A man who was shot by police and later died had to wait 10 extra minutes for an ambulance after an officer having a “mild anxiety attack” took the first one that arrived at the scene, according to a newly released state investigation.

Dyshan Best, 39, was shot in the back last year as he fled from officers in Bridgeport, Connecticut. A report released Tuesday by the state’s inspector general found that the shooting was justified because Best had a gun in his hand and the officer pursuing him had reasons to fear for his own safety.

But the report raised questions about what took place after the March 31 shooting, which left Best, who was Black, bleeding with severe internal injuries.

  • NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    6 hours ago

    I have a hard to believing that shooting someone in the back can ever be justified by a fear for your life.

    • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      According to the cops he had a gun and was pointing it behind him. They did find a gun next to him after he was shot. Time will tell if the bodycams back up that narrative, but if they do imo the shooting was justified. Nothing can justify what happened afterward though.

      • moakley@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Why would we take the cops at their word? That’s just silly. Either they have the bodycam footage to back it up, or they’re lying.

        • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          5 hours ago

          I’m not taking them at their word. I’m speculating about a scenario where the bodycam footage backs them up. CT is usually pretty good about releasing this stuff so we will find out.

      • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Even if there was no gun pointing backwards and he just had the gun, if the person fleeing has shown they are willing to use it, isn’t that enough reason to fear for the saftey of others and take the shot?

        I know there’s some line where that becomes okay, but not sure when/where.

        • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 hours ago

          I wouldn’t say so, no. I don’t think cops should be allowed to shoot someone simply for possessing a gun. Deadly force is intended to stop an imminent threat, not someome who may become a threat at some unknown time in the future.

          • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 hours ago

            Simply possessing a gun absolutely not, but there are rules and exceptions for example on if they have shot at innocent people during the altercation already.

            I’m just not sure where that line is, but it does exist.

            edit: Like, shooting at innocent people during the alternation might not be enough even, it might need to be shooting at innocent people while fleeing.