The point is they weren't stopping a suspected rapist, murderer, armed robber, drug courier although it shouldn't matter he was. He was pulled over for a broken tail light.
As I stated, your narrative was off. His fleeing is not over a traffic violation.
And your current point is irrelevant to the specific circumstance of the shooting.
Secondly, he wasn't unarmed at the moment the Officer started responding.
I don't even know what that means.
As it has been stated several times differently, you already do know what is being said.
The suspect had the taser which made him a significant threat. The Officer was already responding to that threat when the suspect threw the taser and began fleeing.
It's simple - he was RUNNING AWAY....
And? The law allows for a firearm to be used on such a fleeing suspect..
And what matters is whether he was armed when shot in the back.
Wrong. That is not a trump card like you apparently think it is.
What matters is the Officer's
probable cause to believe he was a significant threat, as was already shown by the provided court case.
Any reviewer of the facts, whether judge or jury, will understand that the suspect having the taser makes him a threat and the Officer's response to that threat was reasonable.
You keep posting that video but it's apples and dump trucks.
Wrong. It specifically shows the same thing, an Officer firing on an unarmed fleeing suspect.
Again, you are arguing that the Officer in the current case is prohibited from firing on a fleeing suspect who is unarmed because the suspect being unarmed makes him a non-threat.
If your argument held water the Officer in the video would not have been cleared because he too was firing on a fleeing suspect who was unarmed.
If you argue that they are not the same because the suspect in the video had been a threat prior to his throwing the gun, then you also have to consider what occurred prior to the suspect fleeing in this case, which also made him a significant threat.
And the video was provided to show that it is permissible to fire on unarmed fleeing suspect.
Nothing you can say changes that.
What threat is a guy with a tazer, which he didn't actually have, to 'the public.' None.
This is you continuing to ignore what was previously said.
His taking it made him a significant threat.
It is when he had it that the Officer started responding.
He's not a threat to the cop armed with a weapon and the guy running away. How's he going to taze the cop while running away. You keep mentioning the probes - yeah, that's tough to hit someone with probes running away from them.....
This is you not understanding that a taser is a dangerous weapon that can take the life of a person, especially if used wrongly.
And I keep mentioning probes and prongs, they are not the same. The taser can be used in either fashion.
Yeah, OK, running away is a license to kill, by shooting them in the BACK. I think we understand your position.
Emotive nonsense.
The law allows a firearm to be used to stop significant threats from fleeing.
If you do not like the law, lobby to get it changed.
But it is a stupid position to think society should allow a criminal to get the best of an Officer and be able to flee with no recourse at the time.
Everyone else sees a cop resorting to deadly force when it's clearly and wildly inappropriate.
No, they don't.
And I highly doubt you know what everyone believes.
The fact that you would even say such nonsense just says you have no valid argument.
then he's liable to see grandmas in wheelchairs armed with a fork as a significant threat, etc.
More emotive nonsense indicative of your whole position.