Bad Boys II

[Dill]

(06-26-2020, 03:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: [i]"The Atlanta policy says you cannot fire a Taser at someone who is running away. So you certainly can't fire a handgun at someone who is running away," Howard said.
Howard said that at the time Rolfe aimed and fired at Brooks' back from 18 feet, 3 inches away, "Rolfe was aware that the Taser in Brooks' possession was fired twice and presented no danger to him."[/i]

The underlined and enlarged is a patently false statement, legally.  More evidence that Howard is grossly incompetent.  Don't take my word for it, Fred has pointed this out multiple time in this thread.

Looks to me like the DA is constructing an additional a foriori argument based upon existing taser law.

If he is correct that Atlanta Policy says police cannot fire a taser at someone who is running away, then he is inferring that it's even more the case that a policeman with a handgun should not be firing at a fleeing suspect's back. 

By this time he has already made clear how he aligns Rolfe's actions with existing laws governing lethal force (as mentioned above). He is not claiming "the law says you can't fire a handgun at someone who is running away" UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

The succeeding comments confirm this, in the DA's conclusion that Brooks "presented no danger to him"--referencing the legal criterion for lethal force. That's why, if you can't shoot a fleeing suspect (who presents no danger) with a taser, then you certainly cannot shoot that fleeing suspect in the back with a handgun.