It all boils down to when you think an officer is justified in using deadly force. I've seen a lot of arguments that he got violent, that he resisted arrest, and that he attempted to use a police office's weapon against them. All of that is true.
But what's also true is he was shot in the back while fleeing. If he was shot during the actual resistance, during trying to injure an officer, maybe you could argue it was justify. i wouldn't, because there ways to shoot someone lessen the risk of death, but I can understand why some people would.
But once the guy turns and runs? The immediate danger is over. If a guy is holding someone hostage and the snipers are there, and he's threatening to kill the hostage and pointing the gun, they might shoot him if they get a chance, if they determine that he's an immediate risk. But if he drops the gun and turns and runs, they're not shooting him in the back or the head. They're goign to capture him. The immediate threat is over.
Maybe this guy goes to trial and gets acquitted. That doesn't make what he did okay, just like other acquittals haven't exactly made someone suddenly innocent. If he is acquitted, it's just further proof of issues with the entire system (imo). Not just the legal system, but training and recruitment and everything else people are looking at to say "This isn't right."
|