When Non-lethal can become lethal for the user.

[Ruthless4christ]

Careful stephen426, that deductive logic you are using there is known as troll talk to some in these parts!

[Pond, James Pond]

we have no clue of what occured before the video began

Absolutely true.

I don't question the common sense in your comments, but they in themselves are also making suppositions about what happened.

I have put forward some suppositions: they postulate an alternative to how some have interpreted or justified the events, but ultimately can't be the basis for my point of view.

That is why I am doing my best to confine my conclusions based on what I have seen.

I see a guy walking, only walking, when he is tazered by a policeman at his 9 or 8 o'clock.

If we later find out that he had already assaulted someone in the restaurant, then that would be a relevant point to be taken into account.
Until then, though....

[Double Naught Spy]

And all that the suspect did in that time was walk out of the building, until being tazed.
Personally, if there is scope, and I believe there was, I think a person's life is worth more than 40 seconds of commands.

Ah, I now see your confusion. You think that the officers should not have done anything that would result in the suspect turning violent such that they were put in a position to defend their lives. You think it is the officer's fault that he attempted to do serious bodily harm to the officer.

It was the suspect that decided to go lethal when he did, not the officers. You seem to repeatedly miss this point. If you are going to argue that the suspect's life is worth more than 40 seconds, then argue with the suspect. He picked the time and place, not the officers.

You've said it yourself. He turned lethally hostile after the taze. Not before. So he did not comply. Big deal. Not complying to "drop the bar", is not the same as threatening with the bar.

I have put forward some suppositions: they postulate an alternative to how some have interpreted or justified the events, but ultimately can't be the basis for my point of view.

That is why I am doing my best to confine my conclusions based on what I have seen.

So your goal here is to repeatedly argue from a position of ignorance. You did that with the audio information and now you are doing it with the visual information. You have decided that the only factors relevant to what occurred are what you have or have not seen and heard in the video clip despite witness accounts and other information available to you.

I see a guy walking, only walking, when he is tazered by a policeman at his 9 or 8 o'clock.

So just out of the blue you think the officers just decided to taze a guy walking? You don't see and hear a guy who has already exhibited violent behavior and who fails to comply with officer demands?

Tazing a violent suspect who refuses to comply with officer demands is appropriate.

Why are you putting a guy with an RPG, or a Mac 10 in the same category as the item in the video?
Why are you even bringing other fabricated scenarios into this discussion?

LOL, you find it okay when you bring fabricated scenarios into the discussion (post 40), but not when others do.

[Ruthless4christ]

The signature

Doubt: ...it's the only thing I'm sure of...

may put things into perspective as to why this argument is even taking place.

[Pond, James Pond]

Ah, I now see your confusion. You think that the officers should not have done anything that would result in the suspect turning violent such that they were put in a position to defend their lives.

Actually, put like that, it sounds like an excellent advice.
Yes, making a suspect turn violent would be very unwise.

So your goal here is to repeatedly argue from a position of ignorance. You did that with the audio information and now you are doing it with the visual information. You have decided that the only factors relevant to what occurred are what you have or have not seen and heard in the video clip despite witness accounts and other information available to you.

You suggest that basing my views on the evidence at hand is bad thing...
You are as ignorant as I since, like me, you were not there.
I'll happily accept that the police had shouted several commands at him, but....

...I have not seen any links to other witnesses saying that he made any aggressive moves in the moments prior to being tazed.

All I've seen is your news link that says he smashed windows and ignored police commands.
Antisocial: yes. Stupid: yes.
Immediate threat to the public: No.

Since you have all the answers: tell me what he did or what you know he was about to do in the middle of that carpark to make tazing the only option.

If you think that he deserved to get shot: good for you.

If you think that there was absolutely no advantage in just hanging back from the guy and letting him rant for a bit, gauging his intent; good for you.

As trained professionals, yes, I would expect the police where I live to work by procedure, but also use judgment to assess each case by its own merits.

Aside from the obvious destruction of property, not obeying the police was his mistake.
Approaching the guy here, I think was their mistake.
That was the tipping point: and there was no indication that he would otherwise have lunged at anyone. His actions had been up till then directed at property and he was isolated from the public.

Difference here being the police had the advantage in training, in space, in numbers, in weaponry. I believe they were premature in using the tazer: it lead to a death that I think could have been avoided.
And they injured a member of the public due to stray fire, which is more than the suspect did throughout.

Bottom line is: I know what I think on this. I've cited why.
I'd be more than happy to review that opinion if new evidence came to light.

I've not really seen any specifics to address that point so I'm not particularly bothered if you agree or not.
However, I certainly haven't changed my degree of courtesy to you in order to bolster my point.
Unfortunately, you seem unable to disagree without opting for condescension.

LOL, you find it okay when you bring fabricated scenarios into the discussion (post 40), but not when others do.

At least I admitted it was hypothesis.
I offered a different possible take on what we saw for the purposes of challenging some people's immediate interpretations on the situation. Not some ludicrous reference to RPGs

You seem to think bringing military ordinance into the equation is on a par.
LOL indeed....

[Ruthless4christ]

If you think that there was absolutely no advantage in just hanging back from the guy and letting him rant for a bit, gauging his intent; good for you.

and he was isolated from the public.

how would letting him walk out into the street, have been advantageous, and how would it have kept him isolated from the public?

You seem to think bringing military ordinance into the equation is on a par.
LOL indeed....

once you have witnessed people killed in front of you, you start to realize the types of weapons that people use are not as significant as the intent behind their use. One reason why I never get involved in the 9mm vs .45 discussions.

[Capt. Charlie]

This has become a bit too personal. It's a shame too, because the subject had potential. (Stress on past tense.)

Oh well, hopefully the subject will come up again sometime, without the incivility. The fate of this one, however, is sealed.

Closed.