Fine, let’s do so.
The problem is that to make the shooting legally justifiable you have to demonstrate *danger* at the instant the gun was fired. Not one minute or three minutes earlier. Which, since we have the instant of the shooting on video, will be pretty difficult.
What you’re talking about is somebody taking revenge for earlier actions and then claiming that as self-defense. Which just doesn’t work, legally speaking.
For instance, if I take a shot at you and miss, you can’t turn up a day later, or even 30 seconds later, and gun me down when I am unarmed and therefore do not represent an eminent threat.
Self defense can be claimed for present threats only, not past ones or possible future ones.
Not entirely true.Research the SCOTUS decision in "Tennessee v Garner" (1985) and you'll find that you've missed something rather important in the statement quoted above.I'll give you a hint...your use of the words "instant" and "earlier" is where you've gone wrong.
“For instance, if I take a shot at you and miss, you can’t turn up a day later, or even 30 seconds later, and gun me down when I am unarmed and therefore do not represent an eminent threat.”
Scott, the alleged victim, wasn’t unarmed, he had two big fists. He was another big black male, just like the guy in Ferguson, Missouri who was beating on the Cop there in his squad car, and the guy who was beating up George Zimmerman in Florida. It appears this guy Scott was attacking the Cop here also, according to witnesses. We willl see, but as many here on FR have sided with the alleged victim, I’m siding with the Cop, the contrarian position.
The Cop sounded more than reasonable when approaching Scott in his car, and obviously had no idea that Scott would take off running. The Cop had no idea about the background of the guy he was chasing. It could have been an ax murderer for all he knew, and he was stopping a guy with a very possible criminal record, perhaps violent, from escaping to harm others. We shall see how this will pan out, but for now I’m on the Cop’s side and I think once again the initial hue and cry by the media will result in a bum rap for a Cop.
As to the video, the most important part of the transaction between the Cop and the alleged victim, when they were fighting (IMO the Cop was being attacked) is missing, isn’t it. Funny how the guy videotaping the incident somehow doesn’t have his tape rolling when the two were having their altercation. Hmmmm, selective taping? The alleged victim attacked the Cop? Just the part you’d want to have missing, isn’t it. And no one knows whether the taser was placed by the victim or not. No one knows what was dropped, be it sunglasses or something else other than a taser. So, I wait....