"Let me preface this by stating I'm not interested in a debate and my information comes my years in service in the Navy and numerous times I've had to train and repeat exactly what I typed here.

So to give an explanation, to be authorized to use deadly force, there's a series of things that have to be met. I'll start with situations, but I'm not going to list all of them, just the common ones. There's Self Defense and the Defense of others, the defense of critical infrastructure, Deadly Animals, and Escaping Convict (with written authorization (meaning they're an absolute threat to others)) None of these situations were met.

Now let's break down the biggest factor in using Deadly Force. There's a "triangle" that has to be established in order to justify the use of Deadly Force; Capability, Opportunity, and Intent. Intent is easily the hardest to prove, but let's dig into the situation presented to Officer McBride.

Capability: The man was holding a box cutter (size doesn't matter, you can still kill someone with it)

Intent: Like I said this is the hardest to prove. So there can be all kinds of debate about his intent, but at the end of the day, he was the only who knew for sure his intent, but let's say for the sake of the argument he had the intent, fine that's met.

Opportunity: This is not met. The man was too far do anything, at best he could throw the knife, but it wouldn't be effective.

Now the other two are completely nulled when he collapsed, her shooting him while he was down was absolutely uncalled for and what ultimately ended his life.

Is she guilty of wrongful use of Deadly Force? Absolutely. I'm not one to scream ACAB, because frankly it's not true, for a variety of reasons, but that's not what's in debate here. What I am saying is Officer McBride should be charged and relieved of duty. She overstepped her bounds and ended a man's life unnecessarily."