The fact that Daniel Harris was deaf may have contributed to this killing, and brought it to wider attention, but it wasn't the reason he was shot. The only circumstances in which it could possibly be justifiable for a police officer to shoot anyone is in where he or she reasonably believes this is necessary in order to stop that person seriously injuring the officer or some other person. It seems pretty hard to conceive how those circumstances could have applied in this case.

The fact that someone does not respond to a police officer, for whatever reason, in no way justifies that kind of action. Nor does actions that might be interpreted as resisting arrest or trying to escape.

I'd argue that the same rule should apply in the case of using tasers, since these can kill. Police in the U K are still not armed in normal circumstances, but tasers appear to be used too frequently in situations where there is no evident danger of those targetting endangering other people. It seems as if it is seen as OK to use them as a matter of convenience.