That's a whole different scenario and a whole different situation.  Again, if a police officer has reason to believe that his or her life is threatened, then deadly force is authorized.

It's not the use that people have a problem with. I would wager the vast majority of police shootings are probably necessary as a last resort to protect themselves or civilians from deadly harm. 

 

It's the idea that all that has to be said is "I felt my life was in danger" and that's that. How many times have mistakes been made that never came to light because their word was enough. People are upset because they see an event like the shooting recently caught on the body camera where the cop straight up lied in a manner that without the camera would have gotten him off.

 

It makes you wonder how common that is? I imagine not very but still you have to see how it can make people skittish or untrusting. 

---

I deplore the killing of anyone. Period.

 

However, I am not you, and not in your situation. Self defense is just that. The courts will settle it. 

 

This discussion is about police officers though. Not a person with one kidney being punched in the kidney. I think it's reasonable to approach the two from different sets of standards.

 

So you would look down upon me for using a gun to defend myself in a situation where multiple assailants are beating me within an inch of my life? If you were in my situation you wouldn't defend yourself with a gun if you were getting beat within in an inch of your life? Be clear, here.

 

It's a pretty big double double standard when TJBender and/or you think it's okay for me to use a gun vs unarmed attackers when I'm at risk of death but if a cop reacts the same way in the same scenario it's inexcusable. If a cop was being beaten by unarmed assailants within an inch of his life, should he be allowed to defend himself with his firearm?

---

Of course I would tell them "I have one working kidney, and I'm not interested in fighting because trauma to that kidney could end my life". If they start taking body shots, you're okay with me using lethal force to defend myself even if they are unarmed?

If the assailant presents a reasonable danger to you (i.e., you reasonably believe that their hit could be strong enough to cause fatal damage), is aware of the situation (or is made aware before throwing a punch aimed at that area) and attempts to hit you there anyway, then I would consider that to be intent to kill and justifiable homicide. If someone walks up and throws a punch at your head or chest, and you then respond with a gun, I would consider that murder.

 

In case you haven't noticed, I put a very high standard on what I would consider justification for taking someone else's life. I only wish others would do the same. "He's bigger than me and threw a punch," is not and should never be justification for responding to a fist with a gun and killing that person.

 

That's a whole different scenario and a whole different situation.  Again, if a police officer has reason to believe that his or her life is threatened, then deadly force is authorized.

Police officers should held to a different, higher standard. You touched on takedown techniques and hand-to-hand combat training, but suggesting that it could "go out the window" when dealing with an unarmed attacker is patently ridiculous. Do you mean to tell me that in all that training, the instructor never says, "Oh, by the way, here's how you respond if someone reaches for your gun."? If not, that's a problem. If the training is to take out your gun and shoot that unarmed person, then that's an even bigger problem.

---

So you would look down upon me for using a gun to defend myself in a situation where multiple assailants are beating me within an inch of my life? If you were in my situation you wouldn't defend yourself with a gun if you were getting beat within in an inch of your life? Be clear, here.

 

It's a pretty big double double standard when TJBender and/or you think it's okay for me to use a gun vs unarmed attackers when I'm at risk of death but if a cop reacts the same way in the same scenario it's inexcusable. If a cop was being beaten by unarmed assailants within an inch of his life, should he be allowed to defend himself with his firearm?

\

 

Would I look down on you? I don't know that depends. I look down on Zimmerman because I feel like he instigated things. I certainly wouldn't look down on someone who just got jumped. 

 

I will make this very clear since I might now have before. If you truly fear for your life then do what you have to do.

 

I never said it was inexcusable for a cop. I said I don't think it's unreasonable to hold them to a higher standard. The majority of the public is not trained in the various ways cops are and are much likely to be reactionary in ways that cops should not be. Thats all I said. 

---

It's a pretty big double double standard when TJBender and/or you think it's okay for me to use a gun vs unarmed attackers when I'm at risk of death but if a cop reacts the same way in the same scenario it's inexcusable. If a cop was being beaten by unarmed assailants within an inch of his life, should he be allowed to defend himself with his firearm?

Here's what you keep missing: the cop did not have his firearm at the time that he was being beaten, as evidenced by the fact that the assailant was beating the cop with said gun.

