Definitely. From the little I saw on video, the guy didn't comply but then two cops had him on the ground. Not that this automatically means they were in a "safe" position but it was at that point one says, "He's got a gun, he's got a gun." At that point the officer by his head draws his weapon. What exactly did, "He's got a gun" mean? Was it in his pocket? Or was it in his hand, in his pocket? Or what? Just the fact that he had a gun doesn't tell me much. So honestly, from what I saw, I would have questions too. Also, BOTH body cams fell off? hmmm.
It usually begins with non compliance and escalates from there so I agree with you that compliance would've prevented this; however, that doesn't automatically justify killing him. Too many unknowns at this point for me to say one way or the other but I'm leaning towards the cops' side. Had to have been at point blank range. Messy messy.
They attempted to use non lethal force, which in previous cases we have seen, cops didn't even try and do that. SO they tried, it continued to escalate, and not a person on this planet can prove that the guy didnt reach for a gun. They also found the gun on him. Sucks, but dont fuck with police. It will likely come out this guy was on some massive shit to take tasers like that.
From laying on your back, you can hip fire and kill someone pretty easily. Zimmerman killed Travon that way.
True, that's why I wonder what it meant. If it was in his pocket but they had his hand/arms...that would be different than if it was in his pocket. BUT, even if it was "only" in his pocket, the fact that he is still resisting, while on the ground, could definitely be taken as him trying to reach for it. Like I said, I'm leaning towards justified. Just want to hear all the details before making any conclusive comments. Not that anyone gives a shit what I say, just me.
