Do you think that anyone not immediately involved would be able to evaluate the threat *per foot*?
If I'm to take your question literally, it is certainly possible that others in the vicinity might be in a better position to see the full context, and/or might not be affected by elevated stress since they aren't under threat, are directing their attention solely to observation and not real-time tactics, etc. Just as an umpire is in better standing than the batter to deliver not only an objective but highly accurate account of whether a pitch was a strike or ball. A third party may theoretically be much better suited to assess threats than ones involved in engagement. Reconaissance is provided to support troop actions for obvious reasons. No, the fighter is not always the best eyes. Even cops have spotters and recon for this very reason. And incidental witnesses may be able to provide a more accurate and detailed account than the officer(s) involved up to and including a more credible threat assessment.
But I don't think that's what you meant. I assume it's more like "Do you think that anyone not immediately involved
should be able to evaluate the threat *per foot*
for them (without their consent)? If so, my answer is no. The person experiencing the threat should make the determination as a matter of fact concerning their own well-being. But that doesn't absolve them entirely of responsibility for their actions. More on that in a moment.
In light of my reinterpretation of your first question, I'll answer the appropriate follow-on question:
If no, who do you think would be the best people to effectively evaluate that threat.
If the person being threatened is a cop, or if the cop is acting on behalf of others who are perceived as being threatened, then it is the cop's call.
You answered my questions with only questions. Your choice of questions suggest to me we are operating on entirely different planes and are unlikely to achieve any substantial mutual understanding. I asked because your criteria for assessing the threshold of lethal force justification was well-stated and relatively objective, for which I'm thankful, yet doesn't stand to the fullest scrutiny. While you may consider this irrelevant pickiness, there's a great deal of context dependence omitted from your criteria. Your sole qualifier is "hostile", presumably as judged by the police on scene.
It's not hard to imagine a person threatening suicide with a knife might flail pathetically at kindly strangers trying to intervene, telling them to get back. Neither is it hard to imagine cops arriving on the scene at that particular moment - even on a suicide call - interpreting that as hostile and threatening action. If the police were to stop their cruiser at 35 ft distance from the individual, exit their vehicle, draw their firearms and yell "drop the weapon!"... would they be entitled to exercise lethal force if the individual advanced a few steps toward them? There could be no finding of poor judgement, in fact no inquiry at all because
a priori it meets the criteria for lethal force?
What might be considered nitpicky or going to extremes to make a point is really exposing a position for lack of nuance. How does one properly account for the wide variety of possible situations and subjective or erroneous conclusions of hostility with such blunt instrument as your proposed criteria? While I do feel the decision to use lethal force at the moment rests with the officer - just as with a homeowner during a perceived home invasion - the final judgement on whether the
decision was appropriate for the circumstances should not, and in practice does not, lie with the shooter. Thus, it may be true that, while a simple rule of survival might suffice for deciding to act, it does not suffice for a final determination of the correctness of that decision. If forensic evidence and logical inference determine that the force was unjustified, the officer can be culpable even when acting within the decision parameters.
Unfortunately, findings of unnecessary lethal force are rare enough to flag them as statistically anomalous, but that's another matter which is genuinely off topic.
I got the impression that it was a slam dunk in your mind because you're stating figures like 21 and 35 feet for criteria and 3-4 feet for closest approach to the officer. That
far exceeds your criteria for lethality, why isn't it a slam dunk? Do you have additional unstated conditions?
I not only looked at the video again, I watched it many times, also scrubbed back and forth through frames and examined individual frames in detail. My first observation is, you're either playing fast and loose with distances (in favor of the police), or simply repeating what you've been told. The "3 or 4 feet" figure you've bandied about applies to a rolling corpse at the moment it (that's right, "it") hits the sidewalk after falling from the low wall.
My second observation is that I would rule this police action as justified under the circumstances. The third observation is that a certain measure of excessive zeal is evident from the number of shots fired and the duration of fire, however I don't conclude this is evidence of anything other than "heat of the moment" reaction once the decision to drop the target had already been made. My final observation is that I believe the performance of the officers on scene prior to the use of lethal force was notably suboptimal but not outside the bounds of acceptability.
There are plenty of unjustified use of force cases to rally around, this is not one of them. IMO.