They're calling the Alanta shooting Murder.

@Tracos I tend to agree, but the suspect stole a Taser off the cop and threatened to use it on him. It's tragic when people die in these encounters, but the officer had no choice but to protect himself.

@BlueVeins Then why did he shoot him two times on the back? The shootings weren't during the struggle.

@Miram USA Today reports that the guy pointed the Taser at them as he turned away, and that's what lead to the shooting.

@BlueVeins

Watch the video. He was running away already and the officer was running after him, the suspect raises his arm with the taser pointed to the officer and the officer shoots at him.

Makes no sense to shoot when you had other choices and the taser is not deadly.

If the taser is considered a deadly weapon in your country, then it makes no sense to use it against civilians who aren't a threat including drunken people sleeping while parking refusing arrest.

@BlueVeins [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22zMVyfFbWY]

@Miram Tasers are considered "less-lethal" weapons by their manufacturer and the state, meaning that they can kill people, just far less often than conventional weapons. In fact, PBS reports that they've killed about 1,000 people since 2000.

If you believe that Tasers shouldn't be used by officers against violent but gunless suspects, I think that's a legitimate discussion to have but if that's the issue, then it's really the policy that's at fault rather than the individual cop. Firing someone for following your own shitty orders -- which is what kinda happened to this guy by the interpretation you're suggesting.

@BlueVeins

According to what I am reading Georgia law states that police may only use deadly force if:

1- they “reasonably believe” a felony suspect has a deadly weapon--Tasers aren't considered deadly in that state. That is why police could use it against him due to resisting arrest.

2- A suspect poses an immediate threat of physical violence--Here he was running away so that is not an immediate threat

3- They have probable cause to believe that the person has committed a crime that involves serious physical harm.

I believe both are wrong, the policies and the police involved excessively using force.

@Miram How is pointing a Taser at a cop [i]not[/i] an immediate threat of physical violence? That sounds as immediate as it gets!

@BlueVeins It is not an immediate threat because he was running away and tasers aren't deadly weapons.

@Miram When you're talkin' about stealing an officer's weapon and using it on them, that's an immediate threat of violence regardless of where you were running to. And even if you believe that Tasers aren't enough of a threat to justify shooting someone in themself, that's kind of a threat management issue. Because when you allow suspects to tase cops, they can also just steal the officer's weapon while they're incapacitated, which... not great!

@BlueVeins the cop wasn’t in danger of losing his life..
If they had called an uber and had his car towed...
This would not be an issue..

@SW-User Yes he was, the suspect was trying to tase him. And I'm pretty sure a free Uber and having one's car towed is not the punishment for a DUI in Georgia.

@BlueVeins
He was parked...
Trying to sleep it off.
Cops are the first line and can make the call.

In this climate, there was a better way..

@SW-User Unless the man drove to the restaurant sober and got hammered in the drive-thru, he must've driven drunk, right? From the officer's perspective, that definitely constitutes probable cause.

I think there's a reasonable discussion to be had regarding public policy around drug use. Maybe there WAS a better way to deal with this. But that officer's orders in that moment are to arrest a probable criminal. You should be upset with our lawmakers if that's your angle.

@BlueVeins

Lets's work with the facts, not with more what if"s to justify his killing.

And not with beliefs, with the laws that are already being used in court to decide like the Garner's test.

What I know right now is that tasers aren't classified as a deadly weapon or force. And because of that the court might very much side with the suspect.

Also legally because he was fleeting, it is not considered an immediate threat of violence to the police. If he was fleeting and the situation showed that he had intent to hurt more people, the court would side with his shooting even if he has no weapon at all.

You can read more about it on [i]FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, Volume 63, Issue 3[/i],

It is up to courts to decide whether or not the force was objectively reasonable. There could be more into it like whether or not the police has warned him before shootings, whether or not he has/had a history , and the nature of the offence that lead to his arrest.

I do agree that laws should be changed and we should focus on them, but I also can see the human error in this scenario.

Even if, let's say this person legally is to be shot by the police, people shouldn't be so quick to justify his killing seeing that a lot of you didn't even watch the original video.

@BlueVeins

you missed the point.
do you anywhere near where protests or riots have taken place?

damn it is tiresome listening kids on moral soapboxes..

let me know how your world view has changed in 20 years.

@Miram [quote]not with more what if"s to justify his killing.[/quote]

What 'if' are you referring to? The only time I used the word 'if' was in relation to your objections to the use of the Taser, which was in the context of a statement about the correct recourse for the police having a policy you disagreed with. If you're objecting to me referencing the possibility that the cop could've been tased, that's kinda ridiculous considering that the suspect was pointing a taser at the cop. Technically a hypothetical, but considering possible outcomes to your actions is a cornerstone of goal-directed thinking.

