Which I have a larger issue with then than them simply shooting him when he did have a weapon because it means they did not do the proper assessment of the area.
We do not know, ether way!
The response was in counter to your claim that tasers were not built to kill. Something does not have to be built to kill to be a deadly weapon, even if the intent on using it was only to slow someone down.
It may have a bearing if he sues the city!
Have other guidelines or court cases considered tasers a killing weapon?
His killing was due mainly to his actions. Whether they were justified will likely come down to a DA and possibly a hearing, but will almost certainly (chance is still there however) to an acquittal because of the circumstances.
You are wrong. In most states, he could have been arrested because it was still publicly accessible private property, which is covered under DUI laws. Few states have DUI laws only apply to public roads alone.
Police are not required to prove anything except there was reasonable cause for the arrest, which is a lower standard than the court standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, proof. They had sufficient reasonable cause for an arrest.
Then he had no right to resist arrest.
So we cannot assume he was drinking in the drivethru lane or on their property rather than having driven to their intoxicated.
Yes, if that happens. Perhaps the city should have investigated first and then fired with cause.
In any state, they could have arrested him, perhaps not for DUI, but certainly for Public intoxication.
We agree that they had cause to arrest him!
I think the days of cops killing black people and getting away with it are gone. These cops are toast
1. Policy is not law.
1. That is not what "protocol" says. (see above image)