It is not police brutality becuase the criminal resisted arrest
It was at that point he was by law given permission to use lethal force
There job is to apprehend criminals in a way to prevent public disturbance and witgout potential injury of bystanders
There was no imminent danger to the cop. Lethal force is a LAST RESORT, not a default.
Shooting someone in a panic in the back six times poses potential injury to bystanders. If one of the bullets missed, who knows where it could have gone?
At that point, by law, he was not given permission to use lethal force. In Tennessee v Garner, the SCOTUS held that "law enforcement officers pursuing an unarmed suspect may use lethal force to prevent escape if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others." Unless the Charleston police department's force of continuum includes shooting unarmed, non-dangerous, non-felonious individuals, without attempting to apprehend them, then this officer has no case. Of course, he'll probably get away with it.
