> descriptions of just how cruel and violent some of the worst offenders can be. I agree. I hope and expect that such for such a criminal a good and honest co

> descriptions of just how cruel and violent some of the worst offenders can be. I agree. I hope and expect that such for such a criminal a good and honest conviction will be quite possible in our legal system. E.g., per capita, we have a lot of people in jail, too many on silly, nearly trivial, charges. There certainly should be enough room in the jails for the serious criminals. We need police -- no joke. I can easily respect the police because of the dangers they do face and if they are honest, actually "serve" the public, obey the Constitution, etc. But the police abuses are too common: E.g., apparently quite generally they can lie in court and get away with it; they can confiscate cash just because they want to (there's a consulting company that goes to police departments and teaches them how to do that); can hassle people based on trivialities as in the broken windows approach; can lock people up for months, in dangerous circumstances (that some of the jails are very dangerous places is a well known, long standing situation and not an isolated issue), before a trial; they can strongly coerce guilty pleas as in plea bargains (commonly public defenders say that that situation is wildly out of control and has been quite generally for decades); they have long standing practices such a "nickel ride" where they put someone in a van and drive around violently causing the person to bang against the sides of the van, and much more. Here I'm talking not isolated instances but wide spread practices. > How does whether the suspect was armed have anything to do with whether his death was justified? > A suspect who does not have a weapon is perfectly capable of being a legitimate threat to the life of a police officer. Sure. But the police have so many advantages in force that an unarmed person is quite generally at a huge disadvantage. So, when an officer shoots an unarmed person, especially at, say, 10 feet, it looks like the officer just took the easy way out: He very much didn't like the person or their attitude or behavior so just gave up and shot him. Sure, each case needs very careful, objective review. And, really, likely an officer who has shot one unarmed person will have to be very reluctant to do so again for some years. Still, there are well documented cases that are outrageous -- maybe they are too rare to form a pattern to be addressed, maybe not. > Many unarmed suspects have been legitimately shot dead while trying to steal firearms from police officers. How would you recommend dealing with them? Sure, if there is a real situation like that, the officer needs to use force. If the officer does get to shoot, say, not at point blank range, then the officer should shoot for a limb and wound enough to win the fight but not necessarily shoot to kill. > On the other hand, we do have the Second Amendment, and it is perfectly legal to carry a firearm with a permit in most of the country. The fact that somebody possesses a gun is not an automatic justification for killing them either. I know, and just by my saying "unarmed" I know I'm already giving up this Constitutional right. But the police keep saying, "I felt threatened." and find that that is justification enough to shoot to kill. Well, if the person had a gun, it's easier to believe the "threatened".