Rayshard Brooks: A justified use of deadly force, explained

[Coyote]

He had already attempted to cause serious bodily injury to Rolfe by firing a taser at him. By that time, Brooks had begun to flee with a partially loaded (but no less dangerous) taser in his hand. He was brought down to end any threat would have presented to other people in the area.

I'll say it again. He had dropped the taser. A taser in non-lethal. It also has to be recharged once fired - he had no way of doing that because it was out of its holster.
Experience tells me - tells anyone - that he was no danger to any other person. He was drunk and being stupid. Not psychotic. And if a cop can't tell the difference between those behaviours, then maybe they shouldn't be in the police.
Looks like the Atlanta prosecutor and police agree with me. They made the right call.

Unfortunately for you, as opposed to you living clear across the other side of the planet, thousands of miles away, I live in the state in question. Seventy miles away from Atlanta.

It has nothing to do with his emotional state, it had everything to do with his compliance with lawfully given orders.

The taser in question was fully charged and was capable of firing 2 cartridges. It did not need to be charged in between shots. It is just as dangerous when the first or second cartridge is fired.

The man was a drunk driver.

Could a non lethal means of resolving the situation been used?

No. Not when he chose to employ violence to resist arrest. Not when he took a fully loaded taser from an officer and fled with it.. Not whe he fired said taser at the police officer. He already presented himself as a threat. All of his good behavior prior to the altercation was rendered moot.

Wrong.

Once again, you ignore that the following police procedure violations: Do not fire at a fleeing suspect unless your life is in imminent danger. Do not fire into a crowd of bystander. Rolfe hit a car with three people in it.

There was no need to arrest Mr. Brooks at that time. They had his keys, his car, and his address. They can pick him up at any time.

They failed to follow procedures, all along the line, and a man was killed for no reason.

I did not know that...

 

[Coyote]

However, I do feel a $5000 fine and a year in jail is way excessive just for punching someone in the face.

He punched an officer in the face, which escalated it to an aggravated misdemeanor, and ergo, felony resisting arrest.

Still not punishable by death.

I will let the law decide that. Not you. What other recourse was left to the officer after he had a taser fired at him?

This armchair quarterbacking is getting old. You all accuse me of lacking understanding, but it is you who REFUSE to understand.

Isn’t that what you are doing?

If you feel there is no other recourse...maybe the question is,what sort of training do tbe get that they should feel there is no alternative short of lethal force For a drunk driver?

 

[Sunsettommy]

I think the DA clearly threw the Book at the officers.... listed every violation, no matter how small....

It ain't a term for nothing.


The drunk Mr Brooks being shot in the back while running away, was absolutely, uncalled for, they were not faced with a deadly threat....

And according to every legal article I read, what the DA did was a catastrophic mistake. He grossly overcharged the officers, almost guaranteeing that they are exonerated by a grand jury.

As per your second contention, Brooks established himself as a "deadly threat" the moment he fired the taser. His willingness to use a weapon against police demonstrated that. It demonstrates that Brooks would have used any means at his disposal to prevent the police from subduing him.

And as per the next contention:

He was running away, yes, while pointing his stolen taser at the officer. Notice his positioning in the video. He turned his right arm and upper torso toward the officer while maintaining a forward motion. His back remained exposed to the officer who ultimately fired the shots. There was no way he was simply fleeing. He had a weapon. He fired. He died. His mistake, not the officer's.

No, he didn't. The cops KNEW the taser was empty, out of juice, because it had already been discharged twice. He was not a deadly threat to the officers...And they both knew this....

You didn't watch the video, since it was charged when Brooks fired it, the sparks were obvious.

 

[TemplarKormac]

There was no need to arrest Mr. Brooks at that time.

Yes, there was. By being caught drunk driving, he violated the terms of his parole/probation. That is a mandatory jail sentence.

Like I told someone else in this thread, you know absolutely nothing.

 

[Dragonlady]

He had already attempted to cause serious bodily injury to Rolfe by firing a taser at him. By that time, Brooks had begun to flee with a partially loaded (but no less dangerous) taser in his hand. He was brought down to end any threat would have presented to other people in the area.

I'll say it again. He had dropped the taser. A taser in non-lethal. It also has to be recharged once fired - he had no way of doing that because it was out of its holster.
Experience tells me - tells anyone - that he was no danger to any other person. He was drunk and being stupid. Not psychotic. And if a cop can't tell the difference between those behaviours, then maybe they shouldn't be in the police.
Looks like the Atlanta prosecutor and police agree with me. They made the right call.

