Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam
Tennessee v. Garner look it up.
There are some justifiable circumstances for the use of deadly force. Shooting a fleeing unarmed suspect, in the back, is not one of them. Notwithstanding some special circumstance of the suspect's intent of lethal danger to other police officers or the immediate civilian persons.
This looks like a bad shoot to me if the witness accounts are accurate.
Coulda, woulda, shoulda should make no difference. |
I think you might be wrong.
Tennessee v. Garner says that a police officer cannot shot a kid for purse snatching. They said "cops couldn't shoot every felon who tried to escape". However, at the same time, the same court said "if you've got a violent person who's fleeing, you can shoot them to stop their flight".
In this case you can argue the kid was a "violent" person - No matter if the officer knew about the robbery (a violent felony), the kid did attack him, attempt to take his firearm, and potentially risked the life of the officer.
If you accept the police version of the story, the kid attempted to steal the officer's firearm and was going to shoot him. At that point you cannot deny he was a violent person, and you cannot deny he was a threat to society.