Nope, not buying it. There is in fact a vast gulf between police officers being allowed to use force to defend themselves from a criminal who starts the violence, and an actual tyranny that enslaved half of Europe for fifty years.
If habitual criminals aren't afraid of law enforcement, then the only people who suffer are the innocent and the law abiding.
The level of force used has to obviously be warranted, and lethal force shouldn't be used unless absolutely necessary. So, back to the original point of whether or not the kid in Minnesota deserved to get shot, then that would obviously be no. The dude was already pretty restrained and even the police officer believed a gun wasn't necessary as she already admitted she intended to reach for her taser. She fucked up and should be held fully accountable.
I disagree. Treating thugs with kid gloves for fifty years is how this problem has gotten to be so bad.
And excusing the communist's henchmen for accidental murder is how you get the USSR.
Nope, not buying it. There is in fact a vast gulf between police officers being allowed to use force to defend themselves from a criminal who starts the violence, and an actual tyranny that enslaved half of Europe for fifty years.
If habitual criminals aren't afraid of law enforcement, then the only people who suffer are the innocent and the law abiding.
The level of force used has to obviously be warranted, and lethal force shouldn't be used unless absolutely necessary. So, back to the original point of whether or not the kid in Minnesota deserved to get shot, then that would obviously be no. The dude was already pretty restrained and even the police officer believed a gun wasn't necessary as she already admitted she intended to reach for her taser. She fucked up and should be held fully accountable.