Replies

In this case, the perp was unarmed. That means he had no means to turn and shoot. In fact, he had no means to turn, shoot or feel foolhardy enough to charge the officer with any hope of inflicting harm on the officer.

What is so hard for you people to comprehend? The man had his back turned and was fleeing, yet so many of you have no problem with a stumbling, ambling, fleeing person being shot in the back.

Did the officer really believe he was going to jump over the fence and attack someone or did the officer see a chance to blow away an alleged criminal? remember, at one time a person was innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It seems too many here wish to do away with trials by jury and see no issues with unarmed people gunned down to save the hassle of trials, juries, lawyers, judges, Constitutional rights and presumption of innocence.

How many more times will you people claim: "No one who runs away from a cop is innocent of anything."

Think carefully about what sort of nation you want to live in and raise children in. Giving up any rights to due process or illegal searches or Constitutional carry bodes ill for everyone.

That the question.. was he unarmed as far as the cop knew?.. he did shoot the cop with the taser.. and if the taser could still do injure the cop .. did the cop know it had been dropped?...

the guy did not just run..

he attacked the cop before he ran...why..why not just run...

that is a different story..

no different then then someones attacks you then runs..