A man who was shot by police and later died had to wait 10 extra minutes for an ambulance after an officer having a “mild anxiety attack” took the first one that arrived at the scene, according to a newly released state investigation.
Dyshan Best, 39, was shot in the back last year as he fled from officers in Bridgeport, Connecticut. A report released Tuesday by the state’s inspector general found that the shooting was justified because Best had a gun in his hand and the officer pursuing him had reasons to fear for his own safety.
But the report raised questions about what took place after the March 31 shooting, which left Best, who was Black, bleeding with severe internal injuries.
According to the cops he had a gun and was pointing it behind him. They did find a gun next to him after he was shot. Time will tell if the bodycams back up that narrative, but if they do imo the shooting was justified. Nothing can justify what happened afterward though.
Why would we take the cops at their word? That’s just silly. Either they have the bodycam footage to back it up, or they’re lying.
I’m not taking them at their word. I’m speculating about a scenario where the bodycam footage backs them up. CT is usually pretty good about releasing this stuff so we will find out.
Even if there was no gun pointing backwards and he just had the gun, if the person fleeing has shown they are willing to use it, isn’t that enough reason to fear for the saftey of others and take the shot?
I know there’s some line where that becomes okay, but not sure when/where.
I wouldn’t say so, no. I don’t think cops should be allowed to shoot someone simply for possessing a gun. Deadly force is intended to stop an imminent threat, not someome who may become a threat at some unknown time in the future.
Simply possessing a gun absolutely not, but there are rules and exceptions for example on if they have shot at innocent people during the altercation already.
I’m just not sure where that line is, but it does exist.
edit: Like, shooting at innocent people during the alternation might not be enough even, it might need to be shooting at innocent people while fleeing.
All the police have is unsubstantiated claims from a 911 call. Thinking that is enough for lethal force is why SWATing happens. Fake 911 calls about serious crimes trying to get the police to show up and murder people. The job of the police is not to determine guilt or innocence, nor do they punish, those are for the judicial branch.
I never said that was enough for lethal force, but there are reasons a cop will shoot someone in the back and it be valid.
You kinda keep dodging what I’m talking about, which is if the person has shown to be a actual threat to the public.
There are rules around it, I just don’t know what that threshold is.
I’m not saying this was met in this case, but I am saying they CAN shoot someone who’s running away in some circumstances. (edit: without having to even be pointing the gun at the cop)
edit: My bad also you aren’t the same person replying to me, so you aren’t repeatedly dodging anything.
Hypothetically, yes there are justified shootings. Deciding if a shooting is justified should be done by a jury though, not an internal investigation. All lethal use of force cases should be prosecuted and guilt/innocence should be decided by a jury. The use of lethal force justification being decided by a judge/prosecutor/police is short-cutting the legal standard that any other victim would see their perpetrator held to and is therefore a 14th amendment violation.
Ya, that does seem like a fair way to handle something like that.
Is that actually how it happens, or is it typically done internally and decided by a judge/prosecutor/police?
That is not how it is done. It is the police chief saying, “We investigated ourselves and (found no wrongdoing)/(everything was within policy).” Occasionally it will be a prosecutor saying something along the lines of, “There isn’t enough evidence to get a guilty verdict so we are not going to pursue this.” If it gets past both of these the judge will dismiss the case for some random excuse or they do a bench trial where instead of a jury the judge just decides the cop is innocent. Very rarely it will make it to a jury trial and the cop will lie his ass off and never get charged for perjury.