Dont drive drunk, then try to fight police after repeated warnings, then take a weapon off them, then point it at them. And go get him later is fine if one of you guarantees us he isnt going to drive drunk and run people over or attack people as he did 2 officers.
The non-lethal weapon could be used to incapacitate a cop, take their weapon and kill them. Cops can use one level of force greater than is being used against them.
Would love to hear MADD's opinion on this. Also sad to see this situation go so sideways when it didn't have too
And it could also be used as a stand up comedy microphone! Or it could be used to swat flies. If you don't know how to get stand off distance from a person with a taser, while you have a handgun, you're an idiot. This is needless escalation of force.
He was not driving when they found him. The only thing they had on him was sleeping in his car. They had his car; how is he going to drive drunk? I don't give a ratz ass if the had a bazooka; the officers life was never in danger thus lethal force was unnecessary and criminal.
I can understand that opinion. I am just of the opinion the officers life was in danger when he fought and when you take a weapon of any kind off a cop, or anyboy, regardless of intent, all bets are off.
All they had was sleeping in a car on private property. Could have easily said, "Hey buddy, go inside get some food and call yourself an Uber. Come get your car tomorrow." They decided to escalate the situation by trying to add another notch on their DUI monthly quota. [uck fay] them for taking the father of 4 little girls away from them.
You’ve got this pesky habit of saying stupid shit to uphold your own goofy worldview and then trying to spin it into something somewhat more sensibly described when called out. You’ve failed even that routinely low bar, here. A taser is for tasing people, so as to incapacitate them. It could be used to give an electric enema. It could be used as an outboard engine. It could be used to turn a gear on a Mars rover. But that’s not what it’s for, and that’s not why he grabbed it. It’s certainly not why he shot it at them. Why? Because common sense. That’s why. If you want to play silly semantics that he grabbed and shot it for some other reason, go ahead, I guess. This isn’t excessive force (the irony of typing these words to a person openly advocating for terrorism just last week is so strong as to be palpable), at all, for all of the reasons I’ve previously mentioned. A police taser can reach up to 21’ - a distance that can be closed in, what, a second? They knew exactly how to keep a safe distance from a man with a taser and they with firearms - unfortunately for him, too well. This world that you’re imaging (hoping?) where all cops are bad, and everything that cops do either is wrong or should be immediately assumed as such, doesn’t exist nor will it ever.
How do you think he came to be in that car, alone and sleeping? That’s how you want drunk driving handled? Hey, bub, call you an Uber. Had he tased an officer - you know, as he was clearly trying to do - he could have easily incapacitated them and taken their weapon. Or, let’s just cut to the chase - how many times do you think it’s acceptable for a person to shoot a taser at a cop? Maybe this will be easier if we start at your conclusion and work backwards.
By “escalating the situation” (that the suspect created) do you mean “doing their jobs in enforcing the law”. The guy who was killed, terrible and unfortunate as it is, both caused and escalated the situation.
He shot the taser and missed. Turned and started running and was shot in the back. The threat to the officer was gone after he missed. At that point the taser was nothing more than a paper weight. Lets assume he hit he officer and incapacitated him. His partner with gun drawn was feet away.
Shout out to the two "trained" officers that couldn't detain a single drunk dude without getting their shit stolen. Glad those two are out keeping the streets safe.
There is no semantics. You started with a slippery slope, and I showed you why it was stupid. The guy "could" have done lots of things, but what he did was none of those things. The argument of "could" is no argument. It is a slippery slope fallacy. What was done is that a non-lethal was used to cause no harm, to anyone, and in response, there was an escalation of force. Needlessly. These are the facts. The rest is you, again, being an idiot and interjecting conjecture and possibility in light of actual fact.
You really don’t like facts, do you? Here, let me help: 1. What did the man take from the police officers?
Did you see those same two cops try to subdue him originally, and for an extended period of time? How’d that go?
Wait, are you calling my statement that he shot a taser at them so as to incapacitate them was a “slippery slope”? What other reasons can you come up with for shooting a taser at someone, if not to incapacitate them? List’em out for me.
