If he was unarmed, then he was unarmed. The cops should have never let him get to the car. That was the cops mistake, and not his. The fact that he had a history of gun violence does not give the cops carte blanche to start shooting. Three people in my family are war vets and they all have a history of gun violence during battle. Are we now going to start killing vets based upon a "history of gun violence?" They were already drawn and aiming at him. All they had to do was wait until they saw him produce a gun. Up to the point he got into the car, he had committed no crime. The cops are going down for this, and rightfully so. If you or I had shot this guy, we would be in jail right now.
“Three people in my family are war vets and they all have a history of gun violence during battle.”
History of gun violence in a war zone is not the same as gun violence outside of the war zone.
Why are you labeling your family members as violent people?
“Are we now going to start killing vets based upon a “history of gun violence?” “
Yes, the killing of a vet with a history of gun violence reaching into a car after being told to stop is justified.
What was the person reaching for?
Did the police officer see a gun or knew their was gun in the car?
Before you condemn the police find out the facts.
The police officer has the right to go home too. This person clearly is disobeying police orders. The police have their guns drawn before he went around to the driver’s door.
“The cops should have never let him get to the car.”
The video is out of context we do not know what happens before the police officers draw their guns.
See post 53...