(06-15-2020, 02:26 AM)Dill Wrote:
Actually, I believe it is illegal to shoot someone running away who is no threat to arresting officers.

Tennessee vs Garner 1985 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/

Held: The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

That taser is not like a gun, and unlikely to count as a lethal weapon in court. In this case, the guy fired a "dangerous" (not lethal) weapon, apparently missed, then turned and ran. No danger to the cop at that moment, or anyone else. But Brooks has two holes in his back.

The guy definitely should not have resisted the cops and grabbed a taser. But if the choice is between killing a possible DUI resisting arrest, or letting him flee, then you let him flee. Otherwise the harm done the individual far exceeds the harm done society.

The "Police culture" which does not see it that way probably goes well beyond the police force; one of the issues at stake in the upcoming election.

By firing the offending officer and resigning, the chief sends a strong signal the Atlanta Dept. is serious about changing that culture.

(06-15-2020, 02:26 AM)Dill Wrote:
Actually, I believe it is illegal to shoot someone running away who is no threat to arresting officers.

Tennessee vs Garner 1985 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/

Held: The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

That taser is not like a gun, and unlikely to count as a lethal weapon in court. In this case, the guy fired a "dangerous" (not lethal) weapon, apparently missed, then turned and ran. No danger to the cop at that moment, or anyone else. But Brooks has two holes in his back.

The guy definitely should not have resisted the cops and grabbed a taser. But if the choice is between killing a possible DUI resisting arrest, or letting him flee, then you let him flee. Otherwise the harm done the individual far exceeds the harm done society.

The "Police culture" which does not see it that way probably goes well beyond the police force; one of the issues at stake in the upcoming election.

By firing the offending officer and resigning, the chief sends a strong signal the Atlanta Dept. is serious about changing that culture.

(06-15-2020, 08:08 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I brought this case up, already, in this thread. The danger does not need to be towards the officer; you are missing that "or other" part. If he poses a threat to anyone is is a justified shooting. It should be noted, also, that police are given a fair bit of leeway in this for their decision making in the moment. In that situation, the courts would likely say it is completely within reason for the officer to have seen the suspect as a threat to others.

(06-15-2020, 07:36 AM)CKwi88 Wrote: Genuine question: When Brooks points the taser at the police as he runs, was it dischargeable?

(06-15-2020, 01:18 PM)Dill Wrote: I did miss your earlier reference to this case; didn't miss the "other" part, quoted here in the court decision:

"the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

I'm hoping the courts might view the KIND and DEGREE of threat an escapee would pose.  An angry deranged person running amok with a knife might require shooting for the safety of others; but a car burglar running away still holding a crowbar used to smash a car window would not, I assume. And a drunk guy with an already fired taser trailing wires? Surely crime and apparent intent have to factor into any determination of risk to others.  

It might be that courts use the "within reason" standard, but I think that redefining that standard is what the current movement for police reform is seeking.

(06-15-2020, 07:36 AM)CKwi88 Wrote: Genuine question: When Brooks points the taser at the police as he runs, was it dischargeable?

(06-15-2020, 01:23 PM)Dill Wrote: Hard for me to tell. The commentary on one version I saw says he "fired" at the police officer, apparently missing.

I think that means it cannot fire again, though it might still stun if pressed directly to a body.

So the guy is running away with a (generally) non-lethal weapon which can not longer project.

And so far as I can see, no motive to harm others, only to escape.

(06-15-2020, 01:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I saw footage someone used in a breakdown, and you can see he discharged the taser at one officer which resulted in the other officer firing three shots. In my view, this isn't a cop shooting at a fleeing suspect. The shots fired are a direct response to the deployment of the taser. That officer had no way to know whether the other cop had been hit with the probes or anything. He saw the deployment and reacted, in my opinion, appropriately.

(06-15-2020, 02:02 PM)Dill Wrote: I think the officer fired at a fleeing suspect's back. 

The autopsy report will help sort this out, I think.

(06-15-2020, 02:02 PM)Dill Wrote: I think the officer fired at a fleeing suspect's back. 

The autopsy report will help sort this out, I think.

(06-15-2020, 02:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It doesn't matter if he fired at his back. The footage shows the suspect aim the taser at the other officer and deploy it, which is immediately followed by the officer firing three shots. If a person is running away and pointing a weapon, let alone discharging one, then they are not simply fleeing. They are a threat.

(06-15-2020, 02:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: He shot the guy because the guy shot at him. He was not shot for "fleeing". The evidence will help sort this out. 

As I've said: Folks trying to associate this with the Floyd killing are most likely hurting the cause they are trying to help. 

(06-15-2020, 02:12 PM)hollodero Wrote: I mean, I agree with that, and this person does rather qualify for the Darwin award then for poster boy against police brutality. The only thing I wonder is if it was indeed necessary to outright kill him. Though Biden caught much scrutiny and ridicule with that saying, I guess the "Biden approach" of wounding him would have worked in that instance.

(06-15-2020, 02:15 PM)Dill Wrote: The point is not that the man was shot FOR fleeing, but shot WHILE fleeing--i.e., while not a threat to anyone.

(06-15-2020, 02:15 PM)Dill Wrote: According to Bels, the other officer killed the suspect.

The point is not that the man was shot FOR fleeing, but shot WHILE fleeing--i.e., while not a threat to anyone.

Time to say this: Folks trying to preserve the "police culture" of highly qualified immunity from changes following the Floyd protest movement are not helped by this case.

(06-15-2020, 02:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's not the training in any law enforcement academy. I know for sure here in the states, but I wouldn't doubt the statement holds true globally. This has been gone over before, but it is a good reminder. Aiming at a smaller target that is moving a lot, such as arms and legs, is a recipe for missed shots and potential danger to the public from those. Officers, and military personnel as far as I know, are taught to shoot center mass. You aim at the biggest target which is the torso. If you're off, you still hit the target, just maybe not in an ideal spot. Aiming at extremities is a high level risk.

In addition, an extremity shot is not a guarantee to just be a wounding shot. There are some large blood vessels in the extremities that if even nicked will cause a lot of blood loss.

(06-15-2020, 02:28 PM)hollodero Wrote: OK, I guess that makes sense.

Just to clarify again, of course imho this guy had it coming 100% and I don't quite get how this is controversial even.

(06-15-2020, 02:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Fleeing does not mean a suspect is not a threat. That is not a logical conclusion.

(06-15-2020, 02:28 PM)hollodero Wrote: OK, I guess that makes sense.

Just to clarify again, of course imho this guy had it coming 100% and I don't quite get how this is controversial even.

(06-15-2020, 02:43 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't think this guy "had it coming" --death--because he ran from police with a taser and shot it back at one.

(06-15-2020, 02:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The point is he was shot for firing on an officer. It really doesn't matter if he did that WHILE praying.