Yeah. That assertion of potential danger is always first to come to the forefront. It’s the catchall that gets a lot of LEOs off from events not closely videoed or released without court order.
“Yeah. That assertion of potential danger is always first to come to the forefront.”
Because it’s mostly true. Mr. Finicum said something to the effect that he’d rather die than go to jail. That’s a big red flag because the way that usually works out is the guy starts shooting at the nearest cop with the predictable result.
And what a magical thing it is, eh? Now, the narrative has become “he was going for his gun”, with the caveat that “they knew he was armed”. How special. A guy known to own and carry firearms — quite openly — had a gun! Oh, my!
Now, show me the unlawful action he took with that weapon — you know, like actually POINTING IT at someone — and I’ll conclude that any LEO had justification to drop him on the spot. Failure to do so, however, would seem to indicate that the shooter wasn’t acting in strict accordance with the law.
Isn’t it ironic that our soldiers, in a war zone, facing a known enemy, aren’t allowed by their “rules of engagement” to fire except and until they are first fired upon, but we’ve come to accept the notion that it is somehow ok (and even expected) that a LEO will shoot a non-criminal citizen in this country because of an imagined, potential danger that was never actually manifested?