This could be one of those cases where people are trained to always fire controlled pairs while not assessing if the second shot is justified.  Cop chases bad guy.   Bad guy falls and reveals a gun which he presumably throws over the fence to surrender.  Cop shoots him.  Guy falls on his back with empty hands exposed.  Cop shoots him again.  I can see it from the cops point of view that everything happened in a split second.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/21/us/milwaukee-heaggan-brown-shooting-trial/index.html

Bad humor.
But Zombieland Rule #2
.

Once you feel threatened enough to fire the first round, nothing says you aren't allowed to empty the gun.

Stop the threat.  If one round doesn't say, "I'm serious!  You're going to die if you don't stop what you're doing!", then I don't know what else will.  Refuse to comply, and you get what you get.

Pistols are anemic at putting a full size adult down.  Unless you hit the brain or spinal cord on the first shot, even a heart shot can allow the threat to continue for half a minute or more -- enough time to shoot you dead.

Cop says drop the gun, and instead you toss it over a fence you intended to jump.  Maybe you should have just dropped the gun and raised your hands?

That's probably the racist in me talking.   

Willis testified that Heaggan-Brown acted in "accordance with his training," CNN affiliate WTMJ-TV reported.

His testimony centered on the 1.69 seconds separating the two shots. He testified the officer's decision to fire again was made before he even pulled the trigger. The second shot was justified, Willis told the jury, because officers are trained to assume a suspect may have more than one weapon.

From my first reading of the account, which didn't include the timeframe between the first and second shots and only that one was delivered while standing and the other while on the ground (or on way to ground)I had envisioned that it was some time between the shots.  I had envisioned that it would have taken more time for the guy who was shot to go from standing to being on the ground.  1.69 seconds doesn't sound like much time. 

On controlled pairs, I had always envisioned a controlled pair being two shots in about the same location.  That the position of the guy who was shot seems to be drastically different doesn't bring "controlled pair" to mind.  But that's just my perception. 

From my first reading of the account, which didn't include the timeframe between the first and second shots and only that one was delivered while standing and the other while on the ground (or on way to ground)I had envisioned that it was some time between the shots.  I had envisioned that it would have taken more time for the guy who was shot to go from standing to being on the ground.  1.69 seconds doesn't sound like much time. 

On controlled pairs, I had always envisioned a controlled pair being two shots in about the same location.  That the position of the guy who was shot seems to be drastically different doesn't bring "controlled pair" to mind.  But that's just my perception.

Damn attorneys trying to "find" a reason for an unnecessary death or injury.  "Sir why do  you have the Molon Labe phrase on your gun?"

Damn attorneys trying to "find" a reason for an unnecessary death or injury.  "Sir why do  you have the Molon Labe phrase on your gun?"

Probably

But seriously though, that's something to think about.  I am not one to "accessorize" my firearms with stuff like inscriptions and stuff like that, but I wouldn't put it past a "determined" prosecutor for say something like "I don't shoot to wound" on a dust cover.  I recall some stories about that, but never really heard about the outcome. 

Probably

But seriously though, that's something to think about.  I am not one to "accessorize" my firearms with stuff like inscriptions and stuff like that, but I wouldn't put it past a "determined" prosecutor for say something like "I don't shoot to wound" on a dust cover.  I recall some stories about that, but never really heard about the outcome.

There was 1 in the mainland where the dust cover said "You're fucked" and that's all the jury needed to come with a guilty (murder) ruling.  Don't know off the top of my head where, but you can google it.

Remember it's how  you articulate the reasons for accessorizing.

I have a slide cover plate on my G17:




Maybe I ought to use a different pistol if I'm facing Muslim terrorists!?!?   

I have a slide cover plate on my G17:




Maybe I ought to use a different pistol if I'm facing Muslim terrorists!?!?   

I've seen stuff like Spartan helmets and other company logos.  To me, no harm there.  In the Infidel one, but who knows how a liberal prosecutor could try to turn that. 

I'm more talking like the "Go Ahead, Make My Day" type of seemingly innocent inscriptions, but I could see being thrown back in the face of the owner. 

I have a slide cover plate on my G17:




Maybe I ought to use a different pistol if I'm facing Muslim terrorists!?!?   

Actually that term just means that you're a "non-believer".  So if you state that you're X religion then it's true.

Actually that term just means that you're a "non-believer".  So if you state that you're X religion then it's true.

In the context of being a firearm decoration, that would be a hard sell to a jury!

The prosecutor would set a new record using the term "Islamophobe"!!

