> People on drugs tend to behave in erratic ways.

This, however, is part of the problem.

She had traces of drugs _in her system_. Without knowing the amounts, you cannot say she was _under the influence_.

You can detect marijuana in the system several days after smoking a single joint. You're certainly not high at that point.

I'm not sure what the detection timeframe is for meth.

Certainly, if someone is _under the influence_ of a drug or drugs, that's one thing.

Similarly, I also work for Medic One in my area, training new EMTs. One of the perennial discussions is about being "altered", and consent, because we discuss implied consent in the context of intoxication. It has to be explained that just because someone has had one drink, does not impair them, or their ability to consent, and that tests more revolve around ability to comprehend consequences of decisions and actions. Simply put, I ask them, "You had a beer. Are you allowed to drive home?" "Yes, of course!" "So why would you not be allowed to make your own medical decisions?" "Ohhhh..."

"In the case of violence by the police, somebody who is holding a weapon and behaving erratically is inherently more of a threat then somebody holding a weapon and complying."

Except that in a lot of cases the victims were unarmed.

I recently took up martial arts, and after sparring a few times, I've learned that you do not need to be armed to be a threat. If somebody drives an elbow to the back of your head with force, you're going to the hospital. If somebody manages to get you in a clinch, you are likely going to pass out. If somebody manages to get you on the ground while they're standing - you better really hope they're content to walk away at that point because they can permanently mess you up for the rest of your life.

Any case of self defense needs to be evaluated by a court. I'm not suggesting police should get a free pass, but that somebody is unarmed does not mean they are not a lethal threat.

I wouldn't clame that all cop shootings are in bad faith by the cops. Sometimes violence is necessary (alas, it seems to happen in the US exponentially more often than in other developed countries).

But if you have a gun and the person that you target hasn't then threats as you describe them usually don't come to play.

It especially doesn't explain that cops shoot people into the back, when they very clearly pose no threat.

And they often used to get away with it would it not be for video.

And still victims are smeared.

You have a pistol pointed at someone who you perceive to be a threat. The person charges you from 30 feet away. Do you shoot them? Does that change if they have a knife? What if it's dark and they're holding something that seems like a knife but you're not sure?

Holding a gun doesn't make you immune to being injured or killed. Pointing a gun at someone doesn't always make them comply. A gun is a deadly weapon, but it's not a token of immunity and compliance. Shooting someone doesn't magically stop them or cause them to become a statue or a corpse.

> cops shoot people into the back

You're a police officer. You're called to investigate a violent rape by a suspect armed by a knife. The suspect runs and is quickly getting away. Do you:

1. Shoot them in the back

2. Let them escape and possibly rape someone else, hoping you catch them in the future

Neither of those is a good outcome and, just to make things more confusing, different states and departments have different rules in those situations.

> still victims are smeared

You can't know who the victim is until after the chips have landed. If someone gets shot by a police officer, they might have been an innocent person doing nothing wrong, or they might have been a violent predator who sexually assaults and murders kids for fun. When we're trying to assess that situation, you need all the evidence to come out - whether that hurts the cop (How many times have they used their weapons before? Do they have previous misconduct charges? Have they made racially charged statements previously?) or the person on the other side (Do they have a history of violence and crime? Are they a known felon? Were they on drugs?)

There are a few YouTube videos of use-of-force activists undergoing police training (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfi3Ndh3n-g) and one of the things that stands out to me is that they are very, very fast to pull the trigger compared to most police officers. That isn't to say their points are invalid, but it's easy to criticize from a sofa and it's a different thing to be in that fight-or-flight life-or-death moment of decision making.

Option 2. There is no other choice. Using lethal force against someone who does not pose an immediate threat is murder. It is never justifiable to shoot a fleeing suspect in the back.

> Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."[2]