You're right. I have no patrticular bias against the police.
It's a tough job, and not one that I 'd expect to do better, by any means.
However, what I see is a guy who walks, let's face it, in quite a leisurely gait, from a building.
They seem to issue a single verbal command: he has a hoody on.. Do they know if he can hear them?
They taze him: he visibly has only a bar in his hand, no other weapons in his hands. They have a dog they do not use. They seem to mess up the stun. Did it even work?
They then shoot. He visibly starts to go down, before disappearing behind the car after which they shoot again.
All this in 12-15 seconds on a guy visibly holding only a bar.
I probably do only see parts of the bigger picture, but I still feel that stakes were raised way too fast, IMO.
They did not really try to properly engage verbally with him, get a dialogue going. I heard one shout and then, bam, in with the stun gun. As you could see both his hands, I think the stun was too early
When he walked out of that building there was nothing in his demeanour toward the police that suggest he was going to go for them. He looked left and right and continued walking past.
He may have held a deadly weapon, but at that time his body language was not "I'm gonna **** you all up". That changed with the stun attempt.
I see what you mean about the hands on the bar, but with the 20-20 sight of seperation: That is when the dog should have been let loose.
There was too great a chance that the dog would be killed.
Are you saying that shooting the suspect is OK, but risking a dog is not?
I've no wish to see a dog harmed, but if not for locating and disarming assailants, perhaps you can tell me what a K-9 unit is for?
And the locating part was already done...