I'm a fan of constitutional rights. You're not?
Yes, it's not a right to shoot at people and threaten bystanders.
The caller was probably deemed credible. A little law lesson not all 911 callers are considered credible. The detail of tge information, willingness to provide a real name, willingness to provide a callback number all go toward credibility.
So you don't know what the cop knew. You suggested that if the cop really thought there was a threat he should've had his gun drawn. If he does that then he's escslating the confrontation. (Aside from the obvious fact that you'd call him a coward: ' why did he have his gun drawn the guy had his hands up') so gun drawn escalates this into a deadly force situation.
So he doesn't have his gun drawn that doesn't make the threat assessment any less real.
The cop opts to try and talk through it but numbnuts won't follow simple lawful commands.
So when looking at a cops use of force you have to consider that -if at that point he doesn't knock him down if very likely will be a deadly force event mere seconds later. Ar which point 1 of 2 things would occur 1) criminal gets shot which is a far higher use of force than a punch/push or 2) cop gets shot which we know you'd be fine with.
Just because the cop doesn't see the gun doesn't mean its not more-probable-than-not that the guy has a gun. Just because the guy has his hands up doesn't mean the guy is cooperating and posing no threar. Just because the guy is standing there now doesn't mean it's not more probable-than-not that the guy just attempted to murder someone 5 minutes earlier.
So when looking at a use of force the constitutional standard is called tge Graham standard from a court case in the late 80's and what it comes down to is:
1) how much of a threat does the guy pose? (Quite a bit. He just shot at 2 people)
2)was the subject armed. (Yes. He was. Just because he doesn't SEE it doesn't mean he doesn't know it)
3) whats the severity of the crime? (Pretty serious here because he tried to shoot a couple people and threatened a bystander)
4) was the subject cooperative? (You may say he was. But he wasn't. The commands tge cop ha e him were lawful and this sack of shit refused to follow them)
So when looking at the entire set of facts (and not your cop hating bullshit, don't really know shit about the law, 20/20 hindsight) yes. This force was constitutional.
You're welcome.
