The officer states in the full video that he felt the taser hit him but it didn't catch or whatever so he didn't get shocked. That's my understanding from what he said.
When asked, he answers and looks to the place where he felt it hit him, checking for marks, which is the natural thing anyone would do in that situation I think. Like "Oh yeah, I should check that", after forgetting to check because of all the commotion and adrenaline and such.
I suppose the arguments will be that perhaps that taser model can only be fired once, and therefore the weapon would have been inert after the first shot.
Counter defense is probably that things happen in real time suuuper fast, and he made the decision to shoot quickly after seeing him turn and fire.
Did he HAVE to shoot him? Maybe not. But I personally don't fault him for the split second decision.
I'm just wondering about the legality of all this. At first it seemed open and shut case of justified shooting. As I look more closely it doesn't seem so clear.
He KNEW he had been hit by the tazer, meaning the tazer had been fired, and that the perp wasn't holding a gun. Are there models of tazer that can fire more than once? I thought the thing was a useless mess after firing, with leads hanging all over the place until you put it back together.
If he made the decision to shoot the perp AFTER being hit by the tazer, that looks pretty questionable. Shooting an unarmed man. And I think this was the cop that had the tazer pulled out of his hand, pretty quickly and easily? The case
could be made he had been humiliated, and this was now an ego trip.
If it's legal to kill a fleeing suspect that has proven he's dangerous, like to protect the community? That would be justification.
There were 2 officers. The one closest to the guy running away is the one that got hit with the tazer, and the other officer farther away is the one who shot his gun 3 times quickly, as far as I understand from the video.
I think you're thinking that it was one cop and he shot the guy after getting shot at with the tazer, and I don't think that's the case here.
You can shoot a criminal for pointing a revolver at you after firing 6 shots. No idea why this would be different. Bigger question is can the police department bill his estate for the spent tazer?
At first I thought "well, but he was running away, you don't shoot people in the back..."
But I looked again, and at the end the suspect turned around and fired the taser at the officer closest to him.
Fully justified.
you only run when you know you are gulity of something else and will get put away
for much much longer.
and it turns out this guy is a child abuser convict.
clown world
Wait. What if he fired the taser and missed before any shots were fired? Still a justified shooting?
The officer states in the full video that he felt the taser hit him but it didn't catch or whatever so he didn't get shocked. That's my understanding from what he said.
When asked, he answers and looks to the place where he felt it hit him, checking for marks, which is the natural thing anyone would do in that situation I think. Like "Oh yeah, I should check that", after forgetting to check because of all the commotion and adrenaline and such.
I suppose the arguments will be that perhaps that taser model can only be fired once, and therefore the weapon would have been inert after the first shot.
Counter defense is probably that things happen in real time suuuper fast, and he made the decision to shoot quickly after seeing him turn and fire.
Did he HAVE to shoot him? Maybe not. But I personally don't fault him for the split second decision.
I'm just wondering about the legality of all this. At first it seemed open and shut case of justified shooting. As I look more closely it doesn't seem so clear.
He KNEW he had been hit by the tazer, meaning the tazer had been fired, and that the perp wasn't holding a gun. Are there models of tazer that can fire more than once? I thought the thing was a useless mess after firing, with leads hanging all over the place until you put it back together.
If he made the decision to shoot the perp AFTER being hit by the tazer, that looks pretty questionable. Shooting an unarmed man. And I think this was the cop that had the tazer pulled out of his hand, pretty quickly and easily? The case could be made he had been humiliated, and this was now an ego trip.
If it's legal to kill a fleeing suspect that has proven he's dangerous, like to protect the community? That would be justification.
There were 2 officers. The one closest to the guy running away is the one that got hit with the tazer, and the other officer farther away is the one who shot his gun 3 times quickly, as far as I understand from the video.
I think you're thinking that it was one cop and he shot the guy after getting shot at with the tazer, and I don't think that's the case here.
You can shoot a criminal for pointing a revolver at you after firing 6 shots. No idea why this would be different. Bigger question is can the police department bill his estate for the spent tazer?