It doesn’t work that way. The cop needs to prove the boy was an immediate life endangering threat. Not a cop basher here by any means, but the cop is an agent of the state, and the state killed that kid. We need to know why, and we need unbiased an complete information.
The body cam ought to provide that.
PLus there is that thing about the cop feeling “threatened” and if he says he felt that way and can give a plausible reason reason he will skate.
An example would be the kid put the bottle behind the wheel and while standing up he reached in his pocket for a rag to wipe his hands. The cop could say he believed the kid was reaching for a weapon.
This why the body cam is so important.
‘
Nothing comes of this.
He is white.
No one cares (in power, media, academia, govt, charities, etc)
Have they provided the name of the shooter of Ashli Babbit?
Have Republicans blurted a word?
‘
“The cop needs to prove the boy was an immediate life endangering threat.”
Don’t mean to pick too many nits but that’s not quite correct. I believe a shooting can be justified even if there was no actual threat but rather would it be reasonable to think the threat was real. A cop could be justified for shooting a kid when he pulls a toy gun out of his pocket in a dark situation, but not if the kid is caring a teddy bear in broad daylight and the policeman says he thought it was a weapon.
That’s where this case will come down to. Was it reasonable that shoot the guy just because he jumped out of the truck and pulled something out of the bed.