[Filo]

In this case, I saw suspect still resisting, still not in control, and still a potential threat.

Then they must have made special videos for you or you're watching them with special glasses.

All of the videos I've seen on the news and all over YouTube make it clear that Grant had one hand in cuffs and the other firmly in the grasp of one of the officers with that arm being brought around to the cuffs when the shot was fired.

Other cases, I have seen officers overreact - but not often.

Then either you're not taking a fair sample or you're using those special glasses again. I've seen officers overreact tons. I could fill the page with links to videos, news stories and so on.

But I got my start as a medic and have been on those scenes and too many people have been injured believing someone held on the ground can't be dangerous.

That I can agree with. Even in cuffs a person could be dangerous.

The question at hand is whether or not Grant was, at the time he was shot, a sufficient immediate threat to justify the use of a weapon. You can't shoot or tase someone because they might be a threat. If you could then the cops would be justified in shooting anyone. . . (hey, wait. . .)

Even the taser was not justified under the specific circumstances shown on video.

If he had been tased and not killed the same videos would have gotten him a nice award for police brutality.

[Ophiucus]

You can't shoot or tase someone because they might be a threat.

Wrong yet again. That is when you act. You don't shoot someone after they shoot you.

In this case, the weapon should not have been drawn second, he should have used his taser the first time he drew it. His first mistake was hesitating - that gets a person killed. In this case, the subject was killed because the second and horrible mistake was the drawing of his sidearm.

If he had been tased and not killed the same videos would have gotten him a nice award for police brutality.

Wouldn't have made a blip in the news.