Actually you have framed it wrong. The decision is by the runner.....
Do I run and die or do I submit to the law
If you run, you risk getting shot....... that’s the way it must be. Otherwise we have surrendered to the criminals.
We have no idea why he ran, and the only guy who can talk is the cop who shot a man in the back, planted a weapon and lied about everything.
“If you run, you risk getting shot....... that’s the way it must be. Otherwise we have surrendered to the criminals.”
If you really think that “that’s the way it must be,” then you’ve already surrendered to the State.
The criminal on which end of the gun? Because if you give police a license to kill on sight then you are turning them into crimimals as well.
The wasy it is supposed to be is that deadly force is used to prevent death or injury to the police officer or the surrounding polulace. This was not a stop for a violent crime, it was for a bogus tail light. The victim was unarmed, not wanted for any violent crime, and of absolutely no threat to the life or safety of the officer or anyone around. There was no justification whatsoever for shooting that man. The murder charge against the police officer is totally justified. And charges should also be brought against the other officers who attempted to help him cover up his crime.
Or you could be Lois Lerner or Hillary Clinton...