T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
Your bias is noted.He refused to drop the gun even after repeated (11-12 times or so) commands to do so. That sure sounds justified to me. I do not think any grand jury indicts them. Do you?
Criminals are threatened by police. That does not give them the right to shoot police. So the argument does not work both ways because of monopoly on legitimate use of physical force.The argument is that the cop felt threatened and shot him. That means that if the guy felt threatened by the cops he could legally shoot them too.
What would your justification for indictment be?I'd love to be on that jury.
Note that the family has insisted (and still do) that Scott had no gun. So since he had a gun that collapses their whole version of events.
The guy had a gun. So what? What was their reason for telling him to drop his gun? Are all cops afraid of people with guns? Can a cop tell anyone with a gun that they need to disarm or they will be killed? If that is your argument it hangs on the premise that cops are special people and can therefore go about telling people for any or no reason to give up their weapons. What exactly did this guy do while he was sitting in his car that prompted the police to want him disarmed? How was his behavior "criminal?"
Like I said, you don't want me on that jury.