This is going to be an unpopular opinion but it looked like a justified shooting. Most every use of force is judged by reasonableness. Would it be reasonable, for an officer with the same training and experience, to do the same thing in an identical situation. Officers aren’t required to meet the suspect with equal force. For example, if a suspect is holding a firearm, a cop doesn’t have to wait until they are shot at or even aimed at to use lethal force. Back when the use of force continuum was more prevalent, it was generally one step above the suspect’s action.
1. Suspect aimed and shot less lethal munition at the officer. The cop dropped his taser because he doesn’t have to meet with equal force and one step above a taser, is a firearm. (Unlikely the officer’s taser would reach or make a connection).
3. Suspect was running away while also pointing and firing the taser at the officer (not quite the same thing as the fleeing felon rule) The suspect wasn’t that far away and it’s possible the suspect could have quickly turned around.
5. This happened very fast and LEO training would likely justify this action even if the suspect was facing away from him because the suspect was still technically an active threat (The officer fired right after the taser was shot at them) (Officer could also claim he thought it was a firearm).
6. There are a lot of training paradigms that would make the public very uncomfortable if they didn’t understand the “why.”
7. This is quite different than the Floyd and the LivePD case as they were both already incapacitated, this person was still an active threat.
8. Have to judge this from the information the officer had at the time, their training, experience, and the reasonableness of their decision; not based on what we know after the fact.