Posted on 06/16/2020 7:46:18 AM PDT by rktman
and he got one of their tasers
and he fired it at one of them
you shoot someone with a taser so they can’t disable you and get your firearms, if you’re a cop
cmon
how many of you have gotten drunk and pulled over in a wendys drive thru to sleep it off...?
i mean, all normal people do this
then when the cops give you a hard time and want to charge you with a dui, you resist and start physically attacking both of them
and take one of their tasers
and fire the taser at a pursuing officer
i mean, isn’t this the typical normal reaction anyone would have?
for the clueless, /sarc
“Except for the fact the policeman had a partner who would have stopped that from happening.”
How? Using force is now not approved. Or could the other cop have shot the guy for attacking his partner?
Makes me long for the days of billy clubs and saps.
I’d bet 99% of career criminals know how to get a gun out of a retention holster. They probably teach classes on it in prison.
The issue turned on him being so intoxicated behind the wheel of a car.
The tox report will be very interesting.
IMO there may yet be a few loose ends. The first is that the prosecutor, the mayor and most of the rest of downtown ATL apparently thinks, at least for the time being, that the shooting was not justified; i.e., that the fleeing felon" rule which generally justifies use of lethal force will not apply in this case.
It likely will be argued the suspect didn't batter the officers, cause any apparent physical injuries or even damage the officer's uniforms - it will be argued he just "wiggled" loose and then took the taser so he wouldn't get hurt. The issue will be carefully crafted as to whether GA should allow LE to shoot a "a tired, confused and scared" running DUI suspect in the back.
(Not sure here if the taser was or was not in range and the officer should have considered that at the moment officer fired. It may also be the "injury" claimed by one of the officers may have occurred while he was on the ground and that the officer may have "mishandled" the taser.)
Of course, most would think that if on the facts the rule applies as a matter of law, the case should be over prior to any jury trial.
Nonetheless, from the article: ...the back entry point of the bullets does not in itself transform the incident into a murder.
That is certainly true, however, if by chance an autopsy reveals the bullet path and or any exit wounds are lined up with the barrel of the officer's weapon rather than at a sharp angle through the body, it could raise doubt for the jury as to whether deceased "presented a threat".
Based on what has been made public, most of us can speculate on what the autopsy will show, but one never knows.
Great article, notably lacking the usual apologetic “While we all know that the Minneapolis cop was guilty, it’s different here. Really.”
His actions may very well have been ‘justified’. That’s up to a jury to decide, as is proper. If I shot someone pointing a taser at me, I’d have to endure the legal process. Just because the person is wearing a magic blue suit doesn’t make him immune from the law. At least it shouldn’t. He also had backup right there. I’d say he had no reasonable excuse for lethal force, but we’ll see how it actually plays out.
Its funny you say that. My son in law is a trooper and he was saying they probably would have chased him down, or called for additional help. The reason is that he isn’t going to kill anyone with a taser that’s been discharged a couple of times.
I asked him if that thought would go through the officer’s mind that quickly.
One of the parts of his training was the “beat down” week. During this week they engaged in literal 2 and 3 on one beat downs—where the cadets were getting their asses kicked. The reason for it is to learn to keep your head about you when you are faced with a bad situation. He referred to this exercise during our conversation.
The premise is that you can call for help and chase down a drunk or drug addled idiot without endangering your life or anyone elses. This guy was not a threat to anyone else. And in his state he would burn out running pretty quickly.
The other thing he told me is that he was trained to start thinking this guy was going to fight and bolt as soon as they encounter them. AND, they needed to start thinking about their response. After a while that process is akin to looking for fire exits in buildings—you do it without giving it a second thought.
Do I think the shooting was justified? Yes I do. I understand why the cop did it.
I also know that well trained police forces train for this exact situation. It is critical to keep your mind focused and calm—even in a fight.
Most local police forces do not engage in de-escalation training. They cannot afford to send every cop to a refresher course every year. Its not practical.
Obviously, the best result is to not drive in a drunk or drug addled state. The second best result is to simply follow the commands of the officer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.