Watch the video and tell me do you see a need for the police officer (the guy with the number 99 on the back of his shirt) to evidently have applied a choke hold to the suspect. I have watched the video repeatedly over the past couple of days and no matter how many times I watch it, I do not see a reason for him to have resorted to deadly force. Do you see any reason for the officer to have resorted to the use of deadly force?
As I said, I sure don't but maybe someone else sees it another way and can explain to me why deadly force was applied. Yes - choke holds are considered deadly force. If that was not a choke hold, I sure missed or misunderstood something in my martial arts and law enforcement training.
I could understand resorting to deadly force, even a choke hold, if the officer had the required amount of reasonable cause (or probable cause - which was required on my job to use deadly force) necessary to believe his or another's life was in danger or that the threat posed risk of serious bodily injury to him or others. I saw no need for deadly force to be employed - none at all - but maybe you see something I am missing. The only thing I can think of is that the offender had a history of using deadly force against officers in the past and that could be figured into the reasoning, along with his resisting, for the officer to use deadly force - but I think that is a stretch. Otherwise, I just don't understand why it was used.
All the best,
Glenn B
