Oklahoma lieutenant indicted for stopping active shooter

[K.Mooneyham]

Watch the video. After firing multiple rounds at a fleeing suspect, quite possibly endangering others, that LT. and his men catch up to the wounded, if not already expired, suspect in her small truck. He tells his men, at the side of the road, not to talk about this shooting, even amongst themselves for several "sleep cycles". That. to me, sounds dangerously like a conspiracy charge is warranted, as well as maybe obstruction. The LT. specifically cites the Oklahoma investigative authority, not to talk to them. If it were me, I would indict him and have a jury decide if his actions, including the shooting, were illegal.

Multiple times I have read that talking to the police immediately after a self-defense shooting is a VERY bad idea; in fact, I have been told that in a seminar on the use of force/deadly force. A person's adrenaline is up, then way down, their thoughts are incoherent, and they may have other short-term psychological effects from the event. So, you tell me, why would it be any different for those officers not to talk to OSBI without getting some sleep first, and collecting themselves a bit? I think he gave his officers good advice.

[Vol Texan]

I agree with you and I would do the same if I were ever forced into a self-defense shooting situation.

The only problem here is the optics: when police (rightfully) remind one another not to talk without representation, yet there is a perception (driven by movies, TV, and/or real life) that they strongly discourage that when interviewing non-LE individuals when they are in a same situation.

Sure, Miranda “should” cover that, but there is a perceived difference between, “sure, you can have representation,” and, “Stop talking! You don’t have representation yet!”

Granted, I am not suggesting things should change. Miranda is clearly good enough in my opinion - but I believe the difference in the two approaches will drive some to assume the LEO is guilty of conspiracy, when all he is doing is giving good advice.

Now then again, the idea that it sounded like an order to subordinates rather than good sound legal advice to professional colleagues adds fuel to the fire...

[Keith B]

On the opposite side, if they had talked to each other they could be accused of making sure they all tell the same story for a cover-up. This way they can all be questioned individually and not be accused of collusion.

Now, on the officer, the only thing I could see from body cam or dash cam footage was as he continued to fire the AR into the vehicle with no sign of movement I could see. They may be concluding he was using excessive deadly force and ‘finishing off’ a wounded suspect who had given up the fight.

[parabelum]

On the opposite side, if they had talked to each other they could be accused of making sure they all tell the same story for a cover-up. This way they can all be questioned individually and not be accused of collusion.

Now, on the officer, the only thing I could see from body cam or dash cam footage was as he continued to fire the AR into the vehicle with no sign of movement I could see. They may be concluding he was using excessive deadly force and ‘finishing off’ a wounded suspect who had given up the fight.

Bingo. You shoot to stop the threat, once the threat is no longer moving you stop. I’m not sure if that was the case here 100% but I couldn’t see movement, but again, I wasn’t there, difficult to judge...