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?