MikeK
Gold Member
Attempting to take control of a police officer's firearm presumes it will be used against the officer. Therefore the use of deadly force by an officer to retain his weapon is justifiable in every jurisdiction I am aware of.[...]
Pushing a officer doesn't justify killing someone
In this Ferguson example the officer says Brown attempted to forcibly seize his firearm, which, by itself, is a serious felony in which the officer may assume his life is actively threatened. So unless the officer's assertion is disproved he was perfectly justified in shooting Brown. In New York State (and presumably elsewhere) such action is called expedient weapon retention.
Regarding the overly-asserted notion that "hands-up is a universally recognized sign of surrender," while that might be true for troops on a battlefield it is not true in police/arrestee confrontations. Which is why contemporary civilian police immediately issue the familiar "Get On The Ground!" command to any arrest subject they feel represents potential for resistance.
Raised hands is a submissive gesture when performed at an appreciable distance. But someone who is within striking distance and whose hands are raised represents a formidable threat -- as anyone with even basic martial arts experience is aware. So if Brown's hands were raised while he advanced toward the officer, that action justified the use of defensively deadly force.