4:29 of the video. C.A.T. Control and Arrest Tactics.

Maybe they should cover tactics (or think of better ones) when walking up to a drunk driver.

An officer sprays the driver who then takes off and crashes into people because the pepper spray blinds him temporarily. Officers will be held liable, sorry it really isn't that simple.

Last I checked swear words don't justify blows to the face. Now lets say you did have good reason to hit him in the face and then you go for the keys per the rest of your plan. Guess what, this has happened before (grabbing the keys) and often the officer gets dragged by the vehicle. Not so simple is it.
Oh and forgot to mention if the guy drives away dragging the officer and the officer shoots because his life is in danger they will still turn around and say the officer put him/herself in danger.

Officers have a job which requires them to place themselves within danger. If someone tells you that there is no duty to step in and protect then they don't know what they are talking about. If one person is beating up another and the officer stands and watches because he doesn't want to place himself in any danger then he gets fired for cowardice. Now there are limits of course, an officer isn't expected to go into a burning building, for example, but yes they are required to go protect someone.

If a cop watched a suspect stab your grandma to death and did nothing are we all just going to sit around and say to ourselves, sucks for grandma since the officer has no duty to protect.?

First of all I am not saying to pepper spray anyone. I did say "think of better" tactics. Also I did not say it was simple.

Because we value life I believe tactics and strategies should always be looked at if they can be improved not only tactics and strategies for the safety of the officer but more importantly the citizen.

You are assuming that the cars are always moving when the officers moved in the way, as opposed to an officer stepping in front of a stopped car that then accelerates towards the officer. To be clear officers aren't jumping in front of a car going 50mph then shooting the driver because the driver didn't stop within 10 feet. Most of these situations involve vehicles that were stopped.

I believe that HPD advises officers against reaching into a car where the suspect is going to flee because of the danger of being dragged and/or run over.

Last time I checked, failure to obey a direct order from a police officer attempting to detain you for a crime { drunk driving, resisting } was cause for an officer to utilize physical force to gain control of the situation.

Your argument doesn't hold water on another level as well. It's not okay for the officer to hit the uncooperative suspect with his fists, but it's "okay" to shoot them?

 Please tell me in what universe this is logical.

The only time in the video that this officer was "in danger" from the vehicle was when he attempted his "Fred Flintstone Car Disabling Maneuver". If he was in danger beyond what the video showed, it would be because he placed himself in front of a moving vehicle. The argument that "he shot to protect others" is suspect as well do to fact that were any of us "commoners" to do the same thing for the same reason, we would end up in prison for manslaughter at the very least.

Not so simple is it.

So in one sentence you say that the officer was justified in murdering the drunk driver in Waikiki because he didn't stop.
Yet in your next sentence you admit that HPD policy is to not reach into vehicles for the officers safety.
Let's be honest here.
Super cop made a mistake and it cost a man his life.
Your contention that the driver could have possibly run someone over and he just might have killed kids and puppies is asinine.
This is the same argument that antigun activists use in their support of gun control and the abolishment of the 2nd amendment.
"we need to take those dangerous guns out of the home because a child could pick it up and kill everyone"

Right.

So hitting him in the face while he's seated in a car to prevent him from driving away and possibly injuring others = Bad

Shooting him 5 times while he's seated in the car for the same reasons = Good

Got it. Thanks for playing.

I don't know all the facts of the case but it appears that the shooting was justified, which means it is not murder.
*If you don't know all the facts, then you are not qualified to make that assessment

 Do not equate murder and killing, they are not the same thing.
*By the same token, do not presume that the murder was a justified killing

I did not make any statement justifying murder, nor did I say that the lethal force was justified because "the driver didn't stop." You are summarizing a complex series of events into an oversimplified statement which is rather disingenuous.
*The only thing I did was copy and paste your words. Only you could attest to their being disingenuous or not.

Tell me what is so asinine to consider that the driver might have hit and killed someone else?
Did the driver have the apparent skill to drive a vehicle without crashing? No
Did the driver care to follow instructions? No
Did the driver seem to care that he almost ran someone (the officer) over? No
Is Waikiki a densely populated area with lots of pedestrians? Yes
*Do you honestly believe that the officer in question thought to himself, this series of questions before murdering the driver?
 "Hmm, this driver might drive into someone, I better shoot him"
 "He doesn't seem to have the apparent skill to drive this vehicle without crashing, I better shoot him"
 "He's not following my instructions, I better shoot him"
 "I can just say that I thought he was going to run me over, I better shoot him"
 "Waikiki is densely populated with pedestrians, I better shoot him"

So what makes you think this driver would obey a stop light a block later where a family is crossing the street?
*What I "think" is not the subject of debate here. To wallow in hypotheticals and twist them to suit your point of view isn't going to bring this man back to life.

