What are the police supposed to do if you resist arrest and try to use a police TASER on the cops?

[A Hit With The Ladies]

Quote

Video shot by a bystander captures Brooks struggling with two officers on the ground outside the Wendy’s before breaking free and running across the parking lot with what appears to be a police TASER in his hand.

A second videotape from the restaurant’s cameras shows Brooks turning as he runs and possibly aiming the TASER at the pursuing officers before one of them fires his gun and Brooks falls to the ground.

Brooks ran the length of about six cars when he turned back toward an officer and pointed what he had in his hand at the policeman, said Vic Reynolds, director of the GBI at a separate press conference.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-minneapolis-police-atlanta/protesters-burn-down-wendys-in-atlanta-where-black-man-was-slain-by-police-idUSKBN23K0RI

So is the cop supposed to sit around and get tazed? I thought it was common sense that if you're resisting arrest and trying to taze a cop, the cop is going to neutralize the threat and bring you down. I think using deadly force here was completely justified.

[A Hit With The Ladies, BSN, RN]

Just now, NurseBlaq said:

Therefore, the taser in his hand was irrelevant because it was useless and they knew it, plus he was shot in the back

What's irrelevant is that he was shot in the back. Brooks turned around and fired the cop's taser at that cop. Facing your back to a cop afterward doesn't make you immune from being taken down.

Quote

How was he a threat to them with a useless taser and his back towards them?

Don't play dumb. When you fire a weapon at a cop, you have unquestionably demonstrated that you are a threat to that cop. The cop was 100% correct in neutralizing the assailant.

[JadedCPN, BSN, RN]

3 hours ago, A Hit With The Ladies said:

Let's not conveniently omit the fact that resisting arrest, attempting to flee arrest, stealing a police officer's weapon, and trying to shoot at a police officer with that weapon are all crimes worthy of prosecution.

Worthy of prosecution, absolutely! But NOT worthy of death.

[A Hit With The Ladies, BSN, RN]

1 minute ago, JadedCPN said:

Worthy of prosecution, absolutely! But NOT worthy of death.

People have been killed for aiming even toy guns at cops. Much less dangerous weaponry like tasers. The police officer has to protect his or her own life from getting shot at.

Quote

Police can generally shoot to kill if they “reasonably” fear for their lives or the safety of others, but specific circumstances — like whether the suspect was armed or had a violent criminal history — also affects if the officer can be held liable in many cases.... But a landmark Supreme Court case in 1989 changed that. In a 6-3 decision, the justices determined officers could shoot to kill if they “reasonably” feared for their lives — a lower and more subjective standard.

"When can cops legally shoot someone running away from them?" (VICE News, Aug. 2, 2018)

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/d3e47z/when-can-cops-legally-shoot-someone-running-away-from-them

[Tegridy]

Honestly let’s just let the people that want to defund the police do it. But when they ask for cops back after cities become escape from New York we will say told you so

[JadedCPN, BSN, RN]

4 minutes ago, Tegridy said:

Honestly let’s just let the people that want to defund the police do it. But when they ask for cops back after cities become escape from New York we will say told you so

You realize defunding the police doesn’t mean getting rid of the police, right?

[A Hit With The Ladies, BSN, RN]

Just now, JadedCPN said:

You realize defunding the police doesn’t mean getting rid of the police, right?

You realize cops (who already have a high attrition rate) are going to quit at even higher rates when they're understaffed, underfunded, and not protected in dangerous situations, right?

[Tegridy]

5 minutes ago, JadedCPN said:

You realize defunding the police doesn’t mean getting rid of the police, right?

The definition is very broad depending on who you ask.

[toomuchbaloney]

30 minutes ago, JadedCPN said:

You realize defunding the police doesn’t mean getting rid of the police, right?

Hyperbole is a staple for defending maintaining the status quo...have you noticed? Social conservatives weren't upset about defunding head start or SNAP or housing assistance, etc.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/trump-budget-deeply-cuts-health-housing-other-assistance-for-low-and

[A Hit With The Ladies, BSN, RN]

3 hours ago, unplgt16 said:

If he was “sooo drunk”, why would the cop knowingly have a drunk man move his car.

Because they administered the breathalyzer after he demonstrated an inability to move his car, thereby showing that he was drunk then.

