Quote:So I've finally seen the video, and here are my thoughts:

 

It sure looks to me like the guy has his hand (or some part of his arm) on top of the officer's head as they fall. That, to me, is a sign that at the very least, he intends to put her under for a very long nap. Thing is, once he's on the ground, I don't see him squirming around trying to do further harm to her, and he wasn't really in position to be a threat to anyone else. Is shooting an unarmed man on the ground, even one who's just faceplanted an officer into the asphalt, justified? Up until they both went to the ground, I don't see anything that would lead me to think shooting him was the right course of action. Afterwards? I mean, really, how do you define the moment that it's right to shoot someone? Let's say a guy fires a shot at an officer then throws his gun away and falls to the ground. Does a police shooting have to be based on immediate threat, or are officers allowed to presume based upon past actions that that person is an imminent threat, even if they're currently in a position that renders them much less harmful? That's an honest question, and one I don't have the answer to. Even if you do decide to shoot when he's on the ground, aren't you running a very real risk of accidentally hitting the cop on the ground instead?

 

Am I glad the guy wasn't shot? Yeah. I like that our officers are being forced to think twice before drawing their weapon, but I do not like that they feel the need to give up their own lives to protect their department. That, to me, is a huge problem.

 

Would I have had a particular problem had the guy been shot? No. He drove another human being's face into the pavement from standing height. If there was any chance of him getting to that officer to do any further harm, disabling him would have been an easily justifiable action. My bigger concern would have been the chance of hitting, grazing and launching asphalt up into the officer who was already on the ground. Logistical rather than ethical, I guess.