Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees
No it didn’t at all, multiple lawyers have stated he complied but was disoriented that is not resisting, read the article on Bloomberg.
EVEN if he was non compliant that does not justify being tasered whilst you’re restrained on the ground never mind the brutalisation that occurred afterwards so your point is null and void
The use of both non lethal & lethal force comes with significant responsibilities, this was just a pack of animals hungry for blood
|
But it did, he was told to lay on the floor, he never. Regardless if he was disoriented, he still didn't comply. He was tasered while resisting and then ran off. If he was restrained, how did he then run off? It doesn't make it null and void, its a difference of opinion on how he reacted.
---------- Post added at 19:11 ---------- Previous post was at 19:08 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
From my previous post
Perhaps he (mistakenly, as it turns out) thought he had more chance of not being beaten to death if he ran away? Maybe he felt (by the fact the Officers’ words weren’t matching their actions) that excessive force would be utilised by the Officers?
It doesn’t matter anyway - killing someone because they ran away isn’t appropriate; we shouldn’t blame the victim for what was done to him.
---------- Post added at 19:05 ---------- Previous post was at 19:04 ----------
You don’t "condone what happened" but you do intimate that perhaps he was to blame (by running away).
|
But it's a fact that potentially he could be alive right now if he complied properly. That's not blaming him, that's just stating facts of life.