One of the most harrowing shooting videos I've ever seen (the NYC choke hold video was hard to watch, but didn't involve a shooting). Not as bad as the iconic video during the Vietnam War were somebody is shot at point blank range in the side of the head, but he was still basically executed. Hard to see how he doesn't get a murder conviction.
If anybody is familiar with law enforcement training, I'm curious what kind of parameters they are given in extreme cases, before judgement comes into play. I saw a video (police car source?) where one officer pulled over three young looking adult males that may have been in a part of Texas where there is trafficing across the border. He had them exit the vehicle to inspect it, and one lunged at him since his gun wasn't drawn, pinning his arms, and one of the others grabbed it and murdered him in cold blood.
This was not one of those cases. In terms of a continuum, where at one extreme, you are trying to appehend a known serial killer like Ted Bundy and the use of deadly force would seemingly be more appropriate if he tries to run, to prevent him from killing others (I think he did escape from jail once, after which he committed multiple murders at a sorority?). On the other end of the scale, you have a case of a small child, not obviously armed, running away from a jay walking ticket. At some point, it would seem best to just let the person go. As others have noted, other police were in the area. I don't think it was a stolen car, so it isn't like he would be hard to find eventually. Not sure if it has been reported if there were any serious warrants (edit/add - I forgot, but mentioned above, may have been failure to pay child support warrants), but that gets to the heart of my question.
If there were warrants, I'm guessing they are more likely to fire at a running figure getting away if they have violent felon priors (murder, assault with a deadly weapon and armed robbery, especially, not sure about rape). Unpaid parking tickets, not so much. Just wondering about the training, how specific it is or ISN'T and left to judgement, under what circumstances lethal force is considered an appropriate response.
The rule of thumb I am familiar with, seemingly not the case here (running away, not pointing a taser, while he calmly takes aim and fires off eight shots - I counted) is if they feel threatened for their life, because a weapon is drawn on them. I think some police might try to tackle him, but maybe that could lead to losing control of the gun, so unless an extreme case as outlined before (Bundy, gun drawn at you), letting them run and giving the police dragnet the opportunity to apprehend them without killing them would be appear the most advisable, and part of their training?