1ºPrimordial Defense I read all of what you wrote and can see exactly where you are coming from. Valid points - to a certain extent. Following your logic, you are saying it is ok to kill someone for what they “might” do. That is a slippery slope. If I am in a fight with you and decide to run off, your logic is that it would be ok to shoot me in the back because I “might” be going to get a weapon or better vantage point. This is a bad position to have. With that position, your logic would say it is ok to kill anyone because they might become a murderer one day. Is that the society you want to live in? Where people are killed because someone thinks they might do something.
Man gets shot walking down the street.
“I thought he was gonna run at me so I about him”.
Can you imagine the turmoil we would be in if we used your logic.
2ºSandy Frances I’m neutral feeling on this news article. It doesn’t provide enough info for me to make an opinion. But your shot in the back comment I feel deserves some attention.
Shooting people in the back is something I don’t think a lot of people understand is an acceptable and viable thing to do. People seem to have some sort of disdain for shots to the back. Personally I don’t see problem with it. A target is a target. The person could have still been committed to the fight and was simply trying to change positions during the fight and go a spot where there was better cover. Or trying to move to out flank. Or going to get a different gun. It doesn’t always mean a person was disengaging from the fight.
In a law enforcement context it means an officer can articulate that the fleeing felon was a danger to the public. Like an active shooter running away. They might actually be disengaging from the fight and don’t want anymore smoke from them but it doesn’t mean they won’t start causing harm to other people when given the chance. Which means they’re a threat and need to be stopped.
3ºVictor Wilkerson I hear what you are saying and slightly disagree. Anytime someone loses their life, they person considered the offender should be taken into custody. Let the courts determine that it was self defense. That way, no legal repercussions concerning it and no questions about what happened. A lot of these “self defense” claims are not actually self defense. I am not saying that this is not self defense, just saying let the courts say it was self defense. Look at the guy in Florida who shot another man and claimed self defense - yet video shows that he aggravated the whole situation. It was not an immediate arrest because he claimed self defense. I say - arrest on site and release later. If it was truly self defense, everyone will have your back, and once the courts say it was self defense - no one can say otherwise - no matter how they feel.