I do know that, taking the absolute worst into consideration for the sake of argument, that assaulting the police when drunk and shooting a Taser at them is not a crime punishable by death.
Further, even again assuming all the worst for the sake of argument, I also know that a Taser only has a range of about 15 feet (which I'm certain the police, being trained, know), so not only was there no lethal danger to the police from it, but as long as they stayed a whole five yards away, there was no physical danger to them of any kind whatsoever. And because they had already searched Mr. Brooks, they knew that he didn't have any other weapon. So, there was no physical danger from that either.
It would seem (once more, always assuming the worst -- even if "the worst" doesn't come to play here, but let's assume it does for the sake of argument) that if someone has committed a crime for which the penalty is not death and maybe a few weeks in jail, and if that person is running away from you, and you have the choice of shooting him to death or letting him go, the sane, humane, and legal response would be to let the person go.
And to be very clear, when I say "let the person go"...I mean only at that exact moment. Because the police have several other options, the two of which seem most basic and easy are --
1) Walk back to your patrol car, put out an APB that a drunk man by the name of Rayshard Brooks and with his description is on foot, running in a certain directions and police cars should converge on that area.
And 2) Go back to his car, write down the license plate, get his registration from the Motor Vehicle Division (you're the police, after all, and can find that sort of thing out), and then send as many patrol cars as you want to his residence and wait for him to come home.
And then you don't have to kill him!
For running away when drunk, with no lethal weapon in his possession.
Which in every civilized country around the world, most-especially including the United States, is not considered to be a capital crime.
And this is assuming the very worst possible. When you start going up the scale in increments of "not the very worst possible," the ghastly situation gets even worse.
Including answering the question, "Why did he run?" Because it's getting to the point where it tragically seems like the answer to that is far too often, "My God, why in the world wouldn't he?"
When the worst possible punishment for someone's action is not the death penalty, then it would seem like there is no reason -- not even to shoot someone -- but to simply take out your gun.
Keep in mind, this wasn't a totally unexpected situation that suddenly went haywire and got completely out of control. The police are actually trained for situations exactly like this. Rayshard Brooks is not the first person to resist arrest and try to run away from an officer. No, really.
And even more, this didn't occur in a vacuum. Seriously, given the international sea change in society happening in mass outrage around the globe, what on earth was the police officer thinking when he shot Rayshard Brooks to death for running away from him with no lethal weapon? Has he not seen the news during the past three weeks?? It's tragic enough under any circumstance, but to ignore literally the entire world around him, it suggests his only immediate instinct was, "There is a black man running away, shoot him to death."
I am sure there is a defense and argument for the policeman who shot and killed Rayshard Brooks. To be clear, that doesn't mean it's a good one.