Are you serious? At the very least, they had reasonable suspicion that he had been operating a vehicle while under the influence of a controlled substance. But, they also had failure to obey lawful commands of a police officer.
You're not allowed to ignore reasonable request from a police office who is attempting to do their job.
Ignoring their repeated demands that he STOP, continuing toward his car gave the police ample reason to believe the guy was unstable and unpredictable. In such a case, letting him open the door was a direct, potentially lethal threat to the officers. If he reached for that door (and, it appears to me that he did)... they were justified in shooting him. Especially if, they had already tazed him without affect.
NO WAY they could allow him to open that door.
It's a damn shamed this incident progressed to where it did. He should have been tazed and/or tackled before getting anywhere close to his truck. But, that's easy to say.. sitting here on my comfy couch.
The failure of our news media to report FACTS about this, and other similar cases is a real danger to our society. See Charlotte last night. They're propagating a lie that police are running around just looking for people to kill. I heard Joe Scarborough saying, "this guy was doing EVERYTHING he needed to do to not be shot".
Um... no, he was not. He was doing exactly the things that WILL get anyone shot. You, me, anyone.... doing what he did would have a very good chance of getting shot.
You have no obligation to obey a police order to stop unless you are being detained by the police. Did they tell him that?
You're not allowed to ignore reasonable request from a police office who is attempting to do their job.
Depends on your definition of reasonable I guess. If I've done nothing wrong and the police tell me to stop is that reasonable?
Ignoring their repeated demands that he STOP, continuing toward his car gave the police ample reason to believe the guy was unstable and unpredictable.
Debatable, but even so did that present a threat to the police or anyone in the area?
In such a case, letting him open the door was a direct, potentially lethal threat to the officers.
Why?
If he reached for that door (and, it appears to me that he did)... they were justified in shooting him.
How did that represent a threat to the police or anyone else? Isn't the key requirement for the use of deadly force is that it was required to prevent the death or injury of the police officer or the surrounding public? What was the threat there?
NO WAY they could allow him to open that door.
Why is that illegal? What if his intent was to get his ID or the car registration?
You, me, anyone.... doing what he did would have a very good chance of getting shot.
So you really think that? Really?