(06-16-2020, 02:17 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [quote pid='1307986' dateline='1592322509']
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.
[/quote]

You are speculating about whether the things I propose would have worked in the situation.  
That's besides my point.  Completely besides it.  They might have worked, or they might not.
My point is the man, who is now dead, deserved additional chances to live.  Whether he would have taken those chances, that's up to him.
But instead the officer decided to offer no additional chances.

---

(06-16-2020, 02:43 PM)jagibelieve Wrote:

(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.

1) That's speculation about outcomes, see above.  It's irrelevant.
2) Same as (1).  If he does stop, he lives.  He deserves additional chances to live up until he is threatening life.  If he doesn't stop, and gets closer to the precipice of threatening life, that's on him.
3) Everything's a deadly weapon.  Don't be a pedant.  Some weapons are more deadly than others.  Yes, the guy with the slingshot defeated the guy with the sword, but usually sword guy wins because swords are more deadly than slingshots.  You're supposed to pull out your least deadly weapon appropriate to the situation at hand.

---