Secondly, it actually looks like the victim is approaching the shooter as the shooter is walking by. Something is said and the shooter squares up on the victim, I think the victim actually uses mace, and then the shooter fires twice. That's still basically murder unless there's some sort of significant additional evidence that we don't have yet.
Right, that's why the context to what lead up to the shooting is super important.
For Brooks, remember that the cops a) were told that Taser's are lethal force the previous week by the prosecutor's office that was criminally charging them, b) had fought with the officers and attempted to dry stun them already to get their gun, c) the cops are not only have no duty to retreat, but have a duty to engage. That means that the only way the cops are actually going to be stopped is if Brooks kills them. The context of this shooting is very different.
I am concerned that because the victim approached the shooter, he may have instigated something.
However, if you watch previous videos, it seems like the shooter was constantly fiddling with his pistol I think he was waiting for an excuse to use it. Instead of withdrawing, like a normal defensive use, the shooter approaches the victim.
I get the distinct video that what probably happened is that the shooter was talking shit generally, the victims associate was the one who said something like "we got a couple right here", the victim probably yapped at the shooter, the shooter squared up to him and drew his gun, the victim sprayed him when he saw the gun, and the shooter shot the victim.
Looking at this favorably for the shooter, I'd say this is an iffy shoot that would lead to the shooter getting charged. If someone approaches you, your first goal is to keep distant so they can't close on you. Instead, he squared up and probably drew a gun. You might be able to argue that's a defensive display... but that doesn't explain why you stepped into the engagement. Best case: get a good lawyer because you weren't confronted with lethal force and a jury might have to decide this one.
The speed and silence of this encounter is not typical of a defensive gun use. This doeslook more like a murder. The shooter's not yelling "get back or I'll shoot". The shooter approaches the victim. The shooter doesn't surrender to the police, nor does he report it. The shooter seemed to be waiting for an excuse all day.
If you ever watch Active Self Protection on YouTube, a big thing the pastor goes over is "When can you shoot, and when must you shoot?" This is clearly not 'must', and the 'can' is very sketchy.
Brooks was resisting arrest, assaulting officers, and ultimately used what is actually defined as a lethal weapon. I haven't seen evidence that mace is defined as lethal in Portland.
It doesn't sound like they're saying that to me.
Secondly, it actually looks like the victim is approaching the shooter as the shooter is walking by. Something is said and the shooter squares up on the victim, I think the victim actually uses mace, and then the shooter fires twice. That's still basically murder unless there's some sort of significant additional evidence that we don't have yet.
Though all is very fuzzy, I agree with your take at this time.
Right, that's why the context to what lead up to the shooting is super important.
For Brooks, remember that the cops a) were told that Taser's are lethal force the previous week by the prosecutor's office that was criminally charging them, b) had fought with the officers and attempted to dry stun them already to get their gun, c) the cops are not only have no duty to retreat, but have a duty to engage. That means that the only way the cops are actually going to be stopped is if Brooks kills them. The context of this shooting is very different.
I am concerned that because the victim approached the shooter, he may have instigated something.
However, if you watch previous videos, it seems like the shooter was constantly fiddling with his pistol I think he was waiting for an excuse to use it. Instead of withdrawing, like a normal defensive use, the shooter approaches the victim.
I get the distinct video that what probably happened is that the shooter was talking shit generally, the victims associate was the one who said something like "we got a couple right here", the victim probably yapped at the shooter, the shooter squared up to him and drew his gun, the victim sprayed him when he saw the gun, and the shooter shot the victim.
Looking at this favorably for the shooter, I'd say this is an iffy shoot that would lead to the shooter getting charged. If someone approaches you, your first goal is to keep distant so they can't close on you. Instead, he squared up and probably drew a gun. You might be able to argue that's a defensive display... but that doesn't explain why you stepped into the engagement. Best case: get a good lawyer because you weren't confronted with lethal force and a jury might have to decide this one.
The speed and silence of this encounter is not typical of a defensive gun use. This does look more like a murder. The shooter's not yelling "get back or I'll shoot". The shooter approaches the victim. The shooter doesn't surrender to the police, nor does he report it. The shooter seemed to be waiting for an excuse all day.
If you ever watch Active Self Protection on YouTube, a big thing the pastor goes over is "When can you shoot, and when must you shoot?" This is clearly not 'must', and the 'can' is very sketchy.
I actually don't know if the victim was surrounded, if there is part of some sort of new information, I haven't heard it.
Brooks was resisting arrest, assaulting officers, and ultimately used what is actually defined as a lethal weapon. I haven't seen evidence that mace is defined as lethal in Portland.