This scenario might be termed an “imperfect self-defense”. The officer was mistaken. But the questions “did he have to shoot Pretti?” and “was it objectively reasonable he shot Pretti?” are two VERY different things under the law. 2/

Mistake, fear, misperception, or even poor judgment does not constitute “willful conduct” prosecutable under the law. Situations involving lethal force are almost always fluid and quickly evolving. Decisions to deploy deadly force are made in milliseconds. 3/

The legal standard for the use of deadly force by an officer is an objective standard. Simply put, would a reasonable officer in a similar situation have acted similarly? If so, the shooting is lawful. If not, the shooting is unlawful. 4/

The “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. IOW, an investigation could prove the force was not necessary but objectively reasonable. 5/

In the instance of Pretti, the relevant “totality of the circumstances” are: -Pretti was armed -Pretti had committed a felony -Pretti was resisting arrest -Officers yelled “GUN!!” -Officers “peeled off the tangle”, per their training -Covering officer shot Pretti -Pretti died

There are more facts than those listed, but the ones listed are the most critical for the development of the analysis as to “what would an objectively reasonable officer do under the same circumstances”. And this is the ONLY legal analysis. 7/

So even if the use of lethal force was unnecessary (in a hindsight evaluation), it can still be objectively reasonable to have used lethal force. The scenario above paints a grim reminder of the dangers in resisting lawful police commands, especially when armed. 8/

If the facts were to establish that the shooting officer knew there was no threat of death or SBI, or that a reasonable officer would perceive no such threat, then the use of lethal force would be unlawful. I have advocated for the prosecution of cops more than once in certain

As I see it, and as someone who has investigated/prosecuted hundreds of homicides and sat on several officer-involved shooting reviews, the use of deadly force against Pretti WAS LAWFUL under the known circumstances…even if Pretti had, in fact, been disarmed. It was an

If the federal government determines that the @CBP officers acted reasonably under the totality of the circumstances, then that officer becomes shrouded in QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. He’s immune from prosecution by the state or the feds. 11/

Qualified Immunity (or immunity of any type) is NOT a jury question. The legal point of immunity is to avoid suffering through the criminal or civil process altogether. It is an undeniable affirmative defense. 12/

I understand the consternation with this legal analysis, but the law must acknowledge that law-enforcement officers are necessarily placed in dangerous and quickly evolving situations where mistakes can be made. It would be a legal absurdity for our laws to make a reasonable

Correct

Welcome!

I have succeeded!!!

In hindsight or would a reasonable officer have made that reasonable assessment in the two seconds in which all shots were fired? Real life doesn’t have a pause button.

None. But he was.

Untrue.

Post it