Replies

If the dead guy had a history of lawbreaking or other anti-social or destructive behavior I *might* consider it possible that this was,in fact,a justified shooting.
Unless the perp had a gun, shooting someone in the back can NEVER be justified.

Not true. His potential to do serious harm to others is the legal standard set by SCOTUS. For instance, when police tried to take one of the Boston bombers into physical custody. The police could have said they had a running car chase with bombs being thrown at them, shots were fired but this brother wasn't displaying a gun at the time. Demonstrated potential for harming others? Yes. If he escaped, would likely harm more? Almost definitely. Shoot him in the back as he is running away? I think that would meet the Garner v. Tennessee standard.

With all that said, does this case meet that standard. From the video alone, it sure doesn't look like it. I think you could have let this guy run a couple more blocks and he would have died from a heart attack. There is another video from the dash cam of a responding officer that shows the entire scene after the shooting, so you can see it takes place in a confined area. The grassy area he was shot in is adjacent to where he pulled over his car.