Exactly. I’m not a big fan of the increasing militarism of police departments. But I am sympathetic to the cop on the beat that has to deal with the worst of the worst parts of the city, often alone. If this guy was in fact wrestling with the cop for the cops’ weapon, he’s no longer an “unarmed teenager” or whatever the media are calling him today. Deadly force is entirely reasonable in that case.
Absolutely! Hence, “unarmed” means nothing!
But if the witnesses’ stories are correct and the victim had been running away and put his hands up in surrender before the cop fired the shots that killed him, then that’s a different story.
I had zero sympathy for the Trayvon Martin crowd, but I’m not so sure this isn’t murderous.
Even assuming he tried to get the cops gun, he failed. The police officer retained possession of his gun and control of it. So even if that had happened when he shot the kid he was running away and unarmed. How is that justified?