 

It's not that difficult. When an unarmed man approaches an officer and throws a punch, that officer should utilize the combat training that we taxpayers provided for them to affect a lawful arrest for felony assault. Once the assailant had the officer's gun, lethal force is absolutely authorized, and you wouldn't see me complaining at all if another officer had arrived on the scene and shot the assailant. The problem with this thread (and the story in general) is that people are arguing with a straight face that a police officer, one whose very presence on the scene was an example of questionable judgment and why unmarked traffic stops should be illegal, should have opened fire on an unarmed man who may or may not have even known (or reasonably believed) at the time that he was being detained by a cop in the first place.

 

Justifiable homicide is an extremely blurry area, simply because you're asking people to judge circumstances rather than laws. In this case, the officer shooting an unarmed man who's picked a fight with him, especially given that said officer has presumably undergone extensive hand-to-hand combat training that the assailant likely had not, would have been murder, plain and simple. The second that assailant has the cop's gun, it goes from murder to justifiable homicide. I don't see what's so hard to get about that. If cops are having second thoughts about shooting unarmed men, good. It's a sign that we've at least made the first little baby step towards reigning them back in.

---

I deplore the killing of anyone. Period.

 

However, I am not you, and not in your situation. Self defense is just that. The courts will settle it. 

 

This discussion is about police officers though. Not a person with one kidney being punched in the kidney. I think it's reasonable to approach the two from different sets of standards.

 

You're right, it is about police officers.  Many people don't know what these men and women really do and go through.  I've lived it and seen it.  I not only had to see people taking their last breath after putting a gun to their head and pulling the trigger, I also had to go into homes that were horrible and see roaches scurrying around the food that was being fed to children.

 

Many times I have been asked about what the toughest or most dangerous position that I was in as a Deputy Sheriff.  My answer surprises many and they often get a different perspective of what police officers do for us.

 

The worst for me happened at night, just before schools let out for the summer and graduation parties were on the horizon.  I got a call to a traffic accident, and it turns out that there was a fatality involved.  It was a 17 year old male who was going to graduate in just a few short weeks.

 

Since I was the first officer on the scene, it was part of my job to inform the next-of-kin, in this case it turns out that it was his mother.  When we got to the address with the Chaplain with us, we found a note on the door.  I'll never forget the words that were scribbled on that door.

 

Person, this is the last time that I am going to cover your paper route for you.

 

The word "last" was underlined twice.  We had to wait until she got home.  As it turned out, she was a single mother and I had to tell her that her 17 year old son was dead.  It was perhaps the hardest thing that I've ever had to do.  I'll never forget that day.  I was supposed to be "off shift" at 7am, but we waited until she returned to the apartment (I don't remember the exact time).

 

It wasn't long after that when I left law enforcement.  I had seen a lot of death and tragedies and had been in several "fights" while trying to bring down criminals, but that experience really affected me.

 

So when I see people be so "against" what police officers do, I tend to be pretty biased.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

 

Police officers should held to a different, higher standard. You touched on takedown techniques and hand-to-hand combat training, but suggesting that it could "go out the window" when dealing with an unarmed attacker is patently ridiculous. Do you mean to tell me that in all that training, the instructor never says, "Oh, by the way, here's how you respond if someone reaches for your gun."? If not, that's a problem. If the training is to take out your gun and shoot that unarmed person, then that's an even bigger problem.

 

Police officers are held to a higher standard.  Yes police officers get training, but in a high stress situation, one that is potentially life threatening, the training does go out the window.  You can sit there and say all you want about how police officers "should" act, but you've never been there.  If you think that dealing with an unarmed man causes training to "go out the window"  ridiculous, I would suggest that you ride along with a police officer sometime and see what a "work day" is all about.

 

A high stress situation is not something that police officers are trained in.  They are of course told about it, but never put under stress during the training.

 

Let me ask you this.  What if you get a call to go to a bar in a rural area to break up a fight?  Say you get there and attempt to break up the fight (along with a couple of other officers) and the crowd all of the sudden starts descending on you?  What do you do?  That happened to me.

 

Now imagine that you went though that, had to go "break up a fight" between a couple, then go to an accident scene where some kid lost his life.  How would you handle that?

