Situations like this are one reason I think there was a good bit of wisdom in the common law requirement of “duty to retreat.”
A whole bunch of conservatives have the idea that this is some sort of modern invention, whereas it is actually an ancient part of the common law. Goes back many centuries, 1532 in fact.
If you choose to get into a confrontation when you have the opportunity to avoid it, you cannot later claim that you acted 100% in self-defense.
I can actually see both sides on this issue, and possibly there is some reasonable way to reconcile them. But getting into a confrontation or fight out of anger or pride or revenge is not a justifiable reason for killing someone.
“...But getting into a confrontation or fight out of anger or pride or revenge is not a justifiable reason for killing someone.”
**************************************************************
It definitely is not a justifiable reason for killing someone. And, in this case, I’ve heard that the cop first shot him in the leg. Apparently that was not enough to satiate the rage he was feeling, so he then proceeded to fire the fatal shot.
I’m going to be very pissed if they give this cop a paid vacation (known to “entitled” government employees as administrative leave) while the investigation proceeds. As it is, even if the investigation finds sufficient justification for a trial, there’s a good chance that the cop will not be convicted (the cop is black, this is in Maryland and jury nullification of black defendants is all the rage here). They’d probably also sit a relatively low bail for this killer.