The subject is the police shooting of an unarmed man and the lengths people will go to in order to justify it. That's not hard to see. What I'm trying to determine is where the line between justified and unjustified lies. As near as I can tell from your responses it's: 1) Stephon Clark - justified, 2) Justine Diamond, justified. Can't tell what you think about shooting unarmed guys with their pants down.
And lest you have any confusion where I stand I believe that shooting an unarmed suspect who is not posing any immediate threat to the safety of the officers or any innocent bystanders is not a justified use of deadly force, and the officers in question should be charged. Because under the laws in place at those locals, you or I certainly would be.
I only commented on one case, which was the subject of your thread.
I’m not interested in your attempts to confuse the issue.
Since we know from the video that there was a police helicopter overhead and these back yards (from the view of the body cams) is pitch dark other than the flashlights the cops are carrying, I would have waited for the helicopter to put a spotlight on the subject where perhaps the cops on the ground could see if the subject was unarmed or not.
Two major factors are always involved in police shootings - lighting and speed. How well can the officers see the suspect and at what speed does the officer need to decide if the suspect is armed.
That is why you should *always* when encountering an officer on foot drop anything in your hands and raise them skyward then obey the policeman’s commands, whatever they are.
If stopped in a car, keep both hands on the steering wheel and obey the policeman’s commands. If you need to reach into your pockets for any reason (such as getting an ID), get permission first.
Had Mr. Clark done this, had Ms. Diamond done this, had the naked man done this, had Mr. Castille done this, they would still be alive. Do not rush toward the police for any reason (reduces decision time and can appear threatening) and do not point anything at the police when stopped.
IMO, the question is not ‘who’s responsible?’ but, in all practicality, ‘what did the subject do to cause police to fear an attack?’ Even ghetto kids are taught to cooperate with the cops. It’s all about surviving the encounter, not who’s justified.
How did the police know he was unarmed before they opened fire? You are arguing that the police need to wait until the perp opens fire before they respond.