Watch the video before you comment.
Domestic incident sounds a lot like his wife, kids or neighbours called the cops, so it was seriously kicking off.

The guy could easily have just stopped and nothing would have happend to him.

But no, with 2 police officers, guns drawn, telling him to stop/hands up, whatever, he opens the car door, leans in and looks like he is going to pull something out.
Shot in self defence, the police are in the clear.



He gets this weeks Darwin Award though.

So why didn’t they just shoot the tires? Or a warning shoot near his feet (probably more dangerous).

Ignoring some one is not a capital crime, nor are the police judge and jury.

And dishonourable as well.

The guy was trying to intervene between two women that were fighting. He was not beating his wife, his kids or his neighbours.

If you don’t know the facts please don’t make them up.

We can probably never seen inside the brain of a dead man. But people do crazy stuff sometimes , and being under duress or having a gun pointed at you doesn’t necessarily make it better .

That said , maybe the current situation where so many people are so anti cop and talking about defunding or even criminalizing the police is making it worse . It maybe makes some people think the cops wouldn’t dare be tough on me so I can test the limits a bit further ?

Unintended consequences .

Ever been in a potential life threatening situation? Real life is not Hollywood action movie. If the other guy is potentially reaching for a gun to shoot you, you don't shoot the tyre.

That someone happens to be a police officer with gun drawn and pointing at you, not some random stranger.

Should have just followed police orders and he would still be alive instead of brawling with them as new camera footage apparently reveals.
Right and wrong should be skin colour independent. Attacking businesses of hard working people and burning them is not going to solve anything.

They didn't shoot the tires because they likely thought he was reaching into the car for a weapon (of course he had a history of assaulting police and resisting arrest already plus he had an outstanding warrant for his arrest)

Another black criminal dead and another city burns.

Instead you shoot him in the back. Not once, not twice but seven times... because you are a professional trained to deal with these types of situations.

I don’t paint the work black and white. The vast majority of police genuinely try to help their communities in the best way they can. But I cannot watch the video and see how it was the victims fault and how this response was in any way justified. The one good thing this year has brought is that police action is getting reviewed a little quicker now... so let’s see.

Apart from the dual facts that he is still alive, and has kids, this is a great point.

The police are also people who want to go home to their family's.
Why should they wait for a violent criminal to actually pull a weapon on them before taking action because he doesn't feel like complying with the police?

Then shoot him in the leg, once.

In an ideal world sure, but all training focuses on hitting the center of mass which is the biggest and most reliably hit target. Shooting under pressure is not a great time to introduce new ideas.

Better training is needed then. Obviously.

The victim likely realised what would happen if he submitted. He would be arrested, thrown in gaol, taken before a (likely white) judge, given a bail he would never be able to pay and would stay confined for months loosing his job, his home. He’d be offered a plea bargain which if accepted would mean more time behind bars, if he declined he would go to court represented by an inexperienced and overworked lawyer, be convicted and sent for even more time.

His crime? Trying to stop a fight and ignoring a man with a gun.

Did he even have a chance, or a choice?

This is basically what I think the main problem in this whole US debacle is, piss poor police training. Better training is required, but it shouldn't be on shooting people in the leg, it should be on de-escalation, then non-deadly means, then the last resort is the gun. At the moment it looks like the gun is the primary means of "de-escalating" a situation.

In this case it looks as though they tried to arrest, him, tried to taser him, tried to wrestle him, and then as he ran to reach inside his car they shot him. Crap situation for all involved.

In all the guard duty shootings I either attended or supervised in the military. not once did we train to shoot in the leg.

Ignoring a man with a gun is under no circumstances a good idea.

Exactly.

I haven't seen the video yet, but if it happend as you described, and with the knowledge about the mans criminal record, I would probably have shot, too. Now with zero adrenaline I can calmly say that I'd shoot a warning shot first but being in that situation is completely different.

When someone draws a weapon and gives you an instruction, your life is in imminent danger unless you follow their instructions. You can argue your rights later. Assuming you get the chance.

Why the police of the US feel the need to give gunpoint instructions so often, and disproportionately to black people is another question. In a decent society, no one should get killed simply for not following a police officer's instruction.

Fixed that for you. One of the contributing factors to the US's policing issue is the militarisation of the police. Your guard duty experiences are all very well, but the police are not the military; they're supposed to be protecting the community, not fighting a war against it.

The man did not have a gun.

The 'victim' already had an outstanding warrant for his arrest - you don't get to pick and choose when the police can arrest you

Sorry, I didn't express myself clearly. I meant it the same way as NotAllThere: Ignoring a police offier with a drawn weapon is under no circumstances a good idea.