And yeah, it's ultimately a court's job to decide whether or not the use of force was warranted in a legal sense and I don't necessarily disagree with taking it to that point. But I saw the footage, dawg; I can clearly see what happened. But if you believe it's cool to judge the killing of George Floyd before the court date -- which I believe we both do -- it's inconsistent to object to doing the same thing to this case on principle. The courts decide what the legal system's reaction is, but their word doesn't have to dictate our opinions.

@SW-User Sentences, man.

[quote]damn it is tiresome listening kids on moral soapboxes..[/quote]

I could say the exact same thing to you, minus the age card (which is irrelevant anyway). You're on your moral soapbox condemning the officer's use of force and I'm on my moral soapbox condoning it. So why don't we cut the condescending shit and stick to substance, eh?

@BlueVeins

As far as I know you didn't see the footage until I linked it. Your opinion is not based on the laws surrounding the incidence and that is the difference between what I am talking about and what you are talking about.

When I mentioned the court it wasn't to say that you don't get to form an opinion, it was to say that I am forming mine while aware there are many things I don't know. [b]I do not have a definitive conclusion[/b], just like the Floyd case.

------------------

What I know for certain, despite the emphasis on the laws, is that when something is legal, it doesn't [b][i]to me[/i][/b] justify killing.

Otherwise I am worthy of being shot in the back if I resist arrest or run away while police here intends to capture me for being an ex-muslim and speaking against Islam. Do you know what I mean?

Legal=right doesn't sit well in my head, even though I have discussed the legal aspects of it and I am still reading on it.

@BlueVeins Its not an age card..
If I see inexperience speaking, it is what it is...
Now, answer my question, have you experienced any protests or property destruction in your community.

It was the cops decision making that was flawed..
They are the first line. what they say goes.

This incident like others of late, drive home the need for better training and improved screening for potential cadets.

No one should be shot running away from an interaction with police.

I can’t shoot someone running away from my house if they broke in..

I am done...

✌🏼

@Miram [quote]As far as I know you didn't see the footage until I linked it.[/quote]

No, I read an article recapping what happened, which was entirely accurate. The timing of my seeing the footage doesn't make a difference, unless you're trying to imply that I'm arguing in bad faith.

[quote]Your opinion is not based on the laws surrounding the incidence and that is the difference between what I am talking about and what you are talking about.[/quote]

Um, self defense law. Hello!

[quote]When I mentioned the court it wasn't to say that you don't get to form an opinion, it was to say that I am forming mine while aware there are many things I don't know. I do not have a definitive conclusion, just like the Floyd case.[/quote]

Really struggling to see the distinction here. I stated my opinion here, which was that the killing was justified. I never said it was impossible for my conclusion to be wrong, if that's what you're getting at. The only real difference between an opinion and a "definitive conclusion" is how sure you are about it, really, and I wouldn't be debating this issue if my mind couldn't be changed by the introduction of new information.

[quote]Otherwise I am worthy of being shot in the back if I resist arrest or run away while police here intends to capture me for being an ex-muslim and speaking against Islam. Do you know what I mean?[/quote]

I can see what you're saying in the most abstract sense, but those two situations are nowhere near comparable.

@SW-User Why are you deflecting to these weird, irrelevant questions about the riots and peaceful protests? That has absolutely nothing to do with that; this was a random encounter at a fast food restaurant. I ultimately agree with your opinion that police need more accountability and use-of-force training; I never stated the contrary. It's your analysis of this shooting that I disagree with. You should read the article Miram posted regarding the use of force on fleeing subjects; it addresses what you're saying very effectively.

Because I live in Atlanta.
It’s not irrelevant to me..
The view from space is great , you don’t
have to deal with shit directly
Try again@BlueVeins

@SW-User That has no bearing on the central issue, which is whether or not it was justified for a police officer to shoot a suspect who was trying to tase him.

@BlueVeins

[quote]I stated my opinion here, which was that the killing was justified. I never said it was impossible for my conclusion to be wrong,[/quote]

You are still making the mistake of thinking it's about you and comparing. It was about my own opinion. No-one is getting at anything.

I am not aware of any self-defense law that applies to suspect running away with non-deadly weapon justifying the shooting.

[quote]those two situations are nowhere near comparable.[/quote]

They are comparable. The tone of the discourse is that as long as the law permits killing him, it is not wrong for the police to shoot him.

The law permits killing me if I attempt escape.