Unfortunately for you, as opposed to you living clear across the other side of the planet, thousands of miles away, I live in the state in question. Seventy miles away from Atlanta.

It has nothing to do with his emotional state, it had everything to do with his compliance with lawfully given orders.

The taser in question was fully charged and was capable of firing 2 cartridges. It did not need to be charged in between shots. It is just as dangerous when the first or second cartridge is fired.

The man was a drunk driver.

Could a non lethal means of resolving the situation been used?

No. Not when he chose to employ violence to resist arrest. Not when he took a fully loaded taser from an officer and fled with it.. Not whe he fired said taser at the police officer. He already presented himself as a threat. All of his good behavior prior to the altercation was rendered moot.

Wrong.

Once again, you ignore that the following police procedure violations: Do not fire at a fleeing suspect unless your life is in imminent danger. Do not fire into a crowd of bystander. Rolfe hit a car with three people in it.

There was no need to arrest Mr. Brooks at that time. They had his keys, his car, and his address. They can pick him up at any time.

They failed to follow procedures, all along the line, and a man was killed for no reason.

You don't even know what the procedures are. I laid them out in the OP and you still choose to spout your ignorance.

You did not outline police procedures. You quoted statutes and laws, looking for loopholes to justify the shooting. You persist in calling the taser a "deadly weapon" which the DA said is not considered a "deadly weapon". You're also looking at a veteran officer with a jacket full of "excessive force complaints" and a prior shooting. Patterns and practices.

You have no legal training or experience. You're the one tossing out bullshit hoping something sticks. I've actually attended law school, and know that you can't just quote a bunch of statues to justify murder. We're the officer's actions reasonable given the circumstances. Hell to the no. There are so many other ways he could have handled this.

Officer Rolfe should have been stripped of his badge and disarmed years ago.

 

[TemplarKormac]

However, I do feel a $5000 fine and a year in jail is way excessive just for punching someone in the face.

He punched an officer in the face, which escalated it to an aggravated misdemeanor, and ergo, felony resisting arrest.

Still not punishable by death.

I will let the law decide that. Not you. What other recourse was left to the officer after he had a taser fired at him?

This armchair quarterbacking is getting old. You all accuse me of lacking understanding, but it is you who REFUSE to understand.

Isn’t that what you are doing?

If you feel there is no other recourse...maybe the question is,what sort of training do tbe get that they should feel there is no alternative short of lethal force For a drunk driver?

No. I am not. I am stating facts and information, backed with evidence and legal precedent. Most of the arguments I have encountered in this thread thus far have either been emotional or irrelevant to the situation at hand. Or plainly misinformed altogether.

It wasn't that he was a drunk driver, it was the moment he chose to become a violent felon while resisting arrest. Had he fully cooperated with those officers, we wouldn't be in this thread lofting well-intended points over each other's heads.

Nor would I be suffering the repeated insults to and of my intelligence.

 

[TemplarKormac]

He had already attempted to cause serious bodily injury to Rolfe by firing a taser at him. By that time, Brooks had begun to flee with a partially loaded (but no less dangerous) taser in his hand. He was brought down to end any threat would have presented to other people in the area.

I'll say it again. He had dropped the taser. A taser in non-lethal. It also has to be recharged once fired - he had no way of doing that because it was out of its holster.
Experience tells me - tells anyone - that he was no danger to any other person. He was drunk and being stupid. Not psychotic. And if a cop can't tell the difference between those behaviours, then maybe they shouldn't be in the police.
Looks like the Atlanta prosecutor and police agree with me. They made the right call.

Unfortunately for you, as opposed to you living clear across the other side of the planet, thousands of miles away, I live in the state in question. Seventy miles away from Atlanta.

It has nothing to do with his emotional state, it had everything to do with his compliance with lawfully given orders.

The taser in question was fully charged and was capable of firing 2 cartridges. It did not need to be charged in between shots. It is just as dangerous when the first or second cartridge is fired.

The man was a drunk driver.

Could a non lethal means of resolving the situation been used?

No. Not when he chose to employ violence to resist arrest. Not when he took a fully loaded taser from an officer and fled with it.. Not whe he fired said taser at the police officer. He already presented himself as a threat. All of his good behavior prior to the altercation was rendered moot.

Wrong.