 

You seem to miss the point that these officers go through a lot more than people realize.  They are human.  Even if they have received training, they are going to react due to the very real situation presented to them.  If I was the detective in the OP scenario, I would have stopped the action before I let the suspect get my weapon.  You seem to have a problem with that.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

If I was the detective in the OP scenario, I would have stopped the action before I let the suspect get my weapon.  You seem to have a problem with that.

If "stopping the action" involves taking him to the ground and holding him at gunpoint until backup arrives, no, I do not.

 

If "stopping the action" involves shooting an unarmed man, yes, I do.

---

If "stopping the action" involves taking him to the ground and holding him at gunpoint until backup arrives, no, I do not.

 

If "stopping the action" involves shooting an unarmed man, yes, I do.

 

So if stopping the action involves deadly force (which is justified) you would have a problem with that?  You are saying that the police officer should "take the beating" and hope that the suspect doesn't take the officer's weapon and kill said officer?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

So if stopping the action involves deadly force (which is justified) you would have a problem with that?  You are saying that the police officer should "take the beating" and hope that the suspect doesn't take the officer's weapon and kill said officer?

 

Police officers are held to a higher standard.  Yes police officers get training, but in a high stress situation, one that is potentially life threatening, the training does go out the window.  You can sit there and say all you want about how police officers "should" act, but you've never been there.  If you think that dealing with an unarmed man causes training to "go out the window"  ridiculous, I would suggest that you ride along with a police officer sometime and see what a "work day" is all about.

 

A high stress situation is not something that police officers are trained in.  They are of course told about it, but never put under stress during the training.

 

Let me ask you this.  What if you get a call to go to a bar in a rural area to break up a fight?  Say you get there and attempt to break up the fight (along with a couple of other officers) and the crowd all of the sudden starts descending on you?  What do you do?  That happened to me.

 

Now imagine that you went though that, had to go "break up a fight" between a couple, then go to an accident scene where some kid lost his life.  How would you handle that?

 

You seem to miss the point that these officers go through a lot more than people realize.  They are human.  Even if they have received training, they are going to react due to the very real situation presented to them.  If I was the detective in the OP scenario, I would have stopped the action before I let the suspect get my weapon.  You seem to have a problem with that.

Do you object to body cameras?

---

Do you object to body cameras?

 

No I don't and I don't object to dash cameras either.  In my mind, these devices would further protect the police officers rather than "protect" offenders.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

No I don't and I don't object to dash cameras either.  In my mind, these devices would further protect the police officers rather than "protect" offenders.

Protect offenders?

---

So if stopping the action involves deadly force (which is justified) you would have a problem with that?  You are saying that the police officer should "take the beating" and hope that the suspect doesn't take the officer's weapon and kill said officer?

I do not consider an individual landing a punch on a police officer to be justifiable use of deadly force if that's what you're getting at. I would also expect that a police officer is able to win a fistfight, or at least stalemate one long enough for the backup he'd already called to arrive.

 

Knocking the aggressor to the ground and holding him at gunpoint is stopping the action. Shooting a man who's thrown a punch at you is murder.

 

I've left tasers and pepper spray out of this conversation because there's no reason to assume that an undercover officer would carry those, but perhaps they should. A couple of taser darts would have dropped this perp quickly and excruciatingly painfully (speaking as someone who has been tased as part of a college project) and ended the situation without injury to the officer, without the officer's gun falling into the wrong hands, and certainly without anyone being murdered. Yes, tasers can kill if used improperly, but they now have safeguards built in to minimize those occurrences. I am all in favor of nonlethal/"less lethal" means of subduing criminals, but there is absolutely no excuse for a trained police officer pulling a gun and murdering someone who has no weapon and has no represented themselves at any point as being armed. If a cop can't take a few punches one on one and subdue the aggressor until backup arrives or stalemate the fight until then, they need to go back to the academy or find a new job.

---

I do not consider an individual landing a punch on a police officer to be justifiable use of deadly force if that's what you're getting at. I would also expect that a police officer is able to win a fistfight, or at least stalemate one long enough for the backup he'd already called to arrive.

 

Knocking the aggressor to the ground and holding him at gunpoint is stopping the action. Shooting a man who's thrown a punch at you is murder.

