thread jack, but the breakdown of the Wendy's shooting by many really sticks in my craw. I think we can all question police protocols when it comes to placing someone under arrest for DUI, but with the Wendy's situation people are totally glossing over the fact that the guy was being arrested for passing out behind the wheel of a car in the drive thru of a Wendy's and then failing a field sobriety test. I had an exchange yesterday with a poster who said "I don't believe there was any reason to attempt an arrest in the first place". Seriously? Passing out behind the wheel and failing a field sobriety test is not reason for arrest? That's textbook DUI in all 50 states and gets you arrested. And DUI arrests happen to the tune of 1000s per day. This is (unfortunately) not an uncommon circumstance.

The guy in the Wendy's situation resists and attempts to flee as soon as the officer attempts to place him under arrest... there's a struggle the man emerges with the officer's taser and runs away while pointing back at him. I'd like to see more facts of the case. If it can be clearly demonstrated that the officer's knew he *merely* had a taser, then the shooting was unjustified. But it's easy after the fact to say, "why did they shoot him... he only had a taser?". I could see how in the chaos of the situation, seeing the suspect point a weapon back at the officer, the other officer could not know that the weapon wasn't a gun, and therefore used deadly force.