When a 90 pound kid is coming at you and their are only 3 officers on the scene you don't have much choice but to shoot to kill.
Lol. I mean where does that logic end? What if a coked out monstrosity of a human being that can kill you with his bare hands is trying to come after you? Shoot them dead before trying other preventative measures? I'm all for waiting for the full story to come out but shit, this looks pretty damning to the police in this situation. Even considering the most outlandish of scenarios it sets off alarms to think that the only reasonable solution would be deadly force.
You are not only lying you're an enabler of people taken advantage of the mentally disabled because they are simply poorly trained, lazy or just don't give a shit. Keep calling me names. Your dumb ass bullying tactics is just another sign of what you're all about.
My point was not rushing to judgement so much as it was questioning why the cops had to bring it to a head in a finite time frame. So long as the kid's parents were out of the way and it was just a stand off between him and them, then what's the rush? They could've either tried to "talk him off the ledge" or waited for medical and/or "iron man" (protective gear) backup to arrive, thus the 'double parked' comment.
point to the lie. you can't, but because you are such an emotionally fragile hysteric you have to create strawman's to validate your flawed argument in an attempt merely to appeal to anyone just as insecure as you rather than argue with rationale. grasping that makes me rational, not a bully. if he is guilty so be it. I am not defending the officer at all, and you continue to argue from that position because from your irrational perspective if I am not condemning him now I am defending him. only someone truly insecure and emotionally fragile could be so irrational that they would draw that conclusion. you're the kind of person that makes things like the McMartin preschool trial possible because you simply accept the accusations and whatever evidence is purported to support it and don't consider there to even be the possibility of evidence to the contrary.
I am not saying it will be justified when all the facts are out. I am saying that the concept of the threat of a screwdriver can certainly validate the use of force, hence why I am not dismissing the validity of the defense and condemning him based merely on what the media has chosen to report initially, when the media's motivation to create sensationalistic stories that generate attention has to also be considered. the media conveniently leaves out many facts in the reporting of news that they don't believe will sell a story.
