JWeinCom said:
Tasers are not non-lethal weapons. They are "less lethal" weapons. A taser can be lethal. Does that justify lethal force? I don't know. But this is certainly a far different situation from kneeling on a man's neck for 8 minutes. There's no footage of the incident before the man was running with a taser, so I don't know how we can conclude poor policing led to escalation. Again, the man was in possession of a potentially lethal weapon, and had fired it at police. As for whether or not they should have let him escape, I'm not sure how I feel as a policy of allowing severely intoxicated people and likely violent people to run around with tasers. Do you think this would lead to protests if it weren't so close to the George Floyd murder? I don't. Nor do I think protests are the appropriate response every time. There is a difference between this case and the George Floyd case. In the George Floyd case, it was a cop who had a history of complaints of excessive force, kneeling on a man's neck for 8 minutes, with no possible threat of force against him while several other officers just watched. That kind of thing simply can't happen without deep systematic flaws. This is a case of an officer who was fired at by a potentially lethal weapon. I think something like this could happen without deep systematic flaws. Which isn't to say such flaws don't exist. I didn't mention BLM, but their platform is simply not about excessive police force in general. You can read about it here https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/ . |
It is a different situation, but I don't think that makes it irrelevant. I would say that it is unlikely that criminal charges would be filed in this situation, but I do think the department should retrain all of their officers, rework their use of force policies and fire the officer who pulled the trigger (in addition to a complete, thorough investigation). I also don't think whether these protests would have happened in the absence of the previous protests is relevant in any way. At the end of the day, we should discuss this situation on its merits, not on the back of a hypothetical discussion about how much people would have cared given x, y or z. That is entirely unproductive.
And as I previously stated, I do believe that this situation is emblematic of deeper systemic flaws regarding the use of force. Nothing I saw in that video warranted killing this man. Ideally, as soon as he took the taser (which arguably shouldn't have been allowed to happen in the first place), if the officers are worried about their safety, they should not be chasing after this man waving their pistols. If they believe he presented a threat to him, they should have exhausted all other options before deploying force (namely, let him get away if he is already in the process of running away). This is a fundamental part of progressive police reform which was not followed in this case. Additionally, it doesn't matter how comfortable you are with a drunk man running with a taser, we cannot execute people in the street because of crimes they may commit in the future. This is simply an extension of the issue of shooting fleeing criminals in the back. It should never be allowed. End of story.
If the officer does not believe that his life is in danger from a taser, he can pursue the man under the knowledge that he may be shot with the taser but at that point, I don't believe he has the ability to claim self defense (under police policy, not under the law) unless something substantial changes, as he knowingly put himself in this situation.
I'm also not sure what point you are trying to make with that BLM link. The fundamental proposals relating to the issues we are seeing today virtually all include changes to the use of force procedures. It is not just about removing bias and racism, it is about ensuring that officers only use force when necessary.
