So, maybe you haven't heard of it, but maybe you did, since here, overseas, it is yet another polemic around the US police that made it in the news, and more particularly, the Oklahoma City police department.

 

Police were investigating a hit-and-run and arrived at the home of Madgiel Sanchez, 35,  after the pick-up supposedly involved in the hit-and-run was seen parking at his home, and was shot dead by Sgt Chris Barns after ordering him to drop the metal pipe he was holding. The thing is, Madgiel Sanchez was deaf and mute, and therefore couldn't hear the police officers orders, nor communicate with them. And despite Madgiel Sanchez's own daughter, along with several neighbours screaming Madgiel Sanchez was deaf, Sgt Chris Barns, second officer on scene, ignored those details (or, as he says it, 'did not hear them'), and took the decision to shoot the man who was declared deceased on scene in front of his house.

 

The first officer on scene actually pulled his taser, but it was the second officer arriving on scene, Sgt Chris Barns, who pulled out his gun immediately. And while the first officer on scene fired his taser, Sgt Chris Barns, actually fired his gun, multiple times, and shot the man dead. Neighbours and witnesses claimed Madgiel Sanchez was always carrying this metallic pipe with him, not as a weapon, but because it helped him shoo away stray dogs as he ran laps around a parking lot, as well as helping him communicate with people, moving it around to convey what he was trying to say. Those same motions he made towards police officers probably to convey a message that got ignored.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/20/us/oklahoma-city-police-shooting-deaf.html?mcubz=1

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/21/oklahoma-city-police-shooting-magdiel-sanchez-deaf

 

"Did not hear them" my ass.  This is another prime example of officers not having ANY training on how to deal with those of special needs.  It's also another example of how American law enforcement is trained to go lethal first and foremost.  If he had a gun, I'd understand it, but he had a metal pipe! Get your tazer out and incapacitate him.  I almost feel like American police officers are scared to even get hit, which is why they rarely go non-lethal first.  Again, this was a metal pipe.  The officer could've easily tackled him to the ground and dealt with it.  Police officers are not gun warriors who only have that one tool.  OC, baton, tazer, your own body.  You're a police officer, don't be a coward and hide away from someone with a pipe.  Do your job, be brave, and take care of the situation APPROPRIATELY.

 

To be entirely fair, not all departments actually have tazers, which is ridiculous!  How can you not have an important tool that helps defuse a hostile/dangerous situation?  Even without a tazer, body-tackling the guy was a non-lethal option.  Had he used a tazer or tackled the guy, had he LISTENED to everyone screaming at him that he was deaf and mute this could've been resolved in a better way.  Instead, a life is lost for no reason.

 

I also just want to point something out. Where are the protests?  Where's the outrage?  Where's the unrest? We all know why there won't be any protests, it's not a race shooting.  It's just some special needs guy, no big deal.

1 hour ago, Kallus Rourke said:

"Did not hear them" my ass.  This is another prime example of officers not having ANY training on how to deal with those of special needs.  It's also another example of how American law enforcement is trained to go lethal first and foremost.  If he had a gun, I'd understand it, but he had a metal pipe! Get your tazer out and incapacitate him.  I almost feel like American police officers are scared to even get hit, which is why they rarely go non-lethal first.  Again, this was a metal pipe.  The officer could've easily tackled him to the ground and dealt with it.  Police officers are not gun warriors who only have that one tool.  OC, baton, tazer, yout own body.  You're a police officer, don't be a coward and hide away from someone with a pipe.  Do your job, be brave, and take care of the situation APPROPRIATELY.

 

To be entirely fair, not all departments actually have tazers, which is ridiculous!  How can you not have an important tool that helps defuse a hostile/dangerous situation?  Even without a tazer, body-tackling the guy was a non-lethal option.  Had he used a tazer or tackled the guy, had he LISTENED to everyone screaming at him that he was deaf and mute this could've been resolved in a better way.  Instead, a life is lost for no reason.

 

I also just want to point something out. Where are the protests?  Where's the outrage?  Where's the unrest? We all know why there won't be any protests, it's not a race shooting.  It's just some special needs guy, no big deal.

Better yet dont all police departments have pepper spray? Just sting his eyes for a few minutes and then subdue him.

