By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Ka-pi96 said:
sundin13 said:

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.

Strongly disagree. The police's primary job should be to protect the public. If somebody appears to be huge threat to public safety then the police should deal with that before they have a chance to hurt anybody, regardless of whether that means killing them or not.

Now a drunk man with a taser may not have been a huge threat and probably could've been dealt with differently (ideally he wouldn't have gotten hold of a police taser in the first place) but just imagine somebody running down the street with an assault rifle or a bomb or something. I'd have no problem whatsoever with the police shooting and killing somebody like that.

I don't think we disagree. You just presented a situation that is entirely separate from the situation at hand, and the point I am trying to make.