It seems that the new rule for the police is never shoot anyone who isn't an immediate mortal danger to you or someone in the immediate vicinity. What the criminal did in the past or may do in the future is not relevant. Now we need legislation to protect the police from liability when they let someone who resists arrest run away.
For instance the Friday night death in Atlanta. The police could have just given him a summons for DUI and let him go. Had he stumbled into the street and gotten killed by a car, the police would be sued. Had he went home angry and beat up his wife, the police would have been sued. Had he hijacked a car and then killed someone on the road, the police would have been responsible. Why did he resist arrest when it became obvious they were going to take him in and book him? Was there an arrest warrant out for him? Was he not who he claimed to be? It seems that most black men that have been killed by police were either fighting with the officers or running away. What were they trying to hide? Normal people do not resist arrest for most crimes.
I've seen the quietest people you could meet resist arrest before. Doesn't mean they deserve to be killed, or shot though for doing so. People react differently, to things. If what you said here is what you really believe, then you really have a strange way of viewing the World. Compassion and common sense, are sorely lacking in your mindset, believe me!
I have personally not heard of such lawsuits being waged or won either.
People, in the end, get held responsible for their own crimes. The answer is not death to avoid lawsuits that would try to argue differently, especially not one that would argue they should kill a person rather than let them run away and 'possibly' cause a car accident or commit some other crime. AS long as they make reasonable effort to DETAIN, (not kill) there is no liability.
It is not that they should kill the suspect so there won't be a lawsuit!! The issue is preventing a lawsuit or holding the police responsible if they do let someone free and someone gets injured or killed. Why do police, when they discover a DUI, arrest the person, take them in and book them in jail, and then have their vehicle impounded? In order to get them out of jail, someone has to come, show they are not intoxicated, and then sign an agreement to take responsibility for the DUI recipient. At least that is the way Minnesota operates.
In the Atlanta case, why didn't they just issue a citation and a summons; take his drivers license, take his car keys, and then let him go wherever he wanted to? Probably not what the law allows them to do.