I can think of a few animals I wouldn't want in the park. Lions, tigers, bears etc.

 

Lions, tigers and bears, oh my!

I too, will side with the officers, until proven otherwise.

Anybody think this guy could have been knocked down with a tazer? Seems one of the officers could have had a tazer trained on the suspect and pulled the trigger when he would not obey the officers commands. Believe me, I am not defending this drug/alcohol induced criminal, but was just asking a hypothetical.

Louisville Metro will be serving you a warrant later today.

 

:lol:

Anybody think this guy could have been knocked down with a tazer? Seems one of the officers could have had a tazer trained on the suspect and pulled the trigger when he would not obey the officers commands. Believe me, I am not defending this drug/alcohol induced criminal, but was just asking a hypothetical.

 

That's definitely a question worth asking.

Anybody think this guy could have been knocked down with a tazer? Seems one of the officers could have had a tazer trained on the suspect and pulled the trigger when he would not obey the officers commands. Believe me, I am not defending this drug/alcohol induced criminal, but was just asking a hypothetical.

 

Could have? Possibly, yes. However, when you put yourself in a situation like that as a "perpetrator", you run the risk of a cop reaching for his gun instead of his taser. I would respond to anyone making that supposition by saying that Mr. Hebert could have opted to not drink until he had a 0.33 BAC. He could have not smoked pot. He could have not been carrying a 13" switchblade. He could have done a lot of things to not put himself in a situation where he was acting suspiciously and out of sorts, and giving cops cause to think he was lunging at them with a switchblade.

Could have? Possibly, yes. However, when you put yourself in a situation like that as a "perpetrator", you run the risk of a cop reaching for his gun instead of his taser. I would respond to anyone making that supposition by saying that Mr. Hebert could have opted to not drink until he had a 0.33 BAC. He could have not smoked pot. He could have not been carrying a 13" switchblade. He could have done a lot of things to not put himself in a situation where he was acting suspiciously and out of sorts, and giving cops cause to think he was lunging at them with a switchblade.

 

Yes, but the police are trained to subdue violence w/ the least amount of violence possible. His question was valid. Could he have been subdued by the taser, or would the officer had put himself in danger of severe physical harm by using it? If the answer is that the officer had not other recourse but to shoot him, then that is good enough for me. If he could have used a less lethal mean, than it would change my view a little.

Anybody think this guy could have been knocked down with a tazer? Seems one of the officers could have had a tazer trained on the suspect and pulled the trigger when he would not obey the officers commands. Believe me, I am not defending this drug/alcohol induced criminal, but was just asking a hypothetical.

 

That was the first question that came to my mind. Not so long ago, it wasn't an option. But in an effort to find less lethal means of controlling suspects, that's why they were introduced....or at least I thought that was the reasoning.

Anybody think this guy could have been knocked down with a tazer? Seems one of the officers could have had a tazer trained on the suspect and pulled the trigger when he would not obey the officers commands. Believe me, I am not defending this drug/alcohol induced criminal, but was just asking a hypothetical.

 

A fight, and especially a fight that involves deadly weapons happens really fast. People can criticize a police officers move all they want, and play monday morning quarterback, but the fact remains that the decision is usually made in a split second. If the officers had time to set up lethal cover with guns, and then attempt to deploy a taser, then it could have been possible. However I do not know what situation they were in. They may not have had a taser. They also may not have been able to safely attempt to deploy the taser without risking an officer's life. The guy also may have surprised them and attacked with a knife. And when someone attacks with a knife, you don't come back with a taser. If you do and you miss...you are holding a useless tool vs. a deadly weapon.

Yes, but the police are trained to subdue violence w/ the least amount of violence possible. His question was valid. Could he have been subdued by the taser, or would the officer had put himself in danger of severe physical harm by using it? If the answer is that the officer had not other recourse but to shoot him, then that is good enough for me. If he could have used a less lethal mean, than it would change my view a little.

 

Police are trained to use whatever they need to stop the threat. A taser is an option sometimes, but that doesn't mean it's an option all the time. I don't know all of the details, but it's not always cut and dry that a taser should have been used.

Just to clarify, his criminal record was relatively non-violent. LINK

 

"Hebert's criminal record showed arrests for having animals in a park, drunken driving, disorderly conduct and possession of an open flask."

 

So he didn't get caught all of the time. That's all that tells me.

A fight, and especially a fight that involves deadly weapons happens really fast. People can criticize a police officers move all they want, and play monday morning quarterback, but the fact remains that the decision is usually made in a split second. If the officers had time to set up lethal cover with guns, and then attempt to deploy a taser, then it could have been possible. However I do not know what situation they were in. They may not have had a taser. They also may not have been able to safely attempt to deploy the taser without risking an officer's life. The guy also may have surprised them and attacked with a knife. And when someone attacks with a knife, you don't come back with a taser. If you do and you miss...you are holding a useless tool vs. a deadly weapon.

 

We're talking about a knife, not a gun. I feel real solid about being able to take down most knife-wielders. So I get cut; whoopee. Guns? Different story.

I haven't found many of the bleeding hearts mentioning the "innocent and free-spirited" deceased's toxicology reports. His blood ethanol/alcohol content was .33 AND there was marijuana present in his blood. So not only was he high, but ONE-THIRD of the dude's blood content was pure alcohol. LINK

 

Just making a guess...but he may not have been acting like his normal "innocent and free-spirited" self with everything he had himself jacked up on.

 

Check your math. I'm arguably the greatest drinker on this board, and I'd be stone cold dead at much less than one-third. But he was drunker than seven hundred dollars (as daddy used to say).

Police are trained to use whatever they need to stop the threat. A taser is an option sometimes, but that doesn't mean it's an option all the time. I don't know all of the details, but it's not always cut and dry that a taser should have been used.

 

Police are also trained to recognize and assess threats correctly. A knife is not a big threat to an armed cop with body armor.

We're talking about a knife, not a gun. I feel real solid about being able to take down most knife-wielders. So I get cut; whoopee. Guns? Different story.

 

Come on! You going to work today? How many knife-toting, drunk robbers to you plan on encountering? How's that body armor work on a cut to the neck? Face? Thigh? What if he throws it?

 

Best idea yet, don't threaten cops with a knife and you won't get hurt.