This is a good step, but I am curious - how much are these laws enforceable? I was just reading that some Atlanta cops are not reporting to work - protest for the arrest of the cop who shot Rayshard Brooks. If that is the mentality, how much cooperation can we expect? Not talking about this particular NYC law, just in general.
A taser is considered a deadly weapon under GA law and the DA had charged other officers a few weeks ago with using a taser as a deadly weapon. Now he is saying its not a deadly weapon when stolen and used against them, and didn't warrant deadly force to be used in return. He also didn't even wait for the Georgia Bureau of Investigation's report with the facts on the shooting.
That's why the police walked out. Form all account's I have seen so far, that officer seems to have followed that department's use of force continuum guidelines correctly and GA law but was still charged for seemingly political points by a DA who is up for re-election. You're not going to get cooperation when cops feel that they have done everything according to policy/state law and can still get charged because an angry mob demands it.
Here is a breakdown from a former police officer who dives into it a little further: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5QEnGkIbzA
However, the question is whether the reason you mention is a valid one. I believe a better one is that police officers stay home when they are supposed to work. In which kind of profession do you not get fired when you refuse to (show up on) work? Especially when there is unrest and violence on the streets, you are more in demand; your services are needed even more. In such times, staying home is akin to being a deserter in time of war.
I do not understand how one gets away with that. How do they? What is their leverage?
Beyond that, though, painting an entire profession as monsters is simply wrong.
Be careful what you wish for--it appears that an upswing in resignations is happening now.
Also we would expect any regular citizen to be arrested and charged in this situation. That's precisely what courts are for - to sort out whether the details are strong enough to warrant conviction. Police should not have some informal parallel justice system outside of the courts - that's the whole point.
From everything I have seen the cop was justified by law. Still a shitty situation but this smells of politics by the DA.
Edit: forgot to mention that Tennessee vs Garner established that officers have justification to use deadly force to stop someone fleeing who is a deadly danger to the public.
This is a good example of why responding officers shouldn't carry firearms or even tasers on their person - they're too quick to keep escalating like they see on TV. If a suspect violently escapes arrest, then send in a larger armed crew with a deliberate plan.
re your addition: Seems like a decision that enables bad policing. Nothing about the situation makes it seem like RB was actually a danger to the public, but the police will push that justification all day long to legitimize what was essentially a personal ego escalation.
As this is not a clear cut case of justifiable homicide, the right thing to do is let a court sort it out. If the courts are too slow and expensive, welcome to another broken aspect of the criminal justice system that is in dire need of reform!
Asking people to act to professional standards and holding them to those standards isn't painting them as monsters nor does it seem unreasonable.