They really are going through the motions. See you in a few months for the inevitable acquittal that gets her off but gets his family a pay off from the city.
I knew they'd have to. In the face of evidence of negligence/incompetence, their insurance provider would compel them behind the scenes to bring charges.
I've worked at a gun range that also provides training to LEO agencies such as shoot houses, cs chamber for certification, etc.. One of the things we offered training on was deployment of tasers and the departments we worked with all had the policy to treat tasers as a lethal weapon and they should only be deployed under the same justified use of force conditions as you would use with your sidearm.
The flip side of that was that any situation in which a taser was used also would have been considered justified in the use of a firearm as well. Part of the rationale behind that logic was in case something like this did happen. Even if the officer thought they were deploying the taser, but pulled out the gun they'd be justified under the law in our state.
I find that madness. Just because a taser can potentially be lethal, does not mean that it is equivalent to something that is intended to be lethal. What is the point of having a taser at all, if no distinction is to be made?
They really are going through the motions. See you in a few months for the inevitable acquittal that gets her off but gets his family a pay off from the city.
I called it days ago.
I knew they'd have to. In the face of evidence of negligence/incompetence, their insurance provider would compel them behind the scenes to bring charges.
I've worked at a gun range that also provides training to LEO agencies such as shoot houses, cs chamber for certification, etc.. One of the things we offered training on was deployment of tasers and the departments we worked with all had the policy to treat tasers as a lethal weapon and they should only be deployed under the same justified use of force conditions as you would use with your sidearm.
The flip side of that was that any situation in which a taser was used also would have been considered justified in the use of a firearm as well. Part of the rationale behind that logic was in case something like this did happen. Even if the officer thought they were deploying the taser, but pulled out the gun they'd be justified under the law in our state.
I find that madness. Just because a taser can potentially be lethal, does not mean that it is equivalent to something that is intended to be lethal. What is the point of having a taser at all, if no distinction is to be made?
Because people complained when cops brained people with batons, so a new tool needed to be found.