The use of lethal force, such as the firing of a gun, is only justified when there is a threat of loss of life.
That having been said, a threat did exist when Brooks was running away: he had an officer's taser in his hand. But after he fired the taser, that threat evaporated. Brooks did not have a gun, a knife or other viable weapon in his hands and he was, in fact, running in the opposite direction.
The argument that he might have hit the officer with the taser and then been able to get the officer's gun and kill him is pure fluff. It didn't happen! Brooks was trying to escape and, being weaponless, he posed no threat to anyone else.
As for the second officer at the scene, I don't see how he can justifiably be charged with anything. He had no time to intervene in the shooting.
No comments:
Post a Comment