Paphitis wrote:Police have a job to do to protect the public.
Since I and all of us (99.9% of us) have no intention to be carrying knives or guns to threaten other people with, we could all fall victim to a lunatic by being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Police MUST in such situations do what they are trained to do. Not gamble with our lives. And that means, get their guns out and take down the assailant if it is deemed that their or the public's safety is in grave danger.
Obviously, tazers have their uses to in apprehending individuals where there is no grave danger. There may even be situations where tazers are not necessary. Tazers can also be deadly in certain circumstances.
But in this instance, an enraged 16 year old was about to stab another person whilst another person was kicking the crap of another who was on the ground.
This is clear cut in my view. It warrants an immediate response with deadly force or the use of a firearm.
In your ignorance you are adding one and one and coming up with the answer 11.
Nobody is saying Police do not have to protect people but to use lethal force it has to be that there is no other choice. In this case there was a choice and the lethal force was chosen. The policeman has to explain why and he will if he dares to stand up in the court. I suspect he will be like Chauvin and will take the 5th. It will be up to the experts to determine whether it was the correct decision or not.