If this happened in the province of Ontario, Canada, the officers would have been investigated by the SIU, a civilian department that investigates police conducts, and criminally charged for possible manslaughter. The IA is also crap. Just suspend him for a few months no big deal...

We actually had a case of a police officer who was going after a mentally-illed man with a knife who aboard a streetcar. The officer shot him 9 times but according to the SIU investigation he was still found guilty of attempted murder because only 3 shots where justified. He faces a four year prison sentence. 

In other words yes the police training needs to be improved as well as the Internal Affair investigations. Suspending officers who killed people with no justification isnt enough. 

Edited September 22, 20178 yr by SCPDUnit23

"Tasers, battons, and pepper spray aren't 100% effective so we had to gun him down in the streets"

 

Find a new line of work, you pathetic coward.

"The first officer who arrived, Lt. Matthew Lindsey..."

"...the second officer, Sgt. Christopher Barnes, fired..."

 

If your superior officer has clearly decided that non-lethal force is the highest acceptable level of force here, why the hell would you pull your handgun and immediately shoot him?

 

"'You can get tunnel vision or just get locked in on the person with the weapon'”

 

If a sergeant gets tunnel vision in this situation (or any situation), he is not deserving of that rank. That's a rookie mistake, one that cost someone his life.

4 hours ago, Kallus Rourke said:

"Did not hear them" my ass.  This is another prime example of officers not having ANY training on how to deal with those of special needs.  It's also another example of how American law enforcement is trained to go lethal first and foremost.  If he had a gun, I'd understand it, but he had a metal pipe! Get your tazer out and incapacitate him.  I almost feel like American police officers are scared to even get hit, which is why they rarely go non-lethal first.  Again, this was a metal pipe.  The officer could've easily tackled him to the ground and dealt with it.  Police officers are not gun warriors who only have that one tool.  OC, baton, tazer, your own body.  You're a police officer, don't be a coward and hide away from someone with a pipe.  Do your job, be brave, and take care of the situation APPROPRIATELY.

 

To be entirely fair, not all departments actually have tazers, which is ridiculous!  How can you not have an important tool that helps defuse a hostile/dangerous situation?  Even without a tazer, body-tackling the guy was a non-lethal option.  Had he used a tazer or tackled the guy, had he LISTENED to everyone screaming at him that he was deaf and mute this could've been resolved in a better way.  Instead, a life is lost for no reason.

 

I also just want to point something out. Where are the protests?  Where's the outrage?  Where's the unrest? We all know why there won't be any protests, it's not a race shooting.  It's just some special needs guy, no big deal.

 

I don't know the particulars in this case, but this is a general response..

 

A metal pipe is being used as a deadly weapon, just like a car, just like a knife. The general public always says "why didn't you tase him?" A response to that is you have to be close enough to tase him. The taser probes don't have unlimited string. At that point your putting your self at risk of getting hit by a pipe. Your not going to bring a taser or OC to a knife fight the force option in that is not equal. So say you tase the guy with the pipe and it doesn't make contact has happened thousands of times or the taser has no effect on the person that has also happened then what are you going to do now you are dangerously close to a person that has a pipe with no reasoning.  A pipe can kill just like anything else, its not about coward its about going home at the end of the day. No officer really wants to shoot, and kill anyone. But the general public likes to criticize the officer for not using this force option, when at the end of the day the person who is saying it has no idea what they are talking about, and or has never been put in that situation. 

 

 

The same people have been invited to do a police simulation on a projector, and was put in a scenario, and has ended up killing someone when it was not justified. Then they said oh dang I didn't realize you only have a couple seconds to make that decision. 

 

 

A lot of people want to Monday night quarterback a decision that was made, and just end up sounding really ignorant. People should also read state law, and federal laws. 

 

 

 

The 21 foot rule is used all the time, but of course all situations are circumstantial

 

 

http://www.policemag.com/channel/weapons/articles/2014/09/revisiting-the-21-foot-rule.aspx

 

 

 

 

 

9 minutes ago, Mags said:

 

 

A metal pipe is being used as a deadly weapon, just like a car, just like a knife. The general public always says "why didn't you tase him?" A response to that is you have to be close enough to tase him. The taser probes don't have unlimited string. At that point your putting your self at risk of getting hit by a pipe. Your not going to bring a taser or OC to a knife fight the force option in that is not equal. So say you tase the guy with the pipe and it doesn't make contact has happened thousands of times or the taser has no effect on the person that has also happened then what are you going to do now you are dangerously close to a person that has a pipe with no reasoning.  A pipe can kill just like anything else, its not about coward its about going home at the end of the day. No officer really wants to shoot, and kill anyone. But the general public likes to criticize the officer for not using this force option, when at the end of the day the person who is saying it has no idea what they are talking about, and or has never been put in that situation. 

