Vikrant
Gold Member
- Apr 20, 2013
- 8,317
- 1,075
You can try to smear the kid all you want. The fact is he wasn't armed and at the time he was shot in the back he was not a threat to the officer. Everything the officer claims happened leading up to that is not justification for deadly force when the officer or the public is not in imminent danger.
Just because someone is armed does not not necessarily mean he needs to be shot and killed. It is not about being armed or disarmed. It is about your actions. Of course an armed person is more capable of harming you than an unarmed person but an unarmed person too can become a threat depending on his mindset and capabilities.