Officer Feaster failed to initially report his discharging of his weapon, waiting 11 minutes after the shooting happened to disclose it’s occurrence, well after he reported the accident to his colleagues and backup arrived. As Bearing Arms reports:
“I understand a bit about what happens to your body under stress. I understand that people may develop intense tunnel vision and auditory exclusion as they focus on potential threats.
But Feaster’s shooting of Mr. Thomas was not by any definition an ‘accident.’
He drew his weapon, established a two-handed grip, pressed the gun out and cleanly broke the shot as his arms reached full extension and his front sight came on the target. If you look at his body language, his entire body then briefly recoils as if in surprise. He was clearly aware that he fired a shot, even if he didn’t intend to.
He then watched Thomas collapse into the vehicle and holstered his weapon.
I don’t know of any better way to say it, other than to say that the video shows that this was not an accidental shooting, and that Feaster had to be aware that he shot Thomas.
This was either an intentional shooting of an unarmed man, or a negligent discharge that resulted in the shooting of an unarmed man, committed by an officer who did not have any obvious reason to draw his weapon. No matter how many times I view this footage, or trying to put myself in Feaster’s proverbial shoes can I seen any excuse for him drawing his weapon.
Nor can I view this footage as District Attorney Mike Ramsey did, along with the other evidence, and come to any other conclusion that Officer Patrick Feaster should be charged with a crime. While I am not an expert on California laws, this would appear to be either assault with a deadly weapon, or assault with a firearm.”
Now it seems that Officer Feaster will escape charges:
This was either an intentional shooting of an unarmed man, or a negligent discharge that resulted in the shooting of an unarmed man, committed by an officer who did not have any obvious reason to draw his weapon. No matter how many times I view this footage, or trying to put myself in Feaster’s proverbial shoes can I seen any excuse for him drawing his weapon.
Nor can I view this footage as District Attorney Mike Ramsey did, along with the other evidence, and come to any other conclusion that Officer Patrick Feaster should be charged with a crime. While I am not an expert on California laws, this would appear to be either assault with a deadly weapon, or assault with a firearm.
I think an outside agency need to review the evidence in this case. This was by any definition a bad shooting, and in my opinion, Officer Feaster should be brought up on charges.
When that investigation concludes that Feaster is criminally negligent for discharging his firearm as it frankly must, a second investigation may be warranted to understand why Feaster wasn’t charged initially.
This was a very bad, very obvious shooting of an unarmed wreck survivor by a police officer.
If you’re still skeptical, see the chilling video for yourself.
Source: Bearing Arms
Still doesn’t justify executing the guy !
It was wholeheartedly a bad shooting. However, he drew his weapon because he was in pursuit of this vehicle before they crashed out. They didn’t charge him because the prosecutor felt that all they could prove was negligence. Which is a misdemeanor. Wrong, but not biased.
I can’t see anything on this video that would in anyway justify what this Officer did and then didn’t report until asked.
This incident needs a full review investigation with charges being a minimum outcome.
Something fishy!