 

The same people have been invited to do a police simulation on a projector, and was put in a scenario, and has ended up killing someone when it was not justified. Then they said oh dang I didn't realize you only have a couple seconds to make that decision.

 

A lot of people want to Monday night quarterback a decision that was made, and just end up sounding really ignorant. People should also read state law, and federal laws. 

 

The 21 foot rule is used all the time, but of course all situations are circumstantial

 

 

http://www.policemag.com/channel/weapons/articles/2014/09/revisiting-the-21-foot-rule.aspx

 

 

 

 

You are a cop.  You signed up for the danger, and you knew there'd be times where you'd put your life at risk.  If you're not willing to put yourself on the line, find a different career.  Shooting people should NEVER, EVER be the first option we go to, it should be the last.  That officer could've still tackled him.  He's armed with just a metal pipe.  Can it do damage? Yes, but again, it's your job to put your life on the line.  You're not getting paid to cower and just shoot everyone to solve a problem.

 

The truly sad thing is, in the UK an officer tackled a suicide bomber.  In the US, officers would just shoot.  You have your guns, so you result to using them first and anything else second.   For the longest time I was the biggest supporter of law enforcement, but lately, my stance on them is changing dramatically, and this article just reinforces why.  Officers want the public to respect you and not fear you, yet they shoot people rather than trying to defuse situations or think logically.  The dude was deaf and mute, and you have people SCREAMING it at him that he is, yet he still opens fire.  Enough is enough.

 

There's no excuse, no justification.

Just now, Kallus Rourke said:

 

 

You are a cop.  You signed up for the danger, and you knew there'd be times where you'd put your life at risk.  If you're not willing to put yourself on the line, find a different career.  Shooting people should NEVER, EVER be the first option we go to, it should be the last.  That officer could've still tackled him.  He's armed with just a metal pipe.  Can it do damage? Yes, but again, it's your job to put your life on the line.  You're not getting paid to cower and just shoot everyone to solve a problem.

 

No you don't tackle someone with a metal pipe its not happening. You have to look at the big picture he could possibly hurt you or someone else with that pipe. If you look at any case/ case law any person that had a knife or big objects have been shot and justified.

 

Georgia Tech police shot a man with a multi tool knife because they asked him multiple times to drop the knife. They had to take out the threat. The shooting ended up being justified.

 

 

At the end of the day if you were put in that decision I would like you to tackle him and tell me the outcome. 

2 hours ago, Mags said:

 

No you don't tackle someone with a metal pipe its not happening. You have to look at the big picture he could possibly hurt you or someone else with that pipe. If you look at any case/ case law any person that had a knife or big objects have been shot and justified.

 

Georgia Tech police shot a man with a multi tool knife because they asked him multiple times to drop the knife. They had to take out the threat. The shooting ended up being justified.

 

 

At the end of the day if you were put in that decision I would like you to tackle him and tell me the outcome. 

I'm just gonna go back to the case we had in Toronto known as the infamous Sammy Yatim case. Guy with a knife mentally unstable and police also told him to drop the knife. When he refused, the officer shot 9 times. However only 3 shots were justified for self defence but not justified for the other 6 shots and the verdict was the cop was sentenced to six year prison sentence for attempted murder. The case is here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Sammy_Yatim

 

There was another case on the knife case in the states where officer responded on the highway. The suspect did attack the officer and the officer fired 2-3 shots, possibly hitting the suspect. Eventually officers backed off and told him to drop the knife. However the suspect eventually became suicidal saying "kill me" as attempt death by cop.  The suspect was eventually subdued and detained within a standoff. Case is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVe7bx_CaSU

 

The use of force is often debatable and often is in matter of seconds. If you are trained well, you could take down a suspect without resorting to lethal means or neutralize the threat with limited casualties. But if your trained poorly and have no idea what to do, things can get hairy. Things get way more complicated when an unpredictable unstable person is involved.  So the decision you made will change how the aftermath is. Once that decision is made, theres no going back. 

