LogFAQs > #966331805

mybbqrules posted...

He was still unarmed at the time he was shot 60 fucking times. So you're saying that if a guy has a gun and fires a shot, then throws the gun away, the police are still allowed to shoot him at any point after because at some point in the recent past he was armed and fired a shot? Great logic.

And furthermore, it's ok to shoot him in the back as he's running away and posing no threat in that moment.......why?

They did not know he was unarmed. They had no indication that he had disposed of his weapon. To their express knowledge he was armed.

He wasn't shot in the back. He turned around and made a motion from his hip with his hands.

Now you could argue that isn't an indication of intent, because he could have been raising his hands to surrender, we do not know. However, he dug himself a giant hole with no escape when he fired a shot off during the chase and then bailed out the still moving car and sprinted off.

If he had tumbled out the car and immediately threw his hands up or just laid on the ground and then the cops shot him dead while he was clearly not an immediate threat (hands on ground, nothing in hands) then yeah, you might have a point.

As is, he gave them all the cause, reason and motivation their training dictates to utilize lethal force.

It is shitty, but he did himself no favors.