 

I've left tasers and pepper spray out of this conversation because there's no reason to assume that an undercover officer would carry those, but perhaps they should. A couple of taser darts would have dropped this perp quickly and excruciatingly painfully (speaking as someone who has been tased as part of a college project) and ended the situation without injury to the officer, without the officer's gun falling into the wrong hands, and certainly without anyone being murdered. Yes, tasers can kill if used improperly, but they now have safeguards built in to minimize those occurrences. I am all in favor of nonlethal/"less lethal" means of subduing criminals, but there is absolutely no excuse for a trained police officer pulling a gun and murdering someone who has no weapon and has no represented themselves at any point as being armed. If a cop can't take a few punches one on one and subdue the aggressor until backup arrives or stalemate the fight until then, they need to go back to the academy or find a new job.

 

You have a very shallow view of the training and/or ability of a police officer, especially when it comes to physical confrontation.  Do you actually believe that a police officer is going to win a "fist fight" against anyone that they encounter?  I will tell you right now that the answer is absolutely not.  Just because they go through some training doesn't make them "expert fighters" or "super tough".

 

The training that goes on (at least when I went though it) is more defensive rather than offensive.

 

Again, as I stated earlier, a police officer should NEVER have to sustain an assault under any circumstances (in your case, take a few punches).  If someone wants to go down that road, then they should suffer the consequences for their actions.  If that means that the officer felt threatened enough to use deadly force, then so be it.  Perhaps the person killed should have not been beating up on a police officer.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

You have a very shallow view of the training and/or ability of a police officer, especially when it comes to physical confrontation.  Do you actually believe that a police officer is going to win a "fist fight" against anyone that they encounter?  I will tell you right now that the answer is absolutely not.  Just because they go through some training doesn't make them "expert fighters" or "super tough".

 

The training that goes on (at least when I went though it) is more defensive rather than offensive.

 

Again, as I stated earlier, a police officer should NEVER have to sustain an assault under any circumstances (in your case, take a few punches).  If someone wants to go down that road, then they should suffer the consequences for their actions.  If that means that the officer felt threatened enough to use deadly force, then so be it.  Perhaps the person killed should have not been beating up on a police officer.

 

Civilians should NEVER have to sustain an assault under any circumstances.  If cops want to go down that road, then they should suffer the consequences for their actions.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Mate you just said you would shoot an unarmed man in the head and you were a cop?


The training you got was obviously useless.

---

Civilians should NEVER have to sustain an assault under any circumstances.  If cops want to go down that road, then they should suffer the consequences for their actions.

 

So what about the civilian that assaulted the cop in the OP?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

You have a very shallow view of the training and/or ability of a police officer, especially when it comes to physical confrontation.  Do you actually believe that a police officer is going to win a "fist fight" against anyone that they encounter?  I will tell you right now that the answer is absolutely not.  Just because they go through some training doesn't make them "expert fighters" or "super tough".

 

The training that goes on (at least when I went though it) is more defensive rather than offensive.

 

Again, as I stated earlier, a police officer should NEVER have to sustain an assault under any circumstances (in your case, take a few punches).  If someone wants to go down that road, then they should suffer the consequences for their actions.  If that means that the officer felt threatened enough to use deadly force, then so be it.  Perhaps the person killed should have not been beating up on a police officer.

There are ways of not sustaining an unarmed assault that don't involve killing the assailant. Just sayin'. I know you're extremely protective of cops, and I'm extremely critical of them. If Joe Blow Citizen were to respond to fisticuffs with a Glock, he'd spend a decade or more in prison on a manslaughter charge. I fail to see why cops should be given any additional leeway. If anything, the defensive training and ability to call for backup that Joe Blow Cop has should raise the standards of justifiable homicide far above what Joe Blow Citizen would face in court.

 

No one should have to sustain an assault, but that does not entitle the victim to pull out a gun and kill the unarmed assailant. Surely you would agree that if you responded to the scene of a bar fight only to find that someone was dead from a gunshot wound, you'd begin an investigation that would end in an arrest for murder, right? Why should the presence of a badge preclude the possibility that an officer shooting an unarmed man is, in fact, murder?

---

Mate you just said you would shoot an unarmed man in the head and you were a cop?


The training you got was obviously useless.

