TexasCHLforum.com

Yet another in a series of controversial shootings coming out of Dallas.

Dallas police officers say they killed a man after he took a stun gun from an officer and pointed it at them.

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Dallas ... 43511.html

I'm not sure I understand the report as to the number of officers on the scene. It appears there were at least two.

If it was a single officer, then in my opinion it was a good shooting as the Taser would have incapacitated the officer rendering him defenseless. If there were two or more officers, using deadly force to stop a person from using non-lethal force doesn't seem justified. Even if one officer were to be incapacitated by the Taser, others could have prevented him from being further injured or killed.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I'm not sure I understand the report as to the number of officers on the scene. It appears there were at least two.

If it was a single officer, then in my opinion it was a good shooting as the Taser would have incapacitated the officer rendering him defenseless. If there were two or more officers, using deadly force to stop a person from using non-lethal force doesn't seem justified. Even if one officer were to be incapacitated by the Taser, others could have prevented him from being further injured or killed.

Chas.

I would not want to be in his shoes or for that matter any leo that is in an ois. I wonder what he was trained to do in taser training for this scenario? The only other explanation I could think of is that when somebody yelled he had the "stun gun", the leo heard "gun", and saw a pointed object and fired? That could be plausible. I wonder if their tasers are black or yellow? I'm sure time will tell after they investigate and release data. Dallas seems pretty quick on releasing data.

I also partially blame the way things are evolving. Back in the day when I started you carried a baton of some sort OR a flashlight. You were taught to go hands on. Then the public complained and wanted this or that. Now a leo has OC, taser, bean bag shot guns and pepperballs. They are taught to not go 'hands on' and IMO it shows in incidents like this and others.

Now this is a scenario I haven't given much thought to and maybe neither has LEO training because it's not something I've ever heard mentioned. I have been thru various force training's and have come to the conclusion that if I was attacked by someone with chemical spray and the attack was ongoing I would have to respond with deadly force because while I can operate for a short period of time it would be limited and I would then be at the mercy of the attacker. If someone pulled a taser I feel like the only way to ensure my safety would be to "shoot". In a police situation I'm not sure what one should do. Not that there is a single answer because it depends on to many variables but one things for sure it doesn't seem like an easy answer to me.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:IIf there were two or more officers, using deadly force to stop a person from using non-lethal force doesn't seem justified.

The PD got themselves in a bit of a pickle if there were multiple cops on scene. They can either hang the officer ou to dry for excessive force OR they can argue that these devices are so dangerous that they should count as lethal force when cops use them on drunks, etc.

Either way, it will be interesting for normal citizens to follow. Depending on the testimony, it could help a citizen articulate why they shot someone who "only" had a taser or stungun. After all, with some exceptions, many of us don't have armed backup who can bail us out if we get zapped.

i thought tasers were less leathel...

cheezit wrote:i thought tasers were less leathel...

Oh, there you go getting all commonsensical on us. However, I was thinking the same thing and Charles' scenario and thinking I'm glad I'm not in either of their shoes.

It could have been any of these possibilities expressed here.

Tic Tac wrote: Either way, it will be interesting for normal citizens to follow. Depending on the testimony, it could help a citizen articulate why they shot someone who "only" had a taser or stungun. After all, with some exceptions, many of us don't have armed backup who can bail us out if we get zapped.

Can't they argue that this guy committed a felony and might have done great harm to the general public?
I completely agree with Chas on this, BTW, but I think there is a way out for these guys for sure.

cb1000rider wrote:might have done great harm to the general public

Minority Report?

bizarrenormality wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:might have done great harm to the general public

Minority Report?

I was thinking the same thing.

cb1000rider wrote:Can't they argue that this guy committed a felony and might have done great harm to the general public?

Are they going to start shooting drunk drivers now?

Reminds me of an episode of NCIS. Bad guy pulls a tazer on the group and even when they point out that he can only hit one of them he still tazes McGee.