 

It also depends on how each department handles each similar cases. Maybe one department thinks it is justified to empty an entire gun on a knife wielding maniac but another think only 3 is just enough for him to be injured but not dead. Again everything on this is all opinionated. It is up to the department to judge if this is justified or not.  Municipal/State/provincial/federal laws greatly vary across the world. 

 

I will have to side on Kallus though since I believe there could've been a better option to deal with the suspect. Backing off and go for a standstill instead since he is not doing anything (just deaf holding a metal pipe) until he either gives up, another less resourceful option is given, or worst case scenario, shoot ONLY IF he swings that metal pipe (you do not want to have this scenario so always keep your distance on a suspect until its safe to subdue).

Edited September 22, 20178 yr by SCPDUnit23

4 hours ago, Kallus Rourke said:

You are a cop.  You signed up for the danger, and you knew there'd be times where you'd put your life at risk.  If you're not willing to put yourself on the line, find a different career.  Shooting people should NEVER, EVER be the first option we go to, it should be the last.  That officer could've still tackled him.  He's armed with just a metal pipe.  Can it do damage? Yes, but again, it's your job to put your life on the line.  You're not getting paid to cower and just shoot everyone to solve a problem.

 

Imagine this, transposed to other professions.

 

"Yes, I wanted to become a firefighter. But I fear for my life, so when there's a fire, I'll just stand back and spray some water rather than walk into the building to save the people in it. I wouldn't want to get hurt while on duty."

 

That's so ludicrous.

Edited September 22, 20178 yr by Hystery

8 hours ago, Kallus Rourke said:

 

 

You are a cop.  You signed up for the danger, and you knew there'd be times where you'd put your life at risk.  If you're not willing to put yourself on the line, find a different career.  Shooting people should NEVER, EVER be the first option we go to, it should be the last.  That officer could've still tackled him.  He's armed with just a metal pipe.  Can it do damage? Yes, but again, it's your job to put your life on the line.  You're not getting paid to cower and just shoot everyone to solve a problem.

 

The truly sad thing is, in the UK an officer tackled a suicide bomber.  In the US, officers would just shoot.  You have your guns, so you result to using them first and anything else second.   For the longest time I was the biggest supporter of law enforcement, but lately, my stance on them is changing dramatically, and this article just reinforces why.  Officers want the public to respect you and not fear you, yet they shoot people rather than trying to defuse situations or think logically.  The dude was deaf and mute, and you have people SCREAMING it at him that he is, yet he still opens fire.  Enough is enough.

 

There's no excuse, no justification.

 

4 hours ago, Hystery said:

 

Imagine this, transposed to other professions.

 

"Yes, I wanted to become a firefighter. But I fear for my life, so when there's a fire, I'll just stand back and spray some water rather than walk into the building to save the people in it. I wouldn't want to get hurt while on duty."

 

That's so ludicrous.

 

 

 

So they state 

The man, Madgiel Sanchez, was shot around 8:15 p.m. outside his home soon after the police responded there to investigate a hit-and-run accident. The first officer to arrive called for backup, pulled out his Taser and ordered Mr. Sanchez, 35, who was on his front porch, to drop the two-foot-long pipe he was clutching, the police said.

The officer’s commands did not register with Mr. Sanchez. He ambled off the porch toward the officer, waving the pipe in his right hand, according to the police and a witness.

Julio Rayos, a neighbor who lives a few homes away and knew the man was deaf, said he saw the confrontation unfold and sensed trouble.

He said that he ran toward the officer with his wife and his 12-year-old daughter, all three of them screaming that the man could not understand the officer.

 

Ok from what I read the man is deaf, So he can still see a full uniformed officer. Based on where I live Georgia Law states this when you can use Deadly Force:

 

Quote

Official Code of Georgia, Section 17-4-20(b) states, “Sheriffs and peace officers who are appointed or employed in conformity with Chapter 8 of Title 35 may use deadly force to apprehend a suspected felon only when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury; when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of physical violence to the officer or others; or when there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm. Nothing in this Code section shall be construed so as to restrict such sheriffs or peace officers from the use of such reasonable nondeadly force as may be necessary to apprehend and arrest a suspected felon or misdemeanant.”

