… and they will get away with it.
OK, exactly what did the 12 year old kid do that was illegal?
I’m not sure why they chased him at all. They had his car, his license plate, and probably his driver’s license (since he failed a sobriety test), so why not just calmly arrest him at his home (driving drunk, resisting arrest, and whatever else).
Hmm. I dunno. Consider this scenario:
- Suspect takes taser from cop.
- Suspect points taser at cop, squeezes trigger, and tasers cop.
- Cop is disabled due to taser.
- Suspect takes gun from cop.
- Suspect shoots cop.
I’m not necessarily justifying the cop’s actions here, BTW.
Tazers are deadly weapons in their own right, not anything like as lethal as a pistol but deadly all the same.
Pull one on an armed cop and you are not leaving many options, you just got yourself into a firefight where you’ve got the least powerful option.
No surprise the perp ended up dead, none at all - deserved? Hard to prove otherwise really - you would not step out in front of an oncoming semi even if you had the crossing lights in your favour, why would you point a deadly weapon at a police office armed with a handgun?
Why do you completely disregard when he ended up dead?
Seattle cops running into protesters from behind with their bikes, then arresting them for assault.
I don’t typically give knee-jerk reactions for or against the police - it depends on the circumstances of the case.
In this particular case, the suspect was a danger to the public by getting behind the wheel while drunk - so drunk that he passed out in his car. The police had every reason to remove him from the streets, by force if he resisted and refused to comply, which he did. He escalated the situation, and if that wasn’t bad enough, he physically assaulted the arresting officer, took his taser, ran off into the night, and turned around to point the taser at the officers in pursuit. I can see why the officers were perhaps pumped up on their own adrenaline and fired shots in response. I don’t see how a jury convicts these officers.
Still, that is not to say we can’t rethink how police train and respond in these situations.
That’s an older one from Dec 2019…
Damn. Thanks.
Makes sense. This is not at all a clear-cut case of police overreaction. (Separately, RitterSport makes a good point that the chase seemed unnecessary to begin with).
Video at link:
https://m.imgur.com/t/unmuted/3gaTKG3
Ok then, explain
[quote=“Crafter_Man, post:16086, topic:700942”]
- Suspect takes taser from cop
[QUOTE]
how a police officer allows this to happen ITFP.
Do I read this correct… officers… plural?
The drunk ass criminal has a single shot weapon with an extremely short range, is running away, and is pursued by multiple officers with firearms, and the only choice here is to kill him?
Got it.
There is bodycam video that shows an officer attempting to handcuff the suspect. Shows the officer means that it had to come from a bodycam not on the officer engaged with the suspect.
Yet Another Cop Team Resigns En Masse.
An entire South Florida SWAT team resigned over criticism from 22-year-old vice mayor who was elected while a student, Charles Davis, Business Insider (as reposted at Yahoo), June 13, 2020.
Small-town SWAT team, with history of night-time no-knock raids for small amounts of drugs, killed a guy (and his dog!) in one such a few years ago. Now, the vice-mayor is critical of them.
So the entire SWAT team resigned their positions in protest. (Note, they didn’t quit the force. Just quit the SWAT team.)
In the state of Georgia, a taser is defined as a non-lethal weapon. Does that change somehow when the cop is the victim as opposed to the taser wielder?
And yeah, there were two cops on the scene.
To play Devils Advocate, it is lethally dangerous if you’re rendered unconscious, with your weapons right there where the taserer can grab them. You can’t know for certain the other cop will have you covered.
This doesn’t make any sense. Where did Rayshard Brooks get a Taser in the first place? He wasn’t just walking around (or driving around) with one; there was a Taser on the scene because a police officer not only was carrying one but drew it and used it (unsuccessfully) on Brooks. What justified the officer using this allegedly deadly force at that point? Brooks was pretty clearly being uncooperative, but at that point he doesn’t seem to have been doing anything (or failing to do anything) that would have justified the police in just shooting him.
Presumably, if the use of the Taser had been successful–and Brooks had been subdued and handcuffed and taken into custody–and someone had complained, the police would have explained that one of the officers had used his service-issue [del]nonlethal[/del] less-than-lethal device to gain compliance from the subject, who was then transported to the police station and blah blah blah.
But then, when Brooks grabs the Taser–and of course he shouldn’t have done that, or fought with the cops, or driven drunk, or fallen asleep in the drive-through lane at a Wendy’s–NOW all of a sudden a Taser is a deadly weapon! And the cops have NO CHOICE but to shoot and kill the man who is brandishing the same gizmo that they themselves were using minutes before on a person who was being belligerent and uncooperative, but hardly posed a threat to the lives of the officers or innocent third parties that would have justified the use of deadly force.
If the guy who just grabbed your Taser actually hits you with it, and if it actually renders you unconscious or seriously incapacitates you (and it obviously didn’t on Brooks), and if Brooks then gets your gun, and if your partner is unable to do anything about any of this (including justifiably shooting Brooks after he has a real gun–or even appears to be making a hypothetical serious grab for the gun of the hypothetically-incapacitated police officer)…
That’s way too many ifs and hypotheticals to justify shooting someone dead.