A man who was shot by Connecticut police last year and later died had to wait 10 extra minutes for another ambulance to arrive at the scene, after another officer having an anxiety attack took the first one.

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.

  • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
    1·
    1 day ago

    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.

    • jonesey71@lemmus.orgEnglish
      9·
      1 day ago

      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.

      • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
        2·
        1 day ago

        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.

        • jonesey71@lemmus.orgEnglish
          3·
          1 day ago

          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.

          • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
            2·
            1 day ago

            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?

            • jonesey71@lemmus.orgEnglish
              2·
              1 day ago

              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.