demcheck reasonably perceived a threat just dpiing at least four shots at russell and williams in his opinion, randy patrick reasonably perceived a threat justifying at least nine shots at russell and williams. in his opinion, michael rinkas reasonably perceived a threat justifying at least nine shots at russell and williams. in his opinion, aaron o donnell reasonably perceived a threat justifying at least 11 shots at russell and williams. scott sistak according to kitsaris reasonably perceived a threat justifying at least 12 shots at russell and williams and cynthia moore, brelo s partner, reasonably perceived a threat justifying at least 14 shots at russell and williams. ant kitsaris holds these opinions about the other
explain that. answer: because if you are in fear of your life and you re behind cover, i can t imagine the fear that you re going to have when you put yourself standing on top of a car, in the middle of as he called it a firefight. that is not trained. it s not appropriate. it s not objective. and whatever subjective belief this is kitsaris still he had about his spirit at that moment was not objectively reasonable to put himself up in the middle of both crossfire and the potential of being shot either by officers or the suspects. which would then jeopardize the other officers who would have to go into a mode of saving the officer that s now down. you don t put yourself in a position of officer down in the middle of a situation that he was involved in. that s why it s objectively
officers regardless of their tactical mistakes. box was out from cover near the malibu s driver s side. eric o donnell and rinkus were exposed on the passenger side or the safety of the positions these other officers took. even officers who were behind cover and thus mostly protected from any shots coming out of the suspects car were justified, according to kitsaris in firing as many shots as they did. moreover in kitsaris brelo reasonably perceived a threat justifying about 34 shots at the suspects. so where did brelo run afoul of the constitution? as kitsaris put it because at the point of going on the trunk of his own car, 238 and then on the malibu s hood he is taking action that is not trained, not
unreasonable. it s not trained, it s not appropriate. it s taking yourself out from behind cover. and you re putting yourself in crossfire. and you are putting the other officers in jeopardy of having to now, if you get shot save your life, which risks their lives. finally, when asked if brelo would have acted reasonably had he continued for the last eight seconds to fire from behind car 238, instead of the hood of the malibu he said, i would probably say so. to me all of this demonstrates that kitsaris point is not that brelo s perception that the people in the car posed a threat of imminent serious bodily harm. which he needed to stop. was unreasonable. but only that his actions taken to get into a position to stop the threat were unreasonable.
threat justifying at least a shot at the malibu and both of its occupants. in his opinion, paul box reasonably perceived a threat justifying a shotgun blast at russell and williams. in his opinion, christopher eric reasonably perceived a threat justifying at least two shots at russell and williams. in his opinion, will diaz reasonably perceived a threat justifying at least three shots at russell and williams. in his opinion, brian sabolick reasonably perceived a threat justifying at least four shots at russell and williams. in his opinion, michael farley reasonably perceived a threat justifying at least four shots at russell and williams. in kitsaris opinion, william