This question was inspired by I'M GERMAN IRISH postulating that Michael deliberately killed Sollozzo first and McCluskey next was because Michael had a greater hate for McCluskey, and wanted him to suffer for that second or so in knowing that he was about to die.

Altho that may have been Michael's intention, I don't think that that's what would've occured to McCluskey as he watched Michael shoot Sollozzo.

The idea, as Tom pointed out to Michael, of killing a NYC Police Captain was so absolutley outrageous and unheard of - and surely McCluskey knew this - that I doubt if he believed during that one second that Michael intended to kill him as well.

If McCluskey were smart, and had enough time to analyze the situation, he would have realized that Michael's only chance for escape rested with killing him also, but he didn't have the time to think it through.

Instead, I imagine that his thoughts were running somewhere along the line of "Look at that dumb Guinea kid. He just killed Sollozzo..."

You're reading way too much into all this. Sollozzo was killed first simply because he was younger and had better reflexes than McCluskey. Sollozzo would have had more time to react (and possibly save himself) if Mike had shot McCluskey first.

I agree -- I don't think Mike killed Sollozzo first to force McCluskey into a moment of terror while he contemplated his fate.

But since he did have that second or so, do you think he realized that he was about to be killed also?

I don't think McCluskey had enough time to process what was truly going on in front of him. He saw it, obviously. In the novel, Puzo described McCluskey looking at Michael like "now what the hell did you do that for? - hand over your gun and surrender."

I think Sollozzo was naturally wary, but not overly concerned about Michael. He vastly underestimated Michael, which was to the Corleone's favor. As Michael stated in the novel, once anyone makes up his mind to kill somebody, that is the toughest part - reaching such a decision. Sollozzo didn't think that Michael had reached that point, which means Michael did a great job of concealing his true emotions. This was one of his father's great traits and something that Sonny, quite obviously, could not do.

I think Goombah has it right. Hubris was at work in that scene. McCluskey never, ever expected that some "guinea hood" would attack a police captain. He had one or two seconds to react and possibly save himself. But he probably spent them either expecting Michael to surrender to him or trying to comprehend what just happened. Fatal mistake.
Underestimation plays a key role throughout the Trilogy. Vito said, famously, "Women and children can afford to be careless. Not men." Look at the consequences of underestimation, which is a major form of carelessness. Vito underestimated Sollozzo. Sollozzo and McCluskey underestimated Michael. Sonny underestimated Carlo. Barzini and Tessio underestimated Michael. Roth and Michael underestimated each other several times. And on and on...

NOTE: I changed the titl of this thread t waht is should have ben in the first place:

Did McCluskey know...?

I think that Michael killed Sollozzo first because Sollozzo was already nervous. He had obviously expressed some discomfort over Michael's trip to the restroom, while McCluskey waved it off, saying Michael had been frisked thoroughly. As Plaw pointed out, McCluskey believed that his position granted him immunity, while Sollozzo was a man who lived dangerously, and therefore suspected danger everywhere. Also, although it was McCluskey's punch to the jaw that released Michael's rage, Michael knew that his business was with Sollozzo.

i always thought he killed sollozo first as he was his main target and once he was killed and he could be sure then he would kill his bodyguard , imagine if he killed McClusky then Sollozo killed Mike , he would of failed.

It would make no sense for Michael to kill McCluskey first.

Sollozzo was the threat. Even if McCluskey had escaped, or somehow killed Michael, the danger to Vito was pretty much eliminated. For Sollozzo, everything depends on Vito's death. McCluskey was just hired protection - a secondary target.

Oh, and to answer the original question in this thread...

If he had time to think about it, he probably would have realized that he was about to get one right in the bib. Who would leave a police captain alive as a witness to a murder?

But he was clearly too shocked to react. I'd bet my last dime that his final seconds were spent trying to figure out where Michael got the gun.

After all, McCluskey's frisked 1000 young punks and none of them ever shot him before.

Sollozzo was far smarter than McCluskey and had sharper instinct. Sollozzo did not like the idea of Michael going to the bathroom in the first place....McCluskey was too busy eating his veal, and just said "If you gotta go you gotta go." Solozzo even frisked Mike even though McCluskey had already done so....which led to the great line "I've frisked a thousand young punks." I think he his Sollozzo first because if he'd his McCluskey first Sollozzo would have had the reflexes and the time to hit Michael...who knows, Sollozzo may have been packing heat himself.

The novel supports you, dt. If memory serves, Puzo wrote something like this:when Michael whipped out the gun, Sollozzo's "reactions were so acute that he had already begun to shield himself. But Michael, younger, his reflexes sharper, pulled the trigger...McCluskey turned to Michael with a look of outrage, as if he should surrender..."

TB in the movie, there is the quick flash in Sollozzo's eyes a split second before Michael shoots him, as if he KNOWS its coming but its too late. It is yet another of those little things that makes the GF such a great film.

And while we're on the subject of things that make GF such a great movie:
Although Sollozzo is important as a catalyst for things to come in the film, his character doesn't have a lot of screen time and he's knocked off early. But Al Lettieri was such a brilliant choice, and did such a great job with the relatively few lines he had, that he's a far greater presence than his limited screen time would otherwise indicate. He's yet another of those brilliant casting choices, like Joe Spinnel.

Agreed TB. A Brilliant casting choice. The GF films prove there are no small parts, just small actors. I mean Brando doesnt have much screen time but his presence is in the movie throughout. Luca only has a couple of scenes, same with Woltz, Paulie, Moe Green, and Barzini...in fact Barzini only has the scene at the wedding where he tears up the picture, and the scene in the board room (and the one in which he gets shot. Ye if you look at the dialogue game people can recite line by line what most of these people say.

Not to mention Abe Vigoda as Tessio. His expression when he looks to Tom upon his realization that his death is imminent is for me one of the most memorable scenes of the trilogy.

It was physics and probability. For Michael to kill the cop first he would have had to swing to his left which would have exposed his arm and the gun to Virgil's attack or given him enough time to take other offensive or defensive action. As others have opined, the cop didn't haver a clue. He was so dumb he asked in an Italian restaurant "How's the Italian food in this place?" Che stupido!

Maybe he would, but that would also be a great deal different than asking "How's the Irish food in this place?"

Michael was there to kill Sollozzo, there was no guarantee McCluskey would even be at the table...if he got "the turk" sollozzo could have been ignored, would have saved a lot of grief - but the good Captain had to ask how the Italiian food was...he should have stepped next door for a bowl of Irish stew

I also think it 100% certain Sollozzo was armed, while McCluskey may have not been, or at best may have had a back up weapon - I mean, nobody would ever dare kill a New York Police captain....

Sollozzo was known to even be deadly with a knife, no small claim in a modern world