[DoodleDawg]

A few days ago in the wake of this incident, I read an article where the Supreme Court ruled on this type of matter some years ago, and declared a cop could shoot a fleeing suspect...even if the suspect might not be armed.

It was a 1985 Supreme Court decision, Tennessee v Garner. But the court ruled the police could shoot at a fleeing suspect only if "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others." So what was the significant threat of death or injury to the officer or others in this case?

[IChing]

That IS what is being explored.

[USNBandit]

" So what was the significant threat of death or injury to the officer or others...."That will be the question.

[driftless2]

We don't know yet. All the facts aren't in. People are rushing to judgement.

I'll say what I said before...this supposedly new evidence does not necessarily exonerate the cop. What we do know so far looks like a case of a possibly disoriented cop shooting a suspect who had just assaulted him.

Because of being assaulted, does that justify the shooting? I don't know. Maybe not.

But I'll repeat...if I physically assaulted a policeman using the policeman's own weapon on him (or any weapon), and then I fled, I shouldn't be surprised if the cop tried to shoot me.

Let's change things up a bit. The same scenario unfolds, but in the struggle instead of grabbing the cop's taser and using it on him, Scott pulls out a knife and slashes the cop or a hammer and bashes him a good one. Tasers can be just a lethal as many other weapons. The cop is on the ground and then Scott starts running.

Maybe the rules are the cop still isn't supposed to shoot Scott. But if the same thing happened to me as happened to Slager, I'd be mighty irritated to the point of shooting Scott.