Posted on 03/08/2016 4:28:34 AM PST by Nextrush
People are shot and killed by police in cities and counties all over this country. In many cases they don't have a gun. In some cases they're completely unarmed. Yet in the overwhelming majority of the cases the shooting is ruled to be justified. Why should this one be any different?
I'm sure SOME are justified. I have a hard time believing that they all are or that even the majority are. Some of the reports around here eg. where a plain clothes cop shot and killed a kid because he thought the kid was driving a stolen car and didn't stop - look to me like the cop killed someone because he though he could get away with it (and he did)
I think far more often than not when the police claim that they were firing because they feared for their health and safety, or the health and safety of others then it's found to be justified. In this case, fleeing suspect known to carry firearms, the police will have no problems claiming self defense and justifying the shooting.
Hey, come on, if some agent from the FBI pulls a gun on you and sets you on your knees, you’re not allowed to flinch - or blink.
They are selectively releasing video, still more to be released but not released today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.