Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
Personally, I'd take all the tea in China. That's a heck of a lot of tea. You could sell it and then probably you wouldn't need a real job, at least for a while.
Anyway, I guess we're just calling other posters twats now? I think AFC is out to lunch - just in general, he has strong opinions despite not coming off as someone who never tries to reason anything through but superficially - but come on, really?
As for whether that guy should have been shot, based on that video... yeah, probably. If your philosophy about use of force is that a policeman should never fire his gun unless someone is about to shoot him, you might come to the opposite conclusion. Other than that, I'm not sure how "resisted arrest, assault, attempted multiple times to get ahold of officer's weapon, did manage to get a taser off him, then tried to run" doesn't result in a guy getting shot. But perhaps that's now changing?
|
The question is should it result in him getting shot in the back.
If he was shot during the altercation it would have been clearly reasonable. Is once the use of lethal force line crossed does that give the officer the right to use it for the remainder of the altercation?