 

 

So with that being said from what we know the man is not mentally challenged, and he can see. I can tell you I will be almost willing to bet the courts will come back with the shooting being justified. Now the officer maybe up for civil law suits but that always happens. 

 

 

Similar case 

 

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/01/30/da-no-charges-state-trooper-who-shot-killed-deaf-nc-man/97246704/

 

 

In this case the deaf man was running at the trooper with a metal object. Perp was deaf also. The trooper shot and was justified in the shooting

 

 

The end of the day some shootings are questionable etc.. I don't agree with all. But 9 times out of 10 I can argue case law, and give supporting case law to a lot of incidents. I do it for a living first hand experience. 

 

5 hours ago, Mags said:

In this case the deaf man was running at the trooper with a metal object. Perp was deaf also. The trooper shot and was justified in the shooting

 

It was the neighbor who ran towards the officers to warn them the man was deaf, not Mr. Sanchez himself. All he did was waving his metal pipe in the distance to convey what he wanted to say. And again, the Lieutenant, first on scene, had his taser out, not his gun, it was the sergeant who arrived later on who pulled out his gun and shot rather than mimicking his colleague and using his taser as well. That sergeant is just a damn idiot and killed a man for no reason. 

1 hour ago, Hystery said:

 

It was the neighbor who ran towards the officers to warn them the man was deaf, not Mr. Sanchez himself. All he did was waving his metal pipe in the distance to convey what he wanted to say. And again, the Lieutenant, first on scene, had his taser out, not his gun, it was the sergeant who arrived later on who pulled out his gun and shot rather than mimicking his colleague and using his taser as well. That sergeant is just a damn idiot and killed a man for no reason. 

 

This, 100%.  The shooting was not justified, and it never will be.  If the lieutenant had a spine, he'd of told the sergeant "go non lethal", and if the sergeant had a spine, he'd of LISTENED to everyone screaming that he was deaf. It's pathetic that these situations are becoming more normal to see.  Cop shoots first, asks questions later.  It floors me, Mags, that you're blaming a special needs person for the trigger happy nature that 99% of police officers show.

23 minutes ago, Kallus Rourke said:

 

This, 100%.  The shooting was not justified, and it never will be.  If the lieutenant had a spine, he'd of told the sergeant "go non lethal", and if the sergeant had a spine, he'd of LISTENED to everyone screaming that he was deaf. It's pathetic that these situations are becoming more normal to see.  Cop shoots first, asks questions later.  It floors me, Mags, that you're blaming a special needs person for the trigger happy nature that 99% of police officers show.

No offense but the guy may be dead but he god damn knew what he was doing, the cop overrreacted yes but the suspect knew what he was doing 

5 hours ago, FishtheDestroyer said:

No offense but the guy may be dead but he god damn knew what he was doing, the cop overrreacted yes but the suspect knew what he was doing 

 

The "suspect" was the father, who was still in the truck parked in the driveway. The guy that died was innocent. Considering he always used the metal pipe for communication, it probably didn't occur to him that it could be considered a deadly weapon at that moment. To the police officers, maybe it seemed he was being threatening waving the pipe around, which just means they should have been listening to the people trying to explain. He was probably just trying to communicate like he normally would. 

15 hours ago, Mags said:

 

 

 

 

So they state 

The man, Madgiel Sanchez, was shot around 8:15 p.m. outside his home soon after the police responded there to investigate a hit-and-run accident. The first officer to arrive called for backup, pulled out his Taser and ordered Mr. Sanchez, 35, who was on his front porch, to drop the two-foot-long pipe he was clutching, the police said.

The officer’s commands did not register with Mr. Sanchez. He ambled off the porch toward the officer, waving the pipe in his right hand, according to the police and a witness.

Julio Rayos, a neighbor who lives a few homes away and knew the man was deaf, said he saw the confrontation unfold and sensed trouble.

He said that he ran toward the officer with his wife and his 12-year-old daughter, all three of them screaming that the man could not understand the officer.