There was 1 in the mainland where the dust cover said "You're fucked" and that's all the jury needed to come with a guilty (murder) ruling.  Don't know off the top of my head where, but you can google it.

Remember it's how  you articulate the reasons for accessorizing.

That is also why you should not have signs like, "I  don't call 911"  or " Trespassers will be shot", the like of which I see many of in my area.  The prosecutor will use that to hang you.

One in the Chest
   and one in the Head.

Reaction time. Your brain takes time to process information and while under a great deal of stress, the ability to process information is diminished both in accuracy and in time. You may be presented with a threat and start to pull the trigger. The threat could then stop but your brain has to process that information. It has to both recognize that there is no threat and then has to tell the body to react accordingly. This is why an officer sometimes ends up shooting someone in the back. The suspect is able to drop the gun and turn before the officer's brain can stop him from pulling the trigger. Sadly this type of science isn't considered by your average news consumer and is often ignored if you have a group like BLM spouting off.

One in the Chest
   and one in the Head.

When I was at FS going through the house with the pop up good and bad guys, I shot all the bad guys and no good guys, but the instructor told me there was one problem.  I shot them all in the head instead of a controlled pair to the throatic cavity.

Reaction time. Your brain takes time to process information and while under a great deal of stress, the ability to process information is diminished both in accuracy and in time. You may be presented with a threat and start to pull the trigger. The threat could then stop but your brain has to process that information. It has to both recognize that there is no threat and then has to tell the body to react accordingly. This is why an officer sometimes ends up shooting someone in the back. The suspect is able to drop the gun and turn before the officer's brain can stop him from pulling the trigger. Sadly this type of science isn't considered by your average news consumer and is often ignored if you have a group like BLM spouting off.

...
I agree

When I was at FS going through the house with the pop up good and bad guys, I shot all the bad guys and no good guys, but the instructor told me there was one problem.  I shot them all in the head instead of a controlled pair to the throatic cavity.

Yeah, I got dinged for hitting the poster of the clown in the head.  Instructor said I didn't know if that mask on the clown was able to stop or deflect a bullet, so a thoracic shot was better.

That was one of the more entertaining exercises, but I would have liked to get a couple more runs through it.  If the other rooms were different, I'd like to run each of them.

The 1.69 seconds is a big factor, at least IMO.  Reaction and recognition time.

I was listening to NPR on the drive home yesterday and they report said something like "the officer shot the suspect after he had thrown the gun over a fence and was on the ground".  Well, if you report it like that, it certainly casts a long dark shadow of doubt over the officer.  Add into it the circumstances and details of the timeline, then it paints a very different picture.  Just another example of how the MSM can bias/taint a story by conveying only a part of the story, which is often the case when a story is just breaking.  Makes me 

If only people in general would take the time to find out details independently and make decisions about things in an unbiased way.  Yes, there will always be bias in new reporting, but people should know that and try to look at only the facts of the matter.

Reminds me of stories where a cop shot an attacker and the media caused and uproar because the person was unarmed.  Well, they decided to put some of these media people to the test in simulated exercises.  In ALL of those cases, the media person chose to shoot the unarmed person. Why?  Because they felt threatened, feared for their life, etc.  In many cases, they used deadly force before it was called for by law, policy, procedure, etc.  Need more stories like that to convey to the public the stark realities of a defense situation.  Unarmed you say?  Well, if someone can beat you senseless with their fists, wouldn't that present a danger to you? 

From reading the article and other information, it does not sound like a case of simply firing a "controlled pair" which is a term I don't like and not a more up to date methodology.  Anyone still teaching "controlled pairs" as a standard is about 15 years or so behind the curve. 

The testimony also states that Heaggan-Brown fired a second shot because he felt that he had another weapon and was reaching for it and that he was in "fear for his life".  I also agree with EEF on how we perceive things in a life and death situation.  So in either situation the 2nd shot is easy to understand how / why it was taken. 

With only 10 hours of deliberation it tends to confirm that the jurors were able to come to a consensus easily enough based on the evidence and facts to sufficiently substantiate tactics, techniques and / or protocols in relation to the officers perception of the situation as it unfolded.  In a relatively quick deliberation it can often mean that the jury was also able to clearly differentiate these facts beyond any emotional or personal bias or beliefs they may have.  If not for the current climate of rioting and burning cities, I don't believe this case would not have made it to a trial. 

Meh.
To me it's about the first shot. 
Perp picked up gun by barrel and was throwing it over the fence with his back turned to PO and gun clearly in view.
 APPEARED  to me to pose no threat.