 

I would suggest that you perhaps visit the U.S. sometime.  Specifically visit the south valley of Albuquerque, N.M.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

The officer is identified as plainclothes. Did he clearly identify himself as a police officer and clearly show a badge while approaching the assailant's truck, or was the assailant approached by some guy in a t-shirt and khakis shouting at him and waving a gun? None of the pictures posted show a badge around his neck, as many undercover officers wear. Several states have laws now that prohibit unmarked vehicles from initiating traffic stops, and preventing incidents like this is one of the main reasons why.

 

It's tough to condemn the initial incident without knowing the specifics of the situation. If the officer had clearly identified himself as such, including showing the assailant a badge, then it's pretty clear-cut. Note that simply emerging from an unmarked vehicle with light bars flashing is not sufficient identification as a police officer. It could easily be someone posing as an officer. If the assailant truly did not know (or have reason to believe) that the man approaching his vehicle with a gun was actually a police officer, then, well, if some unidentified, unknown guy comes running up to my car shouting and flashing a gun, I'm going to fight back by any means necessary as well, and I will do whatever I need to to make sure he stays down until a uniformed police officer shows up.

 

The conduct after the fact of taunting the injured officer by posting pictures and video online is disgusting, regardless of whether the person assaulted is a police officer or not. Police brutality, police overreach and militarization of police are three major problems in this country, and there are a lot of disgusting excuses for police officers out there, but something like this makes the people involved no better than them, and is completely counterproductive to efforts to rein in police officers and restore the rights that they deceptively take away from American citizens every time they walk up and say hi.

 

As to whether the officer should have used deadly force, two more thoughts arise:

 

1. What deadly force? He didn't have his gun, and there's no mention of a backup weapon in play. Presumably, if he was packing a small-caliber revolver around his lower leg, he'd have drawn it, used it and been completely justified in doing so once his gun was in an assailant's hands. I just don't get why people are saying that the officer should have shot the assailant. What would the officer possibly have shot the assailant for before his weapon was taken from him? Reaching for a cop's gun does not give that cop the right to kill you. Actually taking a cop's gun makes you fair game.

 

2. The notion that police are having second-thoughts about using deadly force is a good thing. If you want to spend a couple of terrifying hours on some boring weeknight, read through the articles (of varying credibility, no doubt) about what police are trained to do in terms of initiating interaction with you, getting your ID (whether they have a Constitutional right to it or not) and using that information, interrogating you by way of a friendly conversation and tricking you into voluntarily surrendering every Constitutional right that can be employed in your defense and ultimately trying to use that conversation to find a reason to arrest you. Then go to a couple of cop message boards and check out their attitudes. Watch some YouTube videos of actual police interactions.

 

Police in this country are trained that you and I, the common citizens, are all criminals first and human beings second. They're not around to serve and protect; they're around to harass and intimidate. When you're pulled over for speeding by the highway patrol, you're not an honest citizen who was doing 86 in a 75 without thinking about it. You're running drugs, smuggling illegals, in a stolen car, drunk or some combination of the above, and they're trained to lie, cheat and steal (including the old "I detect the odor of marijuana" trick) their way into a consensual search of your vehicle and a full confession. Because of that training, many officers are unnecessarily quick to resort to unlawful orders, intimidation and threats. If recent events are causing police officers to stop and think before drawing their firearm, then good. Something positive has been accomplished, and we're one small, informal step closer to reminding police that they exist to protect us, not manipulate, twist and urinate on the law to control us.

 

It's tough to condemn? No, it really wasn't. A criminal, engaged in criminal activity, savagely beat a police officer with his own weapon. Forget that he's even an officer for a moment; he attacked a person and proceeded to hit them with a gun. Your first thought is to justify the offenders behavior under the idea that he may have been approached in a threatening manner by some stranger with a gun. The fact that you'd say that only shows, what I believe, to be an obvious bias. Simply being in plainclothes and possessing a gun is now considered "flashing a gun"? That's absurd. 

 

Almost every State has a law preventing undercover vehicles for being a primary traffic enforcement vehicle. Being an officer in an undercover vehicle doesn't eliminate those powers. By the way, he wasn't an undercover officer. He was a detective in plainclothes. There's a huge difference and a very practical reason for both.

 

What deadly force?

