Depends on the state.
Sure, in Texas you can shoot him for looking at you cross-eyed and breaking wind.
A kid playing with a toy is dead because police – one of whom turns out to be a lying incompetent – knowably created a situation where they would “need” to kill him.
Are you a lawyer, Steophan? It sounds like you’re only concenred with whether a jury could be persuaded to acquit. I’m not a lawyer and feel that, as with Zimmerman, culpable manslaughter occurred regardless of the letter of any law. And anyone who disagrees with me on this point is a {stupid, racist, asshole} (pick any two 
).
A man who murdered an innocent black kid in cold blood for no other reason than that his music was too loud is convicted of attempted murder – and you use this as evidence that the U.S. justice system is working. Wow! (Or was yours some sort of satire?)
Do you understand that killing someone in justified self defence isn’t a crime? If it was self defence, and there’s no reason as yet to think otherwise, then no crime was committed. It should never be the job of the defendant to prove innocence, it should always be the job of the prosecution to prove guilt.
What’s happening here is that people are taking an exceptionally tragic incident, and trying to use it to argue against what should be basic rights - that is, the right to defend oneself, and the right to due process. If those rights are to mean anything, they have to apply to everyone, even in circumstances you dislike.
And snoring… don’t forget snoring.
But self-defense when you’re the one starting the fight* isn’t justified*. If I start shooting at you, and you draw a gun on me in return, I can’t claim self-defense if I shoot you.
The photo manipulator mostly grabbed letters from the rest of the sign. I perceived artifacts as well. It wasn’t that great a fabrication.
I think it’s fair to say the work expresses racial animosity as well as libelous sentiment. You know someone’s in trouble when they have to, well, lie or intentionally misrepresent the arguments of their opponents.
The cops aren’t the ones whose behavior is in question here.
He should be held accountable.
What?? The cop’s behavior most certainly IS in question, why would you think otherwise? That’s what this whole threads is about.
By this “reasoning” (if it doesn’t offend to apply such a term to gibberish) anyone with a gun permit could race up, with gun drawn and aimed, to any armed citizen and, if that citizen didn’t raise his hands, shoot and kill and claim self-defence. One might have to find some bullshit excuse for the drawn gun (“I thought I recognized his face from a Wanted poster”), but it sounds like Steophan could help them out there.
Yes I noticed the murderers were cops but (a) your “reasoning” doesn’t depend on that and (b) I’d liked to think we hold cops to a higher, not lower, standard.
That’s correct. Not sure what it has to do with obeying the cops, the Tamir Rice case, or anything I’ve said, but it is indeed correct.
No. No-one but a policeman has the right to run up to anyone with a gun drawn and aimed. Ordinary people aren’t allowed to threaten others. What makes you think that “his face was on a wanted poster” would suggest imminent danger, anyway?
And in terms of when they can defend themselves, I expect the police to be held to the same standards as anybody else. Not higher, not lower. The only difference as regards this case is that the police are entitled to approach with drawn weapons, unlike the general public. The sole purpose of allowing them to do that is so they can defend themselves or others. Not something I would wish to see them prevented from doing, personally.
Pre-hijack, the thread was supposed to be about just obeying the law.
Do you think this kid would still have been shot if he hadn’t been brandishing a weapon?
Okay, then, what’s the action threshold on the part of a criminal (or a law abiding person some random person thinks is a criminal) where the cops are allowed to stop thinking about preserving his or her life?
I mean, even spree killers have been taken in alive, so it has to be possible, right?
Again, we may need to note an exception for Texas.
He wasn’t brandishing jack shit when he was gunned down.
The cops initiated violence in a peaceful situation. They can’t pick a fight and then claim self-defense.
A report that someone’s waving a gun around is not a peaceful situation. The police going in with guns drawn and ordering someone to freeze isn’t “picking a fight”… It’s the police doing their job.
When did they order someone to freeze?
The point at which the suspect resists arrest. Once they’ve indicated they have no intent of going peacefully, the police have every right to use whatever amount of force they deem necessary to neutralize a threat.
So the 911 caller was making stuff up? Was a weapon brandished or not?