From what I've heard, the tazer is not (a) a contact weapon, and (b) not "non-lethal." It can be a contact weapon, or atleast some models can be, but the one Brooks grabbed fired barbs. In many states, including Georgia apparently, police officers are completely within their rights to use firearms in instances where their ... "less-than-lethal" weapon (tazer) has been stolen by a criminal and courts have so ruled. Tazers can potentially kill despite their supposed "less-than-lethal" status.
This does NOT make police an occupying army. A criminal armed with a tazer is an imminent threat to an officer as it must be considered reasonable to think he might use the tazer to immobilize an officer to grab a firearm. In fact this is the justification to use deadly force.
I don't particularly like the Brooks shooting. It does make me uncomfortable .... but in the end he precipitated the actions when he fought with the cops and ran, stealing the taser. If one doesn't like this, the approach should be to change the pertinent laws and adapt police procedures to the change.
And be prepared for the police to react in accord to the changes.
I disagree. I am not a lawyer or DA. I also understand fully what current jurisprudence in the US is, as well as SOP. I disagree with them.
If I were on a jury for this cop and was offered something reasonable (not murder) I might find him guilty. That's the point. Law Enforcement in the US has progressed to the point that basically law abiding, normal ish folks are starting to openly disagree with their tactics and policies. I said in another thread, I can still support individual officers that I know, but I find it hard to support "Law Enforcement" as it currently is. Perhaps if this kind of "on the edge" thing were a one off it'd be different, but it's not.
Again, I understand a lot of the intricacies of the laws and policies surrounding this kind of use of force. I understand that APD's policies treat an expended Taser as deadly force by itself (unless the officer is using it). I find that policy unreasonable, and won't support a department, or officer, that shields themselves with it. Which in a wider sense is how we got to where we are in a lot of the country right now. Not the rioting, but the growing lack of community support of, and trust in, Law Enforcement in general.
Bluntly, cops need people like me more than I need them, and they know it or they wouldn't be so upset over the whole social media "vilifying cops" trend. And just repeating that shooting guy that is running away in the back because he has a [fine] "Less-lethal" weapon is OK and reasonable is not how you win fans back.
Again: I realize that what I am saying we should hold LEO's to for use of force is both WAY more restrictive than historically, and will introduce more danger to both the officer, and potentially the community (in the form of more criminals getting away). OK. Fine. I'm OK with that. I would RATHER have a society that lays the danger at the feet of the paid agents that volunteered for the job than the folks who have been scooped up in an encounter they did not initiate, and can not end. If cops don't like the risk they can quit.
As I said they burned through any good will I had towards, and trust in, the institution of law enforcement in the last 30 years.
As always YMMV, and that's OK. I also think it's important that we maintain the distinction between
legal and
reasonable. The officer may well have been legal when he pulled the trigger. I don't believe he was reasonable.
Bad News Network had an interesting discussion on this last week. Nick give law enforcement a little more slack than I cut them, but it's an interesting take on some of the officer's failing that helped turn the situation trajic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbJ3QVmP7Is
