Really? I wonder...
So for you, HoopsDoc, Jet,vslice and anyone else that thinks this shooting in this spot under these circumstances was justified I've got a few hypotheticals. First off I don't want to misrepresent anyone's opinion, so correct me if I'm wrong. You folks have no problem with a cop discharging his weapon three times at a running DUI suspect in a crowded Wendy's drive thru/parking area on a weekend night in metro Atlanta? Three shots,with the 3rd coming AFTER 2 previous shots have already entered this suspects back? Am I stating your position correctly?
You do not feel the other alternatives like chasing the subject on foot, allowing him to escape and staking out his home,calling for backup-none of these alternatives seem more appropriate to you than shooting an unarmed man (carrying a discharged taser) in the back for that exact offense at that exact location, right? Am I accurately articulating the argument you are making here? And you realize that this subject has been searched, had his ID run for warrants, and was evidently coherent enough and viewed as harmless enough that these same officers at one point allowed him to drive his own car a short distance to a parking spot and park it, right?
I just want to be sure we're all on the same page, as far as facts go...
Now I refer you to this video, and you don't even have to watch the video. Look at the still photo of the preview and tell me do you see at least 4 other cars in the frame of where the man fell when he was shot? If so, do you still feel that discharging a firearm THREE times in that setting was justified or even advisable conduct by an LEO? For a suspect that was fleeing from the scene of a suspected DUI?
If the answer is still yes, then let's place you and your family in one of those cars. And since the video that you describe as "a bit outside" is an interview with a man whose car was hit by that third shot, then let's say YOUR car was hit by that shot, and maybe even your child. Still feel exactly the same way, knowing what we know the officers KNEW?
So suppose your child was shot in your car while you were in line at a damn drive-thru, and you discovered that the cop had shot at a DUI suspect fleeing on foot 3 times, with the first two hitting him in the back and mortally wounding him. Still feel the same?
Now suppose later you discovered that the cop had been on the force for 7 yrs, and had in just 7 yrs been "investigated" TWELVE times. Including for improper discharge of his firearm 2 yrs ago, and before that being part of a cover-up, when an officer-involved shooting that involved a car chase suspect being wounded and needing surgery, and none of the involved officers had reported it on their arrest paperwork? Do you think that sounds like a cop who exercises good judgement?
So do you think you might have a justifiable reason to sue if your child was injured or killed? Let's say all that came down the way I suggested, would you still be claiming the cops exercised good judgement and did nothing wrong? Would you not even consider a lawsuit, and bring all of these facts together as evidence? I don't have kids, but I gotta tell you, substitute my dog for my non-existent child and you're damn straight I'd sue. And I think I'd have a very good shot of winning...