Let justice take its course.
Imagine that you are in the jury pool. You'll hear from the defense that:
(1) This was an ordinary traffic stop that every man jack of us has experienced. Brake light out? OK. Happens.
(2) Driver has NO PAPERWORK for auto. "Just bought it, yadda yadda"
(3)Cop says get back in car and stay there. Returns to his patrol vehicle. All the cop knows is that this is not a "street legal" auto. Ordinarily, that's really not that big a deal. You park the car. Get a ticket. Call for a ride. Straighten it out. Pay the fine and go sin no more against the DMV.
(4) Escalation Point: Driver bolts from vehicle and takes off running.
Face it. At this point the officer, who may or may not, be the worst SOB since Hitler, has no idea whatsoever who this running away guy is, if it's his car, or if he's a car thief, felon, has a warrant on him, is an escaping mass murderer, jihadist, etc. That is the "Threat to Public Safety" of which you speak and the reason for taking him immediately.
This could be an extreme case of "Resisting Arrest." Advice to anyone out there who might be my son:
By all means hang this trigger happy SOB Cop at high noon on Martin Luther King Boulevard. After the trial.
BTW, between now and this fiend's trial, how many African-American citizens will be shot down on the streets of Chicago?
I agree that I am all for letting the accused have his day in court. Of course, it appears he lied (appears) regarding the dead man’s actions.
And shooting a guy in the back is pretty bad form. Mr. Scott was 50 years old and the cop looked like a pretty fit 33 years. The use of the gun should have been a last resort.
Anyway, I agree with you regarding the caveats. Even with them, though, I’m still prone to support the prosecutors. At least until I hear the defense.
Of course, this is the problem: trying the case in the media. Very very dangerous. A man—any man, black or white, should be considered innocent until proven guilty.
And if I were on the jury, that is exactly how I would approach the case.