Here is the issue with the general public: READ the law.
The general public needs to understand that use of force incidents are technical. They are judged based on the law and not opinion. If you don't understand Graham vs Connor, or Tennessee vs Garner, you aren't qualified to give an opinion in regards to if the force was justified or not.
So lets first look at Graham vs Connor:
"The Court held that the actions of a LEO must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable LEO and not a responsible person. This is significant as most criminal and civil standards incorporate and rely upon a reasonable person or “reasonable man” standard as the law once described it."
"Our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has long recognized that the right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it.”
“The ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation.”
"The ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.”
“The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.”
Now lets look at Tennessee vs Garner
Synopsis of Rule of Law. : If an officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a threat of serious bodily harm either to fellow officers or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.
Now lets look at the situation.
You have a man who is in his vehicle at the drive through at Wendy's passed out. Imagine you are at a drive through trying to get food, but the line is not moving, because the person in front of you is passed out drunk. So obviously, this generated 9-1-1 calls. Officers arrived on scene and had reasonable suspicion that he was DUI. Obviously. So they administered field sobriety tests. The man failed the sobriety test, so the man was now going to be placed under arrest for DUI. At some point a struggle ensued.
The man decides to take it upon himself and fight officers. Which is a crime:
Georgia Statute Georgia Code [Section 16-10-24] Obstruction of a law enforcement officer) - Misdemeanor section (If you knowingly and willfully obstruct or hinder any law enforcement officer from completing his or her duties, you are guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by 12 months in county jail.
The man then begins then resisting more, the officers attempt to overcome the mans resistance, they attempt to tase him, however the man takes grabs the officers taser.
So now you have another crime:
Georgia Code Section 16-10-24 Obstruction of a law enforcement officer) - Felony section ** you knowingly and willfully obstruct or hinder officers from completing their duties by threatening violence or actually committing violence, then this is a felony, punishable by a prison term ranging from 1-5 years.
So you have 2 crimes so far, DUI and Felony Obstruction.
The man then takes the taser from the officer. Which is another felony: Grand Theft: Georgia Statute ( § 17-10-5.) "Property valued at more than $500, the crime is punishable as a felony. Police Tasers (X-26's) cost in excess of $1,000.
And assaulting the officer which is another felony:
Georgia Statute (16-5-21) (I) A person who knowingly commits the offense of aggravated assault upon an officer of the court while such officer is engaged in, or on account of the performance of, his or her official duties shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 20 years
2 Counts of Felony assault also, because it was two officers there.
So far we have DUI, and 3 Felonies that have been committed.
The man then runs with the taser he stole from the officer by snatching it from the officers hand, which is another felony: Removal of weapon from public official
(a) For the purposes of this Code section, the term "firearm" shall include stun guns and tasers. A stun gun or taser is any device that is powered by electrical charging units such as batteries and emits an electrical charge in excess of 20,000 volts or is otherwise capable of incapacitating a person by an electrical charge.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to remove or attempt to remove a firearm, chemical spray, or baton from the possession of another person if:
(1) The other person is lawfully acting within the course and scope of employment; and
(2) The person has knowledge or reason to know that the other person is employed as:
(A) A peace officer as defined in paragraph (8) of Code Section 35-8-2;
Any person who violates subsection (b) of this Code section shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years.
The man and then turns around and points it, which is another felony count of Aggravated Assault against a Peace officer because of his intent.
Now lets freeze here, in this instant in time, based on the fact that the man had no due regard for the publics safety by operating a motor vehicle while under the influence (tens of thousands die each year from drunk drivers), based on the fact that the man resisted officers when they tried to place him under arrest, based on the fact the man assaulted the officers, who were attempting to make a lawful arrest, based on the fact the man committed numerous felonies, including grand theft, removal of weapon from a public official, 2 counts of felony assault, felony aggravated assault, based on the mans intent to use the stolen taser to incapacitate the officers, based on the totality of the circumstances, the officer had probable cause to believe that the man posed a significant threat of serious bodily injury or death to the officers and others; and furthermore based on his actions, showed that he had the intent and was willing to do whatever was necessary to evade arrest. Courts have deemed, Police need not wait until a person is being subjected to a threat of serious bodily injury or death and can stop it at the point a reasonable and prudent person is likely to believe it is about to be carried out.
Thus to protect himself, as well as the public, deadly force was used.
Justified.