Once again, you ignore that the following police procedure violations: Do not fire at a fleeing suspect unless your life is in imminent danger. Do not fire into a crowd of bystander. Rolfe hit a car with three people in it.

There was no need to arrest Mr. Brooks at that time. They had his keys, his car, and his address. They can pick him up at any time.

They failed to follow procedures, all along the line, and a man was killed for no reason.

You don't even know what the procedures are. I laid them out in the OP and you still choose to spout your ignorance.

You did not outline police procedures. You quoted statutes and laws, looking for loopholes to justify the shooting. You persist in calling the taser a "deadly weapon" which the DA said is not considered a "deadly weapon". You're also looking at a veteran officer with a jacket full of "excessive force complaints" and a prior shooting. Patterns and practices.

You have no legal training or experience. You're the one tossing out bullshit hoping something sticks. I've actually attended law school, and know that you can't just quote a bunch of statues to justify murder. We're the officer's actions reasonable given the circumstances. Hell to the no. There are so many other ways he could have handled this.

Officer Rolfe should have been stripped of his badge and disarmed years ago.

The laws are the procedure, Dragonlady.

 

[Coyote]

However, I do feel a $5000 fine and a year in jail is way excessive just for punching someone in the face.

He punched an officer in the face, which escalated it to an aggravated misdemeanor, and ergo, felony resisting arrest.

Still not punishable by death.

I will let the law decide that. Not you. What other recourse was left to the officer after he had a taser fired at him?

This armchair quarterbacking is getting old. You all accuse me of lacking understanding, but it is you who REFUSE to understand.

Isn’t that what you are doing?

If you feel there is no other recourse...maybe the question is,what sort of training do tbe get that they should feel there is no alternative short of lethal force For a drunk driver?

No. I am not. I am stating facts and information, backed with evidence and legal precedent. Most of the arguments I have encountered in this thread thus far have either been emotional or irrelevant to the situation at hand.

It wasn't that he was a drunk driver, it was the moment he chose to become a violent felon while resisting arrest. Had he fully cooperated with those officers, we wouldn't be in this thread lofting well-intended points over each other's heads.

I do not think you are as dispassionate as you claim. You choose to follow one of two branching paths to your conclusion: what could Rashard have done differently to have prevented his death.

What about the other path?

 

[TemplarKormac]

He had already attempted to cause serious bodily injury to Rolfe by firing a taser at him. By that time, Brooks had begun to flee with a partially loaded (but no less dangerous) taser in his hand. He was brought down to end any threat would have presented to other people in the area.

I'll say it again. He had dropped the taser. A taser in non-lethal. It also has to be recharged once fired - he had no way of doing that because it was out of its holster.
Experience tells me - tells anyone - that he was no danger to any other person. He was drunk and being stupid. Not psychotic. And if a cop can't tell the difference between those behaviours, then maybe they shouldn't be in the police.
Looks like the Atlanta prosecutor and police agree with me. They made the right call.

Unfortunately for you, as opposed to you living clear across the other side of the planet, thousands of miles away, I live in the state in question. Seventy miles away from Atlanta.

It has nothing to do with his emotional state, it had everything to do with his compliance with lawfully given orders.

The taser in question was fully charged and was capable of firing 2 cartridges. It did not need to be charged in between shots. It is just as dangerous when the first or second cartridge is fired.

The man was a drunk driver.

Could a non lethal means of resolving the situation been used?

No. Not when he chose to employ violence to resist arrest. Not when he took a fully loaded taser from an officer and fled with it.. Not whe he fired said taser at the police officer. He already presented himself as a threat. All of his good behavior prior to the altercation was rendered moot.

A lot of people resist arrest. Is that a death sentence?

A lot of people don't try to disarm the arresting officer when resisting arrest, nor do they attempt to use that officer's weapon against him. They simply want to get away. That's it, that's all.

 

[Coyote]

He had already attempted to cause serious bodily injury to Rolfe by firing a taser at him. By that time, Brooks had begun to flee with a partially loaded (but no less dangerous) taser in his hand. He was brought down to end any threat would have presented to other people in the area.

I'll say it again. He had dropped the taser. A taser in non-lethal. It also has to be recharged once fired - he had no way of doing that because it was out of its holster.
Experience tells me - tells anyone - that he was no danger to any other person. He was drunk and being stupid. Not psychotic. And if a cop can't tell the difference between those behaviours, then maybe they shouldn't be in the police.
Looks like the Atlanta prosecutor and police agree with me. They made the right call.

