what is the relevance of your question about what i would do in an apparently unrelated hypothetical situation to this topic?
I think what bolo MEANT to ask you (in order to make his question relevant to the current situation) was: 'Would you want to walk into, say, the bad section of Detroit and let some teens tase you try to prove how manly & authoritative you are to the local fauna? Or might that wind up being a potentially deadly situation?
Don’t worry, SteveH. You can always tell a Police State buff by the hyperventilating, bodice-ripping “scenarios” they invent to explain the actions of their superheroes.
The relevance is simple: it is a threat assessment question.
If I sneak into your house attempt to cover your face with a chloroform soaked rag but you manage to wriggle free, what is your threat assessment? It’s not lethal, so I must not mean you any harm, right? You should have no right to defend yourself against any further attack, right? Maybe I’m running away, but your family is in the house, too. You can’t use any means to stop me before I get through the door, right? You have no obligation to protect your family from a potentially dangerous interloper, right?
Another hypothetical, but put it together...
1. We still don’t know whether or not Slager was hit with the taser for certain. I’m simply arguing this point because there seems to be some evidence to suggest he was, and I learned from Martin and Brown that we should probably wait until all evidence is in before passing judgment.
2. IF Scott did turn Slager’s taser on him, what is Slager’s threat assessment? Is it equivalent to me trying to chloroform you?
3. IF Scott did turn Slager’s taser on him, does Slager have time enough to determine if Scott still has possession of it? From the moment they break contact to the moment Slager is drawing is less than a second.
4. IF Scott did still have Slager’s taser, does Slager have time to determine whether or not the barbs have enough contact to incapacitate if Scott triggered the charge? (Do you want to find out if I put enough chloroform on the rag to knock you out?)
5. IF Scott is willing to attack a police officer with his own taser, is that considered “serious harm?” Officers can respond with deadly force if they believe a suspect intends them *or others* serious harm!
6. IF Scott ran off and Slager had not discharged, AND Scott grabbed a passing woman and drew a knife to her throat, wouldn’t we all be wondering, “Why didn’t the cop shoot him when he had the chance???”
EVERYTHING is hypothetical at this point because the cop *reacted*. Not knowing the full details, I can’t be entirely sure what he reacted to or if his reaction was within legal boundaries.
I can say this for sure: *I* personally believe that *if* Scott did attack Slager with the taser, and hit him, then the shooting *might* be justified because there wasn’t enough time for Slager to determine the full disposition of all potential threats. With less than 1 second between separation and drawing of the weapon, *I* believe that the shooting would be an extension of active conflict which represented possible serious harm to Slager.
So, in the end, the taser does represent a serious threat, potentially deadly, in the same way my chloroform rag represents a potentially deadly threat.
(Disclaimer, because some people don’t get this: I want to hear the facts of the case. I want to consider things like “reasonable doubt.” BUT... I also *do* believe that cops often get high on their own power and conduct themselves in unlawful and potentially murderous ways. Cops have been trained to act as if everything is a threat and EVERY threat is serious. That’s why you see grandpas reaching for their canes in the bed of their truck getting shot, or black men reaching in their car to retrieve their license *as ordered* getting shot. This is a serious problem for law enforcement and makes us look at situations like Slager/Scott with a strong bias that may not be fair. This one is not as black and white as the old man and the guy getting his license, so I’m awaiting more information and possibly a jury verdict.)