 

Ok from what I read the man is deaf, So he can still see a full uniformed officer. Based on where I live Georgia Law states this when you can use Deadly Force:

 

 

 

So with that being said from what we know the man is not mentally challenged, and he can see. I can tell you I will be almost willing to bet the courts will come back with the shooting being justified. Now the officer maybe up for civil law suits but that always happens. 

 

 

Similar case 

 

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/01/30/da-no-charges-state-trooper-who-shot-killed-deaf-nc-man/97246704/

 

 

In this case the deaf man was running at the trooper with a metal object. Perp was deaf also. The trooper shot and was justified in the shooting

 

 

The end of the day some shootings are questionable etc.. I don't agree with all. But 9 times out of 10 I can argue case law, and give supporting case law to a lot of incidents. I do it for a living first hand experience. 

 

Again laws varies by municipal/country/states/provinces/federal and many laws, defenses, and loopholes could affect the verdict. Just because it was justified in one department/city/state/area doesn't mean everyone is gonna agree on it. Some of us are not within the States or Oklahoma so opinions varies alot. 

Edited September 23, 20178 yr by SCPDUnit23

UPDATE!!!! Oklahoma DA won't charge officer in deaf man's killing.

 

 

I rest my case

 

 

 

Quote

OKLAHOMA CITY — An Oklahoma prosecutor announced Friday that he won’t charge a police officer who fatally shot a deaf man, determining the killing was legally justified after the man aggressively approached the officer while armed with a 2-foot metal pipe.

Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater cleared Officer Chris Barnes in the Sept. 19 shooting of 35-year-old Magdiel Sanchez outside his south Oklahoma City home. A second officer who shot Sanchez with a Taser, Lt. Matt Lindsey, also acted justifiably because of the potential threat to the officers’ lives, Prater said.

“At the moment Officer Barnes discharged his pistol he was acting in self-defense and, in my opinion, had no other reasonable option to prevent Mr. Sanchez from seriously injuring or killing him,” Prater said. “Both officers employed techniques in an attempt to de-escalate and bring the situation to a peaceful ending. It is due to no fault of the officers that the matter ended violently.”

 

Both Barnes and Lindsey tried to render aid to Sanchez immediately after the shooting, Prater said.

Police have said officers who responded to a hit-and-run crash encountered Sanchez holding a metal pipe. An autopsy report shows Sanchez was hit with a stun gun and shot five times in the chest, pelvis and upper arm.

Police have said previously that witnesses yelled “he can’t hear you” before the officers fired, but that the officers didn’t hear them. Prater suggested Friday that the fact Sanchez was deaf was not the reason he was killed, noting that both officers were in uniform, were driving in clearly marked patrol cars with emergency lights activated and were signaling to Sanchez to put down the weapon.

“You don’t have to hear to know what these officers are telling you,” Prater said.

The shooting prompted protests from activists from groups including Black Lives Matter Oklahoma and the Oklahoma Association of the Deaf.

Family members of Sanchez had called for Barnes’ arrest and for state and federal investigations into the matter.

Sanchez’s family has said he was completely deaf, developmentally disabled, and that he used the pipe as a walking stick. The autopsy found no drugs or alcohol in Sanchez’s system.

 

Attorneys for Sanchez’s family disputed Prater’s suggestion that the officers tried to deescalate the situation.

“I think it’s fair to say there was absolutely zero de-escalation deployed in this case,” said Melvin Hall. “They continued to pursue him. They continue to follow him. They approached him on his own property. There was no effort to fall back to a safe position. There was no effort to establish a perimeter.”

Prater earlier this week charged an Oklahoma City police officer with second-degree murder for fatally shooting a suicidal man in a separate case.

“We follow the evidence, and whatever conclusions we make ... that’s where we end up,” Prater said. “A couple of days ago it meant we filed on a police officer for murder in the second degree and manslaughter. Today, the evidence led me to believe that these officers very appropriately acted in self-defense.”

 

Shooting someone in the chest FIVE times is self defense? Okay then.

1 minute ago, Kilyin said:

Shooting someone in the chest FIVE times is self defense? Okay then.

 

Yes in order to "Stop the Threat"

Just now, Mags said:

 

Yes in order to "Stop the Threat"

 

Naw, shooting someone five times is shooting to kill. There's really no other outcome in that scenario.