to the media who - holy hell - lied about him in every possible way.
A testament to - people believe what they want to believe.
Media you like says something you like - instant gospel, 100% true.
Media you don't like - all lies, conspiracy and rightwing MAGA

we saw the video.

 

[postman]

Where did you get your LE training?

Please demonstrate how the Tueller Drill and standards is inaccurate.

The Tueller Drill is a situational awareness and reaction-time exercise designed to illustrate the danger posed by an attacker armed with a melee weapon at close range, that underscores how quickly a close-range threat can escalate. Tueller did his tests and studies at 21 feet (7 yards) because it was already common for officers to train to shoot from this distance. Tueller found that a person would be in danger if an attacker came at him from this distance.[1] According to NRA publication Shooting Illustrated, the Tueller Drill evolved into a "21-foot rule," which is the idea that an attacker can close a distance of 21 feet within 1.5 seconds, and that therefore 1.5 seconds is generally taken to be the minimum response time facing a threat

Tueller Drill - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I see you left an important piece of information from your citation

This distance allows a motivated attacker to close the gap in roughly 1.5 seconds, which is the typical time it takes to draw and accurately fire a holstered handgun.

The distance to fire when the gun is already drawn, and the officer issues warnings to the person is much closer.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

we saw the video.

You saw a snippet, edited for narrative.
You did not see what happened prior to that, or after that, or what he has done before and since it.
A video snippet, edited with agenda in mine is not reality - it is propaganda.

 

[pknopp]

You saw a snippet, edited for narrative.
You did not see what happened prior to that, or after that, or what he has done before and since it.
A video snippet, edited with agenda in mine is not reality - it is propaganda.

Shot 9 times in the back.

 

[gipper]

I can seriously justify shooting an armed person fighting myself and other officers until the threat is neutralized.

If officers are using deadly force, they’re usually trained to not pause their fire and to shoot in quick succession – taking a break to assess the suspect they’re shooting at could give that suspect time to harm them or others, he said.


And legally, the number of shots officers fire often doesn’t matter, he said: Under the Fourth Amendment, officers must have had reason to believe the suspect they fired on was a threat who could’ve killed them or caused great bodily harm. The court determines whether the officer was reasonable in making that assessment, not whether the number of shots fired was reasonable.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/26/us/why-police-shoot-so-many-rounds-trnd/

Why are you lying? Did your eyes deceive you?

 

[postman]

Shot 9 times in the back.

I thought it was 10 times.

In total, 10 shots were fired in less than five seconds, according to a forensic audio analysis of the videos conducted for ABC News.

The autopsy report would be a more accurate figure.

 

[postman]

Why are you lying? Did your eyes deceive you?

They using the ZOMBIE rule.
Or the rule from movies like Halloween, or Friday the 13th.

 

[OODA_Loop]

The distance to fire when the gun is already drawn, and the officer issues warnings to the person is much closer.

In that case its about a second for the OODA Loop cycle, the reactive gap, the decision and the time to put the finger on the trigger and squeeze off shots.

Action beats reaction every time. I have stood with an empty gun pointing at a training officers head in close range and couldnt fire until he moved. Took or rendered the gun effective everytime.

Police Officer Reaction Time to Start and Stop Shooting

www.forcescience.com