Sad story all around but doesn't this close the case?
Close the case? No. But it's a pretty good defense for sure. I'm not sure the DA being a massive hypocrite is helpfully, legally, but it certainly helps him optically.
What I find interesting is the DA says that tasers are deadly weapons according to Georgia law. That may be true, though I wasn't able to find it. Maybe it's apart of GA case law not statutory law. What I did find is Georgia Department of Safety classifying it as a less lethal use of force:
10.01.5 Less-Lethal Force
C. Electronic Control Devices Consistent with the Department’s policy of using only that amount of force that reasonably appears necessary in order to effect a detention or an arrest, overcome resistance, control a subject or protect themselves or others from injury, the department authorizes the use of Electronic Control Devices by sworn members who have been trained and certified in their use. 1. Description Electronic Control Devices (ECD) are designed to restrain potentially violent persons, when alternative restraint tactics have been used, are reasonably likely to fail, and/or when it would be unsafe for officers to approach a person to apply restraints.
Usage
a. The ECD may be used when it reasonably appears that it will be the most effective less-lethal response to resistance option, balancing the need to arrest or subdue the person; the likelihood of injury to the person, to innocent bystanders, or law enforcement officers; and officer safety concerns.
b. Use of the ECD should be consistent with policy and training received by the Department.
c.
Deployment of an ECD against any person shall be considered a use of less lethal physical force. The ECD is
not intended to be used as an alternative to the use of deadly physical force.
If a taser is in fact defined as a deadly weapon per GA law, that creates an interesting catch-22. When cops use it, it's less lethal, but when someone else, it's deadly, and therefore cops can respond with deadly force?
Now I understand the argument. A cop lawfully attempting to arrest someone who is resisting, clearly has a right to defend himself against said person, which is hard to do if you are being tased. The issue I have here, is the cop who shot him wasn't being tased nor was he in range of being tased. In order to use deadly force there has to be "an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or others". If being tased is an immediate threat to serious bodily injury, the shooting would be justified. If it is not, despite the suggestions by others that because it could have allowed him to then get the now tased officers gun, that is not an IMMEDIATE threat, and therefore the shooting wouldn't be justified.
The way I see it, this is the crux. Is or isn't being tased an immediate threat to serious bodily injury. Not potential threat. Not any injury. But immediate threat and serious injury.
In any case, I do not see how the shooting would constitute felony murder. If it comes up that the guy died not just because he was shot, but because the cop then punted him in the head and didn't render medical aid, that changes things. But just the shooting in the circumstances seen? No way.
