(06-15-2020, 11:07 AM)JagJohn Wrote:

(06-15-2020, 10:57 AM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: You always respond but never have an actual answer.

I would try to apprehend the suspect without killing him.

It's really [BLEEP] simple: don't kill someone unless they are clearly posing a threat to the lives of others and it is absolutely unavoidable.

I would solve world peace.

You're problem is that you offer no real solutions. You don't actually know what to do; you just know what outcome you want to happen. 

Clearly posing a threat to their lives? He punched the cops, hit both of them in the head with the taser, and then tried to shoot one of them with the taser he just stole. Would you rather he taser the cop, have his head bounce off the concrete, and then go back for another weapon? You and I both know you wouldn't allow someone to shoot you with taser... especially after he just got done hitting you with it. 

(06-16-2020, 11:48 AM)mikesez Wrote: An officer should only shoot to end an immediate threat to his own life, or a bystander's life.
when Mr Brooks ran off with that non-lethal weapon in his hand, by definition, he was not a threat to anyone's life.
It is a big stretch to insist that because the police officer had a gun, the suspect might use the taser to take the gun.
But there were two officers there. If the suspect managed to tase one of them, the other one would have been able to prevent the suspect from closing in and taking the gun, by using his own taser, or his own nightstick, or even by drawing his own pistol and shouting "don't move!"
Each of these choices gives the suspect another chance to live, without endangering anyone else's life.

If it's an immediate threat, then it's... immediate. In other words, it's probably too late.

What is a non-lethal weapon to you? If you don't know when or where to tase someone, then you could absolutely seriously injure them especially when they're running.

It isn't a big stretch to assume the guy that stole an officer's weapon would also steal another weapon. The idea that two officers being there would stop him doesn't include the fact that two officers were there when he stole the first one. How do you ignore that? It's interesting how you believe the other officer could've simply stopped him with his taser when the tasers were ineffective against him already. 

Lol @ the "don't move" line. That almost never works because most people don't think you'll shoot them--despite what you see on TV. Besides, he had already been told to stop moving, stop resisting, stop fighting, etc. He wasn't ever going to listen without being physically forced into submission. He made that much already known.

---