It’s not reasonable to shoot someone who is walking round a store with a loaded gun, in an open carry state, simply for doing those things, so it can’t be less reasonable to shoot anyone else.
As to whether it’s equally unreasonable, or more reasonable, depends on the specific circumstances. Someone who’s been told to freeze by the police, but then gets his wallet out, that’s reasonable. Someone running away, as discussed before, depends if they were an imminent threat before they started running away. Running doesn’t automatically negate the threat, again it depends on the circumstances. If it’s the case I think you’re talking about, the claim is that he was never a threat in the first place, not that he stopped being a threat by running.
Dunno about the case with the stapler, I’ve never heard of it.
But you’re not acting out of facts or logic. You’re stance comes from emotion: pure fear of the world (esp. Including black people) and pure idolatry of those who might save you.
The idiot racking the shotgun roused enough fear (of death and/or grievous bodily injury I must suppose) that the Walmart employees secreted themselves in a ‘safe room’.
Is that level of fear, a level that causes unarmed people to run and hide, sufficient to justify one of those same employees shooting the shotgun wielder in self defense, had s/he been armed?
Seems to me that some stranger, bringing his shotgun and ammunition into a store for no apparent reason, walking around loading and unloading the gun, and demonstrating no other reason for his presence (like “Hey, will somebody help me with my shotgun, it seems to have a hitch in its action” or perhaps “Can somebody sell me a box of shells like these?”) is properly judged by rational human beings as imminently threatening. At least as threatening as some poor shlub pulling out his wallet or reaching for his license in front of a cop. And pre-emptively shooting him seems equally acceptable.
Only probably? Are you suggesting the employee would have to wait until they shotgun was fired at them before using deadly force in reasonable self defense? That’s commie copkiller talk!
No. If you’ve time to run and hide, you’re not in imminent danger.
Imminence is important. Imagine this was a robbery, and he was threatening a cashier with the gun to get money. The safe room would be useless then. In this case it wasn’t, because there was no imminent threat.
As it turned out, there was no threat at all, just someone obeying the law and minding his own business. Now, maybe Tamir Rice and John Crawford were doing exactly that, and whoever called the police lied about it. But, unlike in this incident, they ignored police instructions. That’s what got them shot.
Now I can’t wait for some frightened, armed citizen to shoot some show-off open carry advocate in a similar circumstance. And then for the cops to try and sort out the ensuing cluster fuck.
They should probably wait until there’s an imminent threat to anyone, as the law requires.
Now, obviously, had someone actually shot him in those circumstances, and claimed that they were being threatened, I doubt they would be convicted. But that doesn’t excuse the encouragement here for them to do so illegally.
Provide evidence that Tamir Rice received any such instructions. How would that even be possible, seeing as they opened fire within two seconds of their arrival? It would have taken more than two seconds even to voice such instructions, never mind waiting to see if the instructions were complied with.
Okay, so as long as they said it, they can then shoot the black kid. Gotcha.
The key part is not whether there was sufficient time for the kid to actually comply, just whether there was enough time for the words to come out of their mouths.
Read the police statement, or any news report on the incident. According to the police, he was told to show his hands repeatedly, and instead reached for his waistband. The video shows him doing the latter.
No, when the gun wielder walks toward your station in women’s wear, you don’t know if you have time to run and hide. Running and hiding may keep you safe, or it may get you shot in the back. How many people have been killed or injured in exactly that way in mass shootings? By that standard, there is no imminent danger until shots are fired. And fired some arbitrary distance ‘near you’. And fired at least generally toward you. Otherwise, how can you know?
Sorry, but now you’re requiring untrained and inexperienced civilians (inexperienced in armed conflicts) to perform far more cogitation and instantly evaluate far more complex better-or-worse scenario hypotheticals than you require of trained and experienced cops, for whom your standards are “might be a gun! justified shooting!”.