4 ms·
I see people making similar arguments quite a bit. In this case it's important for everyone to consider that the instruction, “stay away from the gun" does not
by boolosboolos 9y ago
I see people making similar arguments quite a bit. In this case it's important for everyone to consider that the instruction, “stay away from the gun" does not mean:
"do not move", "do not look for your license", "keep your hands were I can see them", etc. Philando likely was complying with the instruction he had been given, the officer unfortunately wanted him to do something else.
- azinman2 9y agoYou say “likely was” but how do you know? None of us do. All I can say is that I can’t judge the situation one way or another.
- shawnz 9y agoYou can't be serious. Just because there is the possibility that someone might not be complying does not make it acceptable to kill them. The officer admitted that he saw no gun and there was no reason for him to make the uncharitable assumption that Philando was trying to attack him.
- jldugger 9y agoIt's a weird edge case, since we know virtually all of the facts of the event (an officer shot and killed the person with intent to do so), so let me ask you directly: is doubt about whether the victim was reaching for a gun reasonable here? Because that's the standard to apply.
- shawnz 9y agoNo, it is 100% not reasonable to assume that someone is going to attack you just based on the fact that 1) they claimed to be legally carrying a gun and 2) they moved their hands after being asked to grab something. How is this even up for debate?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]