Edit: Ouch, looks like quite a few people here do. Do y'all really think that's the best way to effect social and political change? A minority of Americans screaming louder and using terrorism to vent their spleens won't solve the issue. In a democracy, everyone must focus on getting more people to vote for different policies to effect change.
There is justifiable outrage. I do not condone wanton destruction and arson, but disruptive protests work in a way that peaceful ones alone do not.
If the suspect hadn't stolen the cop's Tazer, he may very well be alive today. I cannot fault an officer for using his sidearm when someone is running off with his Tazer given the situation. A suspect running off with your piece is nightmare fuel for cops as I understand it, and in that situation, I'm willing to wager training and instinct won over political consciousness.
Point being, things went through an escalation from non-lethal to lethal in the right order. There is no reason besides wanting to be outraged to use that encounter as an example of the system gone wrong. If anyone else had done the same, I have no doubt it'd end the same way.
If we're talking about the drunk fellow in the drive-thru at least.
It’s one thing if you’re running away with nuclear launch codes, but I’m skeptical that was the case here.
He didn't get shot for having a weapon in his possession; he got shot because of how the weapon ended up in his possession. I'm not saying it should be endorsed as standard operating procedure mind. However, the reaction is far from unreasonable. There seems to be a belief that there is the luxury of extensive time during which one can reason in these types of encounters, and the fact is there isn't. You react and operate on training and protocol.
It is the very reason why protocol does exist; you rehearse it ahead of time so it comes naturally without thinking. When your training involves an effective level of operant conditioning to save your life in the event you have to resort to lethal force, protocol isn't just there for the Officer's protection, but also the suspect's. If it is a mistake, it can be (or should be) resolvable afterward. If the Justice system weren't such a bureaucratic nightmare, it may not even be that big a deal. Once you depart from that protocol though, that cop is going to do exactly what they are trained to do. A) (Hopefully) Protect the Public B)Protect themselves C)Neutalize the threat as quickly as possible. Not necessarily in that order, and not necessarily in a way you and I like or approve of, but IF they follow the book, we tend to grant them the benefit of a doubt. That happened. The officer's tried a peaceful arrest, the suspect escalated, stole the Tazer, Officers realized the suspect was now armed, public nearby, suspect is unresponsive and was hostile. It isn't an unreasonable escalation path at all.
You're mad if you think it's at all reasonable to give an armed, violent assailant the chance to retreat and prepare an ambush, or take a hostage. As I stated earlier, Isympathizewith the suspect for running or being afraid in the current environment. But after he lifted that Tazer, he shifted the operational calculus of the situation, knowingly or (most likely), not. Further, based on previous decisions by the DA, the precedent of a Tazerbeing a lethal weapon was well on it's way to being enshrined, so you really can't even fall back on the whole non-lethal aspect.
There was a clear attempt at peaceful arrest and detainment after the initial encounter and sobriety test. That was answered with violent resistance. Goto threat neutralization.
Unarmed suspect: No lethal force, attempt to physically subdue or disengage safely. Possession of Tazer lost. Goto suspect armed.
Non-lethal takedown: partner attempts. Tazer shot fails to connect, other Tazer in possession of suspect. Officer involved in struggle draws firearm. Fires.
I can't fault that. They were out of options.
And even if you accept, for sake of argument, that protocol should be changed. Suppose instead of a Tazer being stolen it was the officer's firearm with rubber bullets, and the officer left with a rifle at hand. The rubber bullets are still "non-lethal" right? Should they just let the suspect run off? God no. Taking the Tazer was what escalated things into deadly force territory, and even then only after the other officer made a best effort attempt at non-lethal takedown.
They did everything we, the Public, have demanded they do, in the order we demand it be done. This is undeniably a case where this officer is being targeted because of the unrest provoked by that cretin in Minneapolis, and Riot police elsewhere. Those are not his actions. He's just a cop, doing his job, in the midst of a stop gone bad. Just as the suspect was a human being who let himself get into a state in which he made some exceedingly poor decisions; one of which escalated things to the point of elevating the threat level of a situation to the point an officer felt lethal force was the last option he had.
I'm not comfortable setting a precedent for all cops, when faced with an armed assailant not to take care of business in such a manner as to bring confrontation to an end as quickly and bloodlessly as possible. Nor am I going to lock up or discipline one that tried to do things right. That we have video evidence of that trying having been done.
I don't like how it ended. If he didn't call in a meat wagon and provide first aid soon enough... Well that I can see being a problem, but that's not a crime. That's a tragedy. If he ended up exclaiming "Got him!", I don't see it as him intending to kill someone that night, I see it asadrenaline come down.
If we expect police to do their jobs, to even work for our protection, and the safety of our communities, we have to extend them the benefit of being able to accept the outcome of their discretion when it falls within the bounds we demand. This one did. It was reasonable. No question. Minneapolis wasn't. Seattle wasn't, the protests in other cities weren't but this one was a clean shoot.