General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I fully understand that this post is likely to draw very intense personal criticism but, at my age, [View all]StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)If he posed such a threat to the officer in those moments, why didn't he shoot him then instead of telling him to stop and show him his hands?
Why did he essentially give him one more chance to surrender, but then when he did, he shot him?
The fact that the officer did not shoot Adam when he was doing the things you claimed suggests that the officer didn't believe those actions did not put him in immediate harm. Otherwise, he would have shot him then and there. Instead, he offered him an out - stop and put up your hands, which is essentially telling him offering him an alternative to getting shot. Once he told him to put up his hands and he did, it didn't matter what he had previously done. The officer had an obligation to immediately reassess the situation to determine the nature and extent of any threat in that moment - not shoot him based on his perceived threat prior to his compliance with the order.
The only thing that changed between the time Adam ran with the gun and second the officer shot him was that Adam had followed the officers orders, stopped running, dropped the gun, and put up his hands. If stopping in his tracks, putting up his hands somehow put the officer in danger that he wasn't in previously, the officer was stupid and reckless to order him to do that.
Moreover, you have absolutely no idea whether Adam had "fired at people." But your willingness to accept every unfounded accusation about a dead child while making every possible favorable assumption about the man who summarily shot him in the street - yes, I said it again because that's exactly what he did - is noted.