- Messages
- 33
- Reactions
- 1
I can't speak for others but I ignored the "reaching for his waistband" bit because the news reports have always stated that that part was according to the shooter. That's the same shooter who turned out to be incorect about the thief having a gun and shot the thief in the BACK of the head. Whether he's lying or just made a bad judgement call is for no one to know but him but if we allow any shooter to kill a thief and claim "he reached for his waistband" then we've just re-written the deadly force statutes. I would personally feel differently if the reports talked about witnesses who thought they saw a gun draw or if the thief actually had a weapon on whatever side he supposedly reached to. Without that cooberation, it just seems like a desperate attempt to justify excessive force.
And he is getting off easy for someone who just killed an unarmed person, however bad that person might have been. The iffy situation and a sympathetic DA has resulted in 9 months for manslaughter instead of 20 to life for murder (which they could have pushed for if they wanted to grandstand). They really wouldn't have been doing their duty of enforcing the law if they didn't attempt to press those minimal charges, given the excessive use of force according to the RCWs. Those are, of course, the same RCWs that spell out the laws against stealing someone's car stereo to begin with...
And he is getting off easy for someone who just killed an unarmed person, however bad that person might have been. The iffy situation and a sympathetic DA has resulted in 9 months for manslaughter instead of 20 to life for murder (which they could have pushed for if they wanted to grandstand). They really wouldn't have been doing their duty of enforcing the law if they didn't attempt to press those minimal charges, given the excessive use of force according to the RCWs. Those are, of course, the same RCWs that spell out the laws against stealing someone's car stereo to begin with...