 

1. ) Your hands quickly become lethal force. Is your average police officer expected to go toe-to-toe with a prize fighter? Is the result from a sucker-punch any less effective? If you're being attacked and you're unable to properly defend yourself, then you're justified in using lethal force to stop the threat. The question here is about, whether or not, the officer should have shot this man after he was sucker-punched; he should have used his duty weapon and ended it. The offender's actions could have killed him. Just look up "sucker punch murder", and you'll find all sorts of links to people that have been killed by something you're portraying as incapable of causing serious harm.

 

2. ) It's the police's job to incriminate you. If you expect any other reaction, then you're being unreasonable. It, however, has absolutely nothing to do with second-guessing the use of lethal force. I don't know why you followed your first comment with the second unless you're arguing for attacking police because they trick you into admitting something you shouldn't have admitted.

 

....aaaaannnnnddddd there we have it. You're too far entrenched in the propaganda that the media / internet has fed told you. You think it's the Police vs. Everyone else argument. You couldn't possibly imagine how many times the average officer lets a nonviolent offender go without arresting them. While I admit that police often keep themselves distant from the public, it's because doing otherwise may very well often lead to their injury or death. One of my old Sergeants told me a story about how he did a traffic stop and ended up letting the guy go on a verbal warning. Hell, they even joked around before he walked back toward his car. When my Sergeant started walking back, the guy got out of his car and shot him in the back multiple times. Do you think he ever turned his back to anyone else? Do you think anyone he ever trained did it, either? No, but people like you would make it seem like they're doing it because they're out to get you.

 

 

 

Much more to the story, in fact. The whole incident--every last second of it--could have been avoided with a very simple law that states that unmarked vehicles cannot initiate traffic stops, like other states have. If the undercover officer had simply radioed the truck's description and plate number in, a marked vehicle could easily have been sent in instead, and this incident doesn't happen. I mean, that's all there is to it. It doesn't excuse in any way what the assailant did, but I'd bet you anything that the guy would have been far less likely to leave his vehicle and start crap with a uniformed officer coming out of a marked squad car.

 

Additionally, if the plainclothes detective could not articulate the reason that the assailant had been stopped, the assailant was being unlawfully detained and had the right to demand his license back and leave the area. That's clearly not what happened here, but it is a side note that unless there's yet more to the story, the apparent actions of the officer in refusing to articulate the reason for the stop would have made the whole thing unlawful.

 

Beyond that, there's nothing really new added here, just the officer telling us what we already know, a union boss complaining because police are being held accountable when they kill someone, and a police chief opining that social media is to blame for the outcry against police overreach and brutality, not the overreach and brutality itself.

 

Right. Let’s stop police from policing. You wouldn’t have that approach had that man continued and t-boned some SUV filled with a bunch of kids coming back from a recent outreach program. The outrage that would come out of it when everyone found out that he saw it but didn’t want to do anything would be ridiculous... and deserving so, too.

 

Could not articulate the reason? Where did you get that information? Also, we’re supposed to believe, according to you, that this career criminal shouldn’t have known that he was an officer, AND we’re also supposed to believe that he didn’t have probable cause for the stop? You’ll do anything to excuse this, wont you?


 

Also, being unable to remember something after the offender beat the mess out of him doesn’t mean he didn’t have a reason. Which one is more likely?


 

Exactly...Probably shouldn't be in control of weapons. Be shooting everyone who approaches.


The guy wasn't even armed was he?

 

Nope and he still managed to beat the brakes off him and take his weapon. But I suppose he wasn't a treat, huh?

 

But at least we didn't have another death for no reason.  Apparently this guy that beat up the cop is probably going to jail for a long time, but at least it will follow the correct criminal justice procedures, and this cop didn't decide to be judge, jury, and executioner.  Also, because the guy is alive, we'll actually hear his side of the story.  This is always better than the standard spam we get when a cop kills someone, "I feared for my life".  A response that lately has shown to be rather...  problematic in it's objective accuracy.

 

Kudos to that cop.  

 

Uhh... no reason? You do understand that the offender's actions could have killed him, right?

 

You'd risk the life of ANYONE by refusing their right to defend themselves to trust the justice system that released a man convicted for assaulting people, robbing people, stealing from their cars, taking stolen property and many other offenses? Not including his ATTAEMPTED MURDER charge and other robberies. 

 

The justice system had already ruled on this situation. The officer, and ANYONE ELSE, would have been justified in shooting him. 

 

Had one of those blows to the head resulted in his death, would you have argued for the same reaction from the officer?

---