Unfortunately for you, as opposed to you living clear across the other side of the planet, thousands of miles away, I live in the state in question. Seventy miles away from Atlanta.

It has nothing to do with his emotional state, it had everything to do with his compliance with lawfully given orders.

The taser in question was fully charged and was capable of firing 2 cartridges. It did not need to be charged in between shots. It is just as dangerous when the first or second cartridge is fired.

The man was a drunk driver.

Could a non lethal means of resolving the situation been used?

No. Not when he chose to employ violence to resist arrest. Not when he took a fully loaded taser from an officer and fled with it.. Not whe he fired said taser at the police officer. He already presented himself as a threat. All of his good behavior prior to the altercation was rendered moot.

A lot of people resist arrest. Is that a death sentence?

A lot of people don't try to disarm the arresting officer when resisting arrest, nor do they attempt to us that officer's weapon against him. They simply want to get away. That's it, that's all.

He did not grab his gun.


Again...is that a death sentence?

 

[Dragonlady]

There was no need to arrest Mr. Brooks at that time.

Yes, there was. By being caught drunk driving, he violated the terms of his parole/probation. That is a mandatory jail sentence.

Like I told someone else in this thread, you know absolutely nothing.

They had his car, his keys, and they knew where he lived. The can pick him up anytime. He didn't seem very intoxicated when they talked to him, although he blew over. They did not HAVE to charge him at all. That's their discretion. I have never had a speeding ticket but I've been pulled over for speeding quite a few times.

Why are you so hell bent on using law enforcementn to beat down and punish people. The purpose of law enforcement is not to punish anyone who gets out of line, but rather to enforce property rights and the pubic peace. To serve and protect.

 

[TemplarKormac]

However, I do feel a $5000 fine and a year in jail is way excessive just for punching someone in the face.

He punched an officer in the face, which escalated it to an aggravated misdemeanor, and ergo, felony resisting arrest.

Still not punishable by death.

I will let the law decide that. Not you. What other recourse was left to the officer after he had a taser fired at him?

This armchair quarterbacking is getting old. You all accuse me of lacking understanding, but it is you who REFUSE to understand.

Isn’t that what you are doing?

If you feel there is no other recourse...maybe the question is,what sort of training do tbe get that they should feel there is no alternative short of lethal force For a drunk driver?

No. I am not. I am stating facts and information, backed with evidence and legal precedent. Most of the arguments I have encountered in this thread thus far have either been emotional or irrelevant to the situation at hand.

It wasn't that he was a drunk driver, it was the moment he chose to become a violent felon while resisting arrest. Had he fully cooperated with those officers, we wouldn't be in this thread lofting well-intended points over each other's heads.

I do not think you are as dispassionate as you claim. You choose to follow one of two branching paths to your conclusion: what could Rashard have done differently to have prevented his death.

What about the other path?

I never claim to be completely dispassionate, Coyote. But I follow where the trail leads, whether that be a destination I like or a destination I don't.

Logic is a factor here as well. What would you have done in the officer's shoes at that moment in time? Lets say you had the legal expertise and training that officer had. What would you have done?

You don't get time to weigh your options with a violent assailant, you either let him flee or you stop him by whatever means are available. If he presents danger to both you and the greater community, the time for exacting mercy on the assailant has passed. Your main considerations are those of the safety of you and your colleagues and of the surrounding populace.

 

[Coyote]

There was no need to arrest Mr. Brooks at that time.

Yes, there was. By being caught drunk driving, he violated the terms of his parole/probation. That is a mandatory jail sentence.

Like I told someone else in this thread, you know absolutely nothing.

They had his car, his keys, and they knew where he lived. The can pick him up anytime. He didn't seem very intoxicated when they talked to him, although he blew over. They did not HAVE to charge him at all. That's their discretion. I have never had a speeding ticket but I've been pulled over for speeding quite a few times.

Why are you so hell bent on using law enforcementn to beat down and punish people. The purpose of law enforcement is not to punish anyone who gets out of line, but rather to enforce property rights and the pubic peace. To serve and protect.

He was definitely over the limit and should not have been behind the wheel...that oart is not in dispute.

 

[TemplarKormac]

He had already attempted to cause serious bodily injury to Rolfe by firing a taser at him. By that time, Brooks had begun to flee with a partially loaded (but no less dangerous) taser in his hand. He was brought down to end any threat would have presented to other people in the area.

