What you are saying would make sense if we are pretending civil police are not trained to fire multiple rounds into a suspect fleeing while pulling an object that could be a gun. Right or wrong, you either understand this or are ignorant of it. Not a good look.
Can you explain how it could possibly have been mistaken that the perp had the cop's tazer, and tried using it? Once it was fired, it was useless; correct?
He fired the tazer, the cop lit him up. Is that the agreed upon sequence of events?
Strange, I thought we were only assuming guilt. I think you should rethink this as this is the type of thinking that leads to allowing trials and even juries.
What you are saying would make sense if we are pretending civil police are not trained to fire multiple rounds into a suspect fleeing while pulling an object that could be a gun. Right or wrong, you either understand this or are ignorant of it. Not a good look.
Police training is very much at issue now.
Can you explain how it could possibly have been mistaken that the perp had the cop's tazer, and tried using it? Once it was fired, it was useless; correct?
He fired the tazer, the cop lit him up. Is that the agreed upon sequence of events?
Strange, I thought we were only assuming guilt. I think you should rethink this as this is the type of thinking that leads to allowing trials and even juries.
Pure deflection. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that "assuming guilt" is a typo or otherwise a mis-statement.
If the questions are too hard for you to address, just say so.
It wasn't a deflection. It was an accusation.