I wouldn’t go that far. On the other hand, I would subscribe to the legal principle that says that if a person acts in such a way as to pose an apparent threat to another person, the former person by his actions largely forfeits any claim of self-defense against the latter.

What’s the saying “If you aren’t doing anything wrong, you should have nothing to fear”? If the cops are presuming that citizens are dangerous, perhaps they should reconsider their actions that might cause that presumption?

When my father was a cop, REAL cops knew their job was to take a bullet and possibly die for society. He was shot in the face. He was attacked with knives. He stood face to face against armed gangs. He never shot anyone because he was a MAN and knew how handle situations.

Justified. Cops shooting the people is never justified unless and until the person first shoots at the cops, even in a legal sense. The legal sense is a bunch of BS perpetrated on the people by the system.

REAL cops no longer exist.

I most certainly do, and that is exactly why I wrote what I did. Watch:

“That this legal question has nothing to do with ‘moral relativism’, ‘moral scope’ or morality at all?”

Okay; taking you at your words in the final clause (“or morality at all”), I have to ask: are you serious? You are here telling us that the law in this case has no connection to morality “at all”.

Look: if the law is not connected to morality at all, then what on earth is it?

Lior, I’m sure it’s a presumption of danger when dealing with felons. I also think it might be becoming, if it isn’t already, a presumption of danger whenever there is contact with a citizen. No-knocks are just one example.

Edintally: for the officers to conduct a violent raid, I think (IANAL) they needed to have an (official) reason to believe that the suspects were dangerous. Otherwise they should just knock on the door. Perhaps any suspected felon is legally presumed dangerous?

Defendant:I feared for my life because he charged me. I couldn’t tell if he was armed, unarmed, etc. I jumped from trying to subdue him via non-lethal methods to my gun which I’m licensed to carry.

Prosecutor:Are you a Cop?

Defendant: No.

Prosecutor: Sorry, Manslaughter. Murder if he happened to be a cop.

Defendant: But I have to determine whether the person breaking into my house is a cop before I shoot at him, but he doesn’t have to determine if I’m actually a threat before he shoots me?

Prosecutor: Yes.

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.–A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
————-
I could be wrong, but I don’t think the issue is “the officers had no way of knowing he was unarmed when they fired”. I believe they HAVE to know or AT LEAST be able to articulate why they THINK he posed an imminent threat of death or great bodily injury.

If there was no weapon on him that would have reasonably been construed by the officers as a “serious” threat, then this shooting is not justifiable. Of course, police are not stupid enough to write in their reports that they did not feel their lives were in jeopardy.

As is usually the case in these things, a “crime” probably did not occur. 776.013 is so slanted in favor of police that an event like this would probably never be categorized as a crime.

That’s why we have civil courts.

“That Guzman was unarmed is something that was only discovered after the fact …”

That provides license to kill anyone who is not naked, because they can only be proved to be unarmed after they are dead.

No disagreement here. We’re just using different terminology.

On the other hand, the raid itself was “unjustified” in the everyday sense of the word, and this means that the shooting was “unjustified” in the everyday sense.

That’s not the problem that I see here, Skip. What I see is a failure of moral scope. It’s the failure to necessarily connect the stark moral injustice of the shooting with the larger concept of “paramilitary tactics”.

We’re supposed to let that cop off the hook just because he was doing his job.

I, for one, cannot do it.

One would also have to ignore Barr’s advocation for stepping up “Plan Colombia” to fight “narco-terrorists” in Latin America, his support for sanctions on Iran, his claims that “only a fool” would support a timetable to withdraw from Iraq, and finally, his avowed support for locking up a 17 year old (black) boy for having consensual oral sex with a 15 year old girl.

Keep in mind, you dropped your support for mean, old Ron Paul after the newsletter fiasco, claiming he only talked about the war on drugs when he was being accused of being a racist (never mind his very public calls since at least 1988 — including in a ’07 PBS-sponsored debate on minority issues — for ending the drug war, all of which you ignored).

Now you finally have a “respectable” candidate who your colleagues at Reason and Cato can support without feeling awkward as you try desperately — ever so desperately — to achieve mainstream respectability.

It’ll all be worth it when Barr gets that 1.5% of the vote though!

All of the alleged training these dirtballs get and they can’t tell an unarmed man from a deadly gunmen? They can’t shoot with the intent to disable rather than kill? And I guess just a crack to the head with the butt of the gun is reservedly only for the bedridden, handicapped, or the elderly in nursing homes for these ‘brave’ drug war soldiers.

We taser kids in epileptic seizures and shoot unarmed men for safety…to protect and to serve.