I'll say it again. He had dropped the taser. A taser in non-lethal. It also has to be recharged once fired - he had no way of doing that because it was out of its holster.
Experience tells me - tells anyone - that he was no danger to any other person. He was drunk and being stupid. Not psychotic. And if a cop can't tell the difference between those behaviours, then maybe they shouldn't be in the police.
Looks like the Atlanta prosecutor and police agree with me. They made the right call.

Unfortunately for you, as opposed to you living clear across the other side of the planet, thousands of miles away, I live in the state in question. Seventy miles away from Atlanta.

It has nothing to do with his emotional state, it had everything to do with his compliance with lawfully given orders.

The taser in question was fully charged and was capable of firing 2 cartridges. It did not need to be charged in between shots. It is just as dangerous when the first or second cartridge is fired.

The man was a drunk driver.

Could a non lethal means of resolving the situation been used?

No. Not when he chose to employ violence to resist arrest. Not when he took a fully loaded taser from an officer and fled with it.. Not whe he fired said taser at the police officer. He already presented himself as a threat. All of his good behavior prior to the altercation was rendered moot.

A lot of people resist arrest. Is that a death sentence?

A lot of people don't try to disarm the arresting officer when resisting arrest, nor do they attempt to us that officer's weapon against him. They simply want to get away. That's it, that's all.

He did not grab his gun.


Again...is that a death sentence?

He grabbed a fully charged taser and attempted to incapacitate or kill a police officer with it.

So, yes.

At this point, talking him down was no longer an option.

 

[Sunsettommy]

There was no need to arrest Mr. Brooks at that time.

Yes, there was. By being caught drunk driving, he violated the terms of his parole/probation. That is a mandatory jail sentence.

Like I told someone else in this thread, you know absolutely nothing.

They had his car, his keys, and they knew where he lived. The can pick him up anytime. He didn't seem very intoxicated when they talked to him, although he blew over. They did not HAVE to charge him at all. That's their discretion. I have never had a speeding ticket but I've been pulled over for speeding quite a few times.

Why are you so hell bent on using law enforcementn to beat down and punish people. The purpose of law enforcement is not to punish anyone who gets out of line, but rather to enforce property rights and the pubic peace. To serve and protect.

You keep ignoring the part where the man was on PROBATION!

The Police KNEW he was on Probation, that is why they wanted to arrest him, when he fails the breath test.

Rayshard Brooks Video Emerges – ‘I’m on probation, and any violation will send me back to jail’…

LINK

=====

He said so from his own mouth on his own video.

 

[Coyote]

However, I do feel a $5000 fine and a year in jail is way excessive just for punching someone in the face.

He punched an officer in the face, which escalated it to an aggravated misdemeanor, and ergo, felony resisting arrest.

Still not punishable by death.

I will let the law decide that. Not you. What other recourse was left to the officer after he had a taser fired at him?

This armchair quarterbacking is getting old. You all accuse me of lacking understanding, but it is you who REFUSE to understand.

Isn’t that what you are doing?

If you feel there is no other recourse...maybe the question is,what sort of training do tbe get that they should feel there is no alternative short of lethal force For a drunk driver?

No. I am not. I am stating facts and information, backed with evidence and legal precedent. Most of the arguments I have encountered in this thread thus far have either been emotional or irrelevant to the situation at hand.

It wasn't that he was a drunk driver, it was the moment he chose to become a violent felon while resisting arrest. Had he fully cooperated with those officers, we wouldn't be in this thread lofting well-intended points over each other's heads.

I do not think you are as dispassionate as you claim. You choose to follow one of two branching paths to your conclusion: what could Rashard have done differently to have prevented his death.

What about the other path?

I never claim to be completely dispassionate, Coyote. But I follow where the trail leads, whether that be a destination I like or a destination I don't.

Logic is a factor here as well. What would you have done in the officer's shoes at that moment in time? Lets say you had the legal expertise and training that officer had. What would you have done??

You don't get time to weigh your options with a violent assailant, you either let him flee or you stop him by whatever means are available. If he presents danger to both you an the greater community, the time for exacting mercy on the assailant has passed. Your main considerations are those of the safety of you and your colleagues and of the surrounding populace.

Here is the pertinent point to me (and I can’t speak to training...neither of us can)...the person was fleeing. I had in hand his I’d, wallet, car keys. I knew where he lived. I knew his criminal record (not particularly violent, no weapons charges). I could pick him up later. I had that choice.