[turtlesRcool]

On 6/14/2020 at 11:29 AM, A Hit With The Ladies said:

I did see the video. And then Brooks was aiming the taser at the cop! What was the cop supposed to do? Just get tased?

Even if you point a toy gun at a cop, they can use lethal force to neutralize what they perceive to be a threat. When seconds count they have to do what's necessary to defend their lives as well as that of innocent bystanders.

You can't have it both ways. Either a taser is lethal force or it's not. If it's not considered lethal force for the police to use it, then it can't be lethal when someone uses it against the police.

If a taser is lethal, then the cop had no business unholstering it against a non-violent suspect as a threat to try to force compliance. If the taser is not lethal, then the cops had no legitimate reason to shoot someone who is armed only with a taser (and in this case, the taser had already been fired twice, rendering it useless and of no further threat).

Further, I'm trying to understand the idea that any civilian who points a weapon of any kind against a police officer, even a taser or a toy gun, deserves to be killed because of the threat that he or she MIGHT hurt a cop. Usually, the narrative is that it's understandable that a cop might panic and shoot, and I get that, but I'm not sure how a suspect running AWAY from the police is an imminent threat.

BUT the part I really don't understand is if a civilian is threatened with a weapon from a police officer, the onus is on the civilian to remain very calm, not struggle, not run, in short, not panic when he or she perceives a threat to his or her life.

So a trained police officer can panic and shoot a person, but civilians with no training are expected to remain calm, even with a gun in their face? That makes absolutely NO sense.

Blue lives do matter, absolutely they do. But their lives don't matter MORE than the lives of those they are sworn to serve and protect.

If we are going to hold the police and civilians to different standards of behavior and judgment, then the police should be held to higher standards, not lower.

[jobellestarr]

10 hours ago, A Hit With The Ladies said:

He was driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, which is an offense that is a cause for arrest in every state and territory nationwide.

Let's not conveniently omit the fact that resisting arrest, attempting to flee arrest, stealing a police officer's weapon, and trying to shoot at a police officer with that weapon are all crimes worthy of prosecution.

Driving under the influence of alcohol does not get you a ride to your sister's house. It gets you a ride in the back of the cop car to jail.

You seem to have an agenda. So, you want to be right? Good, then you’re right. Why don’t you post on a political site instead of a nursing one. And then everyone can agree with you and you’ll feel morally superior that you were right and had it all figured out.

[A Hit With The Ladies, BSN, RN]

4 hours ago, turtlesRcool said:

If it's not considered lethal force for the police to use it, then it can't be lethal when someone uses it against the police.

The Taser can absolutely be lethal. Less lethal than a gun, sure, but it still has far greater lethality than a police baton.

Quote

If a taser is lethal, then the cop had no business unholstering it against a non-violent suspect as a threat to try to force compliance.

The suspect got violent when he resisted arrest, tried to punch the officer, stole the Taser, and tried using the Taser against the officer. All violent acts.

Quote

I'm trying to understand the idea that any civilian who points a weapon of any kind against a police officer, even a taser or a toy gun, deserves to be killed because of the threat that he or she MIGHT hurt a cop.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled decades earlier that the police can shoot to kill if they "reasonably" fear for their lives. Pointing what seems to be a weapon at a cop is reasonable enough for them to use force to retaliate.

Quote

but I'm not sure how a suspect running AWAY from the police is an imminent threat.

And again, let's not be disingenuous. Brooks did a lot more than simply try to run away. He engaged in multiple criminal offenses before and during the chase.

Quote

BUT the part I really don't understand is if a civilian is threatened with a weapon from a police officer, the onus is on the civilian to remain very calm, not struggle, not run, in short, not panic when he or she perceives a threat to his or her life.

As practically every TV and movie featuring police since childhood has shown us, when a police officer points their gun at you, you put your hands up and follow the officer's commands. You don't panic, you don't run off, unless you want more trouble.

Quote

So a trained police officer can panic and shoot a person, but civilians with no training are expected to remain calm, even with a gun in their face?

Trained police officers cannot "panic". They have "reasonable" legal standards for operating to preserve life and limb from external threats. Civilians are expected to follow officers' lawful orders.

Quote

Blue lives do matter, absolutely they do. But their lives don't matter MORE than the lives of those they are sworn to serve and protect.

Then don't resist arrest, get violent against a law enforcement officer, or try to evade arrest. Duh.