INDIANAPOLIS — A day after edited body camera video was released, questions into IMPD Ofc. Douglas Correll's actions are still being asked after he shot and killed Gary Harrell running from a traffic stop earlier this month.
"Why did he have to shoot?" asked Rev. Antonio Alexander, with Concerned Clergy of Indianapolis.
"There is nothing to suggest, from my perspective at this point, that the officer did anything inappropriate," said David Klinger, a former police officer and professor of criminology who watched the edited body cam video.
"I'm quite curious, and I imagine the officer is quite curious, what in the world was Mr. Harrell thinking? What in the world was he doing? What was he trying to accomplish? If he merely wanted to escape and not get a ticket, all he had to do was run away," Klinger said. "Why grab the gun and run away?"
Alexander said critics of the officer's actions will wonder why Harrell was shot when he had his back to the officer.
"Folks will look at it from the standpoint of he was running away, and he was not posing an imminent threat, and that will be the biggest question," Alexander said.
"When they slowed the video down, I believe it's just before the officer fires. Mr. Harrell, he's running this way, and the gun is pointing back towards the officer," Klinger said. "I know that someone who's holding a pistol in their hand that way can easily fire, can easily pull the trigger."
Harrell's family said, in part, during a statement:
"What is undisputed from the video is that Gary had his back to Correll as he moved away from him. Gary never assaulted, or even touched, Correll. Officer Correll gave one command—‘Stop! Drop it!’—but failed to give Gary any time to comply before gunning him down."
"What's the purpose of giving orders if you're not allowed time to comply or not to comply?" Alexander asked.
Klinger told 13News officers don't need to give a verbal order in that circumstance.
"The reason that an officer would shoot, in general, is because he or she believes that his or her life, in a circumstance where there aren't any third parties where there's no citizen, that his or her life is in imminent jeopardy," Klinger said. "Someone running in a fashion where that gun is coming back, there is no obligation to give a verbal challenge when deadly force is being presented to you."
Correll's attorneys released the statement Wednesday evening:
"We first and foremost acknowledge that any death is a tragedy and the thoughts of Officer Correll and the law enforcement community go out to the Harrell family.
We endorse and reiterate the comments of Chief Randal Taylor calling for a “thorough and complete” investigation to be done before any conclusions are made. A legal analysis of this encounter cannot be based solely upon the cursory examination of video footage. We look forward to the investigation revealing exactly what information was known to the officer at the time, precisely what actions Mr. Harrell took, and all actions taken by Officer Correll pursuant to his training and experience. Like all other significant decisions, the review of an incident like this cannot be rushed, and should rise and fall based upon a detailed review of the totality of circumstances.
Departmental policies, Indiana statute, and U.S. Supreme Court caselaw allows an officer to use deadly force in several circumstances, especially in tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving situations. We therefore must await a full and fair investigative process.
Far too often, political pundits and others are quick to judge police action shootings based upon little more than a snippet of video. Fortunately, longstanding legal precedent requires a much more thorough analysis.
We look forward to a fair and impartial review of this matter free of political influence and undue public pressure. That is the only way to arrive at a final determination based solely upon the evidence."