 

[Coyote]

He had already attempted to cause serious bodily injury to Rolfe by firing a taser at him. By that time, Brooks had begun to flee with a partially loaded (but no less dangerous) taser in his hand. He was brought down to end any threat would have presented to other people in the area.

I'll say it again. He had dropped the taser. A taser in non-lethal. It also has to be recharged once fired - he had no way of doing that because it was out of its holster.
Experience tells me - tells anyone - that he was no danger to any other person. He was drunk and being stupid. Not psychotic. And if a cop can't tell the difference between those behaviours, then maybe they shouldn't be in the police.
Looks like the Atlanta prosecutor and police agree with me. They made the right call.

Unfortunately for you, as opposed to you living clear across the other side of the planet, thousands of miles away, I live in the state in question. Seventy miles away from Atlanta.

It has nothing to do with his emotional state, it had everything to do with his compliance with lawfully given orders.

The taser in question was fully charged and was capable of firing 2 cartridges. It did not need to be charged in between shots. It is just as dangerous when the first or second cartridge is fired.

The man was a drunk driver.

Could a non lethal means of resolving the situation been used?

No. Not when he chose to employ violence to resist arrest. Not when he took a fully loaded taser from an officer and fled with it.. Not whe he fired said taser at the police officer. He already presented himself as a threat. All of his good behavior prior to the altercation was rendered moot.

A lot of people resist arrest. Is that a death sentence?

A lot of people don't try to disarm the arresting officer when resisting arrest, nor do they attempt to us that officer's weapon against him. They simply want to get away. That's it, that's all.

He did not grab his gun.


Again...is that a death sentence?

He grabbed a fully charged taser and attempted to incapacitate or kill a police officer with it.

So, yes.

He was running away as he was trying to fire it, a non lethal weapon of very limited range.

 

[Coyote]

A taser is not a gun.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

that if he had been allowed to flee, he would have done so with a deadly weapon and presented a danger to the surrounding community.

Except a taser is considered a dangerous weapon but not deadly; you are obviously blinded by your racist impulses.

Mkay the Georgia DA ruled it a deadly weapon when he charged two cops who used them on some college kids a couple of weeks ago. You people need to make up your mind.

You don't think having been trained in it's use contributes to it's lethality? And conversely someone who hasn't been trained in it's use may (as we saw) be less effective or completely ineffective in it's use?

 

[TemplarKormac]

He had already attempted to cause serious bodily injury to Rolfe by firing a taser at him. By that time, Brooks had begun to flee with a partially loaded (but no less dangerous) taser in his hand. He was brought down to end any threat would have presented to other people in the area.

I'll say it again. He had dropped the taser. A taser in non-lethal. It also has to be recharged once fired - he had no way of doing that because it was out of its holster.
Experience tells me - tells anyone - that he was no danger to any other person. He was drunk and being stupid. Not psychotic. And if a cop can't tell the difference between those behaviours, then maybe they shouldn't be in the police.
Looks like the Atlanta prosecutor and police agree with me. They made the right call.

Unfortunately for you, as opposed to you living clear across the other side of the planet, thousands of miles away, I live in the state in question. Seventy miles away from Atlanta.

It has nothing to do with his emotional state, it had everything to do with his compliance with lawfully given orders.

The taser in question was fully charged and was capable of firing 2 cartridges. It did not need to be charged in between shots. It is just as dangerous when the first or second cartridge is fired.

The man was a drunk driver.

Could a non lethal means of resolving the situation been used?

No. Not when he chose to employ violence to resist arrest. Not when he took a fully loaded taser from an officer and fled with it.. Not whe he fired said taser at the police officer. He already presented himself as a threat. All of his good behavior prior to the altercation was rendered moot.

A lot of people resist arrest. Is that a death sentence?

A lot of people don't try to disarm the arresting officer when resisting arrest, nor do they attempt to us that officer's weapon against him. They simply want to get away. That's it, that's all.

He did not grab his gun.


Again...is that a death sentence?

He grabbed a fully charged taser and attempted to incapacitate or kill a police officer with it.

So, yes.

He was running away as he was trying to fire it, a non lethal weapon of very limited range.

No. It would have been lethal if those prongs had attached to the officer's skull. Those tasers have a 15 foot range, and can discharge up to 50,000 volts directly into the target.

That is enough to stop the human heart from beating.

These arguments that the taser was non lethal are intellectually dishonest.