I am sure he did what he is trained to do, except the shot in the back of the head. He could have called for back up when the guy first got out of the car (which he told him to NOT do). Had he been contained in the car, there would have been no wrestling match and no shooting.
Then every criminal who runs away and is stronger than the officer will get away? This will make it very difficult for police, and in some cases could even lead to other problems. No, I think you are being naive and unrealistic.
There was not adequate reason to call for back up at that point. Everything you are suggesting would make policing much more difficult and expensive. Some areas may not even have the resources to be able to afford that. I do know in some areas they have two police officers in separate cars who stay near each other at all times and they never make a stop for anyone for anything, no matter how small, without both of them being there.
If you believe police should make an arrest and stop a suspect in a certain case, how exactly are police supposed to do that? Think about that.
Realize that many suspects will be able to get away before backup arrives. But I guess you're fine with that. For all that officer knew, the car might have been stolen. The plates might have belonged to another car. No drivers license was shown.
So anytime a police officer tries to stop someone they should just run away? What are the options if the criminal is about get his weapon during a violent struggle?
Yes, there was, because the guy had already disobeyed his instruction to stay in the car. Him being outside opened the door to the whole tragedy. No, they are already doing it. They always ask you to stay in your vehicle, because it boxes you in and makes it nearly impossible to attack I saw the video, and this guy was confused out of his mind, He didn't try to get away until the cop tried to arrest him. Calling for backup would have been a reasonable option. IMO that would have been good time to call for backup
No, the suspect had already went outside his car before the officer got out of his car or said anything.
What do all these cases have in common? Strong guy with a huge body frame and build (an individual who police can't easily subdue), low IQ (acting incredibly stupid), acting irrationally or erratically.
They need to figure out a way that doesn't involve killing the person. Or yes, letting an unarmed person run away, is preferable to killing them.
It's not so easy. You have unrealistic expectations on government. When laws get enforced, sometimes bad things will happen. Now you might have some idea of why some people are Libertarians and don't believe there should be driver's licenses or ordinary vehicle stops. Everything government does has trade-offs. There's no magic way to just pass a law to make something happen. Lots of people are stupid enough to believe that.
I watched the entire 20 minute video, showing 4 different cameras. It’s clear some of you didn’t. This guy had bad plates, no ID and resisted arrest. The cop literally knew nothing about him. He also had slurred speech or huge language barrier. The guy took the cop’s taser. Had he been able to use it on the cop, he could have gotten away with a cop car. There is no telling. Until they complete their investigation, that’s how I see it.
Yes, the trade off is to let someone run away rather than killing them when they aren't armed, and don't clearly pose a risk to other people. You seem to think the trade off is shooting people just incase they pose a risk.
Police don't work like that. It's very common for one single sheriff or officer to attempt to make an arrest in many parts of the country. What you are advocating, not every legal jurisdiction could afford. You would have many long and difficult and very expensive chases that would be caused by this policy. Suspects stealing other cars to get away, because police are just not allowed to stop them. Many suspects would manage to escape.
Do you want a safe and orderly society or don't you? Or do you want people to ignore the police and the laws they try to enforce yet expect the criminal element to leave you and yours alone while you live the American dream?
There's a film called Demolition Man, about a future where police can't use serious force to go after a criminal, and don't know how to deal with or stop a real criminal from the past. So they end up having to bring a police officer back from the past too who knows what to do.
Was he armed? I heard the cop screaming at him to not reach for the tazer, but i wouldn't call that armed. I never say anything to indicate he actually got control of the tazer.
yes, i am talking in the generic sense. Letting him run away would have been preferable to that pathetic wrestling match. What crime was he suspected of before the physical altercation started?
- driving a stolen vehicle - driving with stolen license plates from another car - driving without a license and likely some other unknown crime because he was being so uncooperative and trying to get away
Yea, so i don't think any of those crimes justified the manner of the arrest we saw. The police had access to all of the evidence, they could have impounded the car, returned it to the owner, and tracked down the guy later.
