Comments
frodosdream t1_iuj2ilo wrote
Isn't this the same shooting that had the suspect/victim struggling with the cop over a taser as seen in video? (Hard to believe that this happened less than a year ago.)
Watched this video several times; did not ever see the suspect holding the taser as some claim. It always looked like the cop finally grew tired from wrestling, then pulled his weapon and shot the victim in the back of the head, while still on top of him.
mces97 t1_iujd3nv wrote
Can you explain what the difference is? Serious question.
mces97 t1_iujdavo wrote
Either way, he shot him point blank in the back of the head when he was no longer struggling with the suspect. He had the upper hand at the moment.
tom90640 t1_iujepep wrote
He was an officer "then", he is an "ex-officer" now.
N8CCRG t1_iujf4ov wrote
"Ex-officer" is ambiguous. Were they a former officer, who then committed a crime, or did they commit the crime as an officer, and afterwards get fired.
In addition to being ambiguous, news standards did not use the "ex-" modifier regularly. They used it for certain groups like (ex-)officers and (ex-)military who committed an act while in that role, and were later fired, but not for other groups like, say, truckdrivers. In other words, even if a truckdriver was later fired, the headlines would still refer to them as "truck driver who did X" and not "ex-truck driver."
mces97 t1_iujf9fb wrote
Thank you for the clarification. 🙏
mces97 t1_iujfb84 wrote
Oh, yeah, that makes sense.
Vircxzs t1_iujffxd wrote
Yup. Tough to defend the ex-cop on this one. If you can press your gun right up against the back of someone's head, you can just as easily shift it 8" diagonally and shoot them in the very arm that is allegedly gripping your taser.
[deleted] t1_iuj0o98 wrote
[removed]