No, I am seeing what is obvious for most of us to see it seems but you? Talk about make belief
No you are not.
You are seeing what you want to see which is make believe.
It ought to be obvious for every single person who saw the video.
:doh
As I already knew, you are assuming. Which again is
make believe.
I understand exactly what I quoted, do you? Because you seem to be totally unable to understand that just escaping is not enough for shooting to kill. For someone to shoot an escaping suspect, there has to be a situation in which the fleeing suspect (with his back turned to the officer, flapping his hands by his side and unarmed) which is what we have here but there also has to be another thing that the situation has to comply with before deadly force is allowed:
:doh
Obviously you didn't know until it was pointed out to you.
And in this case at the point in time the Officer responded, the guy was such a threat.
But I am sure you will continue to ignore that in pursuit of your make believe bs.
and every sensible person understand that in this situation that never ever ever is the case. He was unarmed, posed no significant threat at the time the officer started shooting!
And you are wrong.
At the point in time the Officer responded the guy was a threat.
1. it does matter that the tazer had fallen to the ground
It didn't fall. The guy who grabbed it threw it away.
2. the man was not struggling with the officer at the moment the officer started pulling the gun
:doh
His resistance is part of the whole.
3. at the time the first shot is fired the suspect was even further away posing ZERO threat to the officer
And again. Pay attention. At the point in time the Officer was responding to a known threat. To say otherwise you are going to have to show the Officer knew the suspect relived himself of the weapon.
4. he shot a man in the back with 8 bullets for a busted tail light stop
And? Officers shoot until the threat ceases to be a threat. That just happens to be when they stop their movement.
If you do not like that, lobby to get policy changed.
5. he picked up evidence to pervert the course of justice
You do not know that. That is all an assumption on your part.
You have no idea what he picked up, or what he tossed down. So just stop with the make believe.
6. the man needs to be prosecuted for the crime he committed.
He may not have committed a crime.
Sorry, but if there is nonsense posted here,
Wrong. It was all your nonsense.
:doh
Actual danger versus that of a reasonable belief is very different.
You should try to learn the difference.