We could go back and forth forever on this subject.
Unlike you though, I don't have a horse in this race.
You can keep on blindly arguing your opinions, I will no longer be a part of this conversation.
 

I don't know all the facts of the case but it appears that the shooting was justified, which means it is not murder. Do not equate murder and killing, they are not the same thing. I did not make any statement justifying murder, nor did I say that the lethal force was justified because "the driver didn't stop." You are summarizing a complex series of events into an oversimplified statement which is rather disingenuous.

Tell me what is so asinine to consider that the driver might have hit and killed someone else?
Did the driver have the apparent skill to drive a vehicle without crashing? No
Did the driver care to follow instructions? No
Did the driver seem to care that he almost ran someone (the officer) over? No
Is Waikiki a densely populated area with lots of pedestrians? Yes

So what makes you think this driver would obey a stop light a block later where a family is crossing the street? He already showed he can't navigate the road without crashing, he already showed he doesn't care to follow the rules, and he already showed he was willing to nearly run over someone. There is a high probability that the driver will disregard the stoplight and disregard the pedestrians being in his path and a high probability that even if he tried to avoid the pedestrians he would still hit them.

I don't know all the facts of the case but it appears that the shooting was justified, which means it is not murder.
*If you don't know all the facts, then you are not qualified to make that assessment

I did not make any statement justifying murder, nor did I say that the lethal force was justified because "the driver didn't stop." You are summarizing a complex series of events into an oversimplified statement which is rather disingenuous.
*The only thing I did was copy and paste your words. Only you could attest to their being disingenuous or not.

*Do you honestly believe that the officer in question thought to himself, this series of questions before murdering the driver?
 "Hmm, this driver might drive into someone, I better shoot him"
 "He doesn't seem to have the apparent skill to drive this vehicle without crashing, I better shoot him"
 "He's not following my instructions, I better shoot him"
 "I can just say that I thought he was going to run me over, I better shoot him"
 "Waikiki is densely populated with pedestrians, I better shoot him"

So what makes you think this driver would obey a stop light a block later where a family is crossing the street?
*What I "think" is not the subject of debate here. To wallow in hypotheticals and twist them to suit your point of view isn't going to bring this man back to life.

We could go back and forth forever on this subject.
Unlike you though, I don't have a horse in this race.
You can keep on blindly arguing your opinions, I will no longer be a part of this conversation.

I for one want a police department that just asks people to comply......if they don't the cops should understand that they have a good reason.  Of course a chronic has better things to do than go through the hassle of going to jail.  He has people to rob and cars to steal.  And if he did stop the cops might find that gun under he seat....or he might have to shoot that cop so he was actually doing that cop a favor.   Or or or.......
Sorry, but trying to rationalize running from the cops, damn!
Seriously, all the cop hate makes me wonder who just got arrested, had their weed green harvested or who's wife ran off with one.

Just sayin

Tell me, how would this register on your justification scale....

You and your wife are driving home from a Christmas Party in Waikiki.  You find yourself in a sobriety check point lane.
You had 2 mixed drinks an hour or so before leaving, so you're a little nervous.  You just got your license reinstated after a DUI a year earlier, and you really can't see yourself losing it for even longer if you blow a 0.08.
As soon as you roll down the window, the officer makes a face like, "Uh oh.  We got one!"  Maybe you're just being paranoid since he hasn't said anything to you.
Suddenly, you make a bad decision ... in your panic, you hit the gas and drive past the check point.  You're not screeching tires, but driving away as the police at the check point notice you refusing to stop on command.
So, you leave the check point, the COPs deduce you must be drunk and might cause an accident and hurt others, because you failed to comply to orders to stop.
Would you feel the police are justified in firing at you as you drive past the check point, ignoring orders to stop?
What if you really aren't drunk?  What if you happen to have a bench warrant for your arrest and are afraid they'll arrest you?  Would a now sober person ignoring orders to stop justify being shot?
What type of police force do you want?  Whatever you tolerate will be the type we get.

Police officers are human, they make mistakes like every other human.

When their mistakes begin to err on the side of shooting unarmed citizenry for non compliance, logic would seem to be on the side of reviewing tactics in order to keep both sides as safe as possible.

I'm not trying to vilify the police, my point, and the point of the article, is that there are other options they failed to utilize that may have resulted in a different outcome.