[fporretto]

The clear tendency of rulings such as this is to destroy property rights and, by extension, all rights.

A right is something one may legitimately defend with force when invaded or infringed. If the use of force is denied to the defender, so is the right.

Now, as others have already noted, the judge would not have faulted a policeman for firing on this perpetrator, even if the perpetrator had merely tried to flee the scene. That makes police officers an elevated category, who possess special privileges to wield force that non-policemen do not.

You have just witnessed the creation of an American nobility. Isn't it grand to be present at a millennial event?

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

[HiTech RedNeck]

In principle not even police may shoot someone for mere fleeing. There has to be some basis to believe the person poses a danger to humans of serious bodily harm or death.

The bible echoes this theme. A burglar may be killed during a break in of a home ("make my day") but a thief may only be forced to provide multiple restitution.

[bimbo]

You have just witnessed the creation of an American nobility.

Frank, ordinary cops are sometimes punished severely for the “use of force” – observe the latest video tape case in LA.
…………….. BUT……………
… let us contrast that to the FBI agent who shot the Maryland guy in the face as he rode home from the mall with his girlfriend. He was not suspended; he was not even given a letter of reprimand, even though this was his second shooting! The Federal Police definitely are immune from the law – the definition of a Police State.