(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.

There are a couple of problems with your little fantasy.

First, look at the size difference between the police officers and the suspect.  He already was able to assault and get away from two of them.  Do you think that just one of them will be able to stop and restrain him with a taser or a "nightstick"?

Second, if the officer draws on him and shouts "don't move" and he doesn't stop, then what?  Ask him pretty please?

When the thug chose to escalate the situation to a high stress situation it happened in a matter of seconds.

By the way, a taser as well as a "nightstick" (aka PR-24) are both deadly weapons.

---