If You Take An Officer's Taser In Fight With The Officer That You Started, You Deserve Getting Shot

If you are going to philosophize your justifications about about people getting shot to death. You could at least spell check bro.

 

If you have a mental illness, and make a threading move, you deserve to be shot and killed.

If you are under the influence, and make a threatening move, you deserve to be shot and killed.

If you do not have a mental illness, isn’t mentally deficit in any way, not under the influence and made a mistake, you deserve to be shot and killed.

 

I’ve been wondering about this incident. Does a police officer have a right to kill someone who points a stun gun at them?

I don’t know if there is any kind of official policy about this. I suppose the police will make the argument that the bad guy could stun the police officer and then take his gun and shoot him. So, the officer could say he feared for his life when the stun gun was pointed at him.

This case is a lot different than the George Floyd case as this officer was Making a split second decision. The officer may even claim he was unsure if the man had a stun gun or a real gun.

 

Yes

 

I also wonder about this instance. On one hand, you could want the cop to realize that his own taser wont kill him. On the other hand where do we begin to define lethality (IE baseball bat) and what merits the use of deadly force? Maybe we need tranq darts to ensure all perps are just immediatly asleep.

 

Bingo. We have a winner. If a suspect turns around mid-pursuit and points an object that resembles a gun at an officer, I believe it’s his duty to fire at suspect. Sure, it’s likely the stun gun that he just stole but you can’t be certain in that instant

 

So what? Can I retaliate against you for something you might do? Your honor, @pgabriel was going to punch me so I punched him first. We’re cool, right?

Cops aren’t there to judge you. They’re there to deal with the situation at hand, not probabilities.

 

They knew exactly what he had in the ATL case. I agree with you otherwise. Maybe stun guns should be bright neon with bunny ears from now on.

 

Okay.

 

If you resist arrest, you deserve to be shot & killed.
If you fake a $20 bill, you deserved to be killed.
If you jog through a neighborhood that's not your own & look at houses under construction, you deserve to be shot & killed.

*unless you are white.
And then by all means please go shoot up the local mall, church, movie theater, school and we'll take you in alive afterwards.

 

Remind me never to take your fork.

Why on earth would you shoot someone with a taser?

And how incompetent do you have to be to:

A) Lose a scuffle to a drunk guy
B) Get punched in the face by a drunk guy
C) Have a drunk guy take your taser
D) Have a drunk guy be able to run away with your taser

Effing keystone cops here. They deserve to be fired for their incompetence.

And the guy didn't deserve to be gunned down for escaping police.

 

It’s not as easy as you think to arrest someone who is resisting arrest

 

It's not, but there's no way two trained cops should not be able to arrest a drunk man, not to mention losing a weapon and letting him get up and run away.

And certainly someone shouldn't be shot just for running away.

 

Why? Tasers are supposed to be non-lethal. Why does that warrant getting shot?

But if you consider tasers to be lethal, then the police should not be using them on unarmed suspects or perps. So there are going to be a load more of police prosecutions.

Just a hint for you to improve your posting. These types of threads are how I know that you aren't the original poster known as pgabriel.

 

If any shooting can be avoided, it should. That said, I think that the officer in this particular situation has a much better defense in court. It was a sudden decision and there was a taser pointed at him by Mr. Brooks, who was acting erratically. The officer can credibly argue self defense much more than the one who killed George Floyd can.

And if the law asks police officers to check on intoxicated/sleeping people on other people’s place of work or living, I can see why the police feel it would be unfair to pass judgement on those who legitimately face (or at least reasonably think they face a threat) out of these encounters. The fundamental question asked by some of the “defund the police” advocates is what exactly we need armed police to do that cannot be better addressed by other types of government workers. I personally think that the police are asked to do too much, but the exact parameter of their duty should be discussed.