. .. . or "he shouldn't have fled, here is what I say to them (and now say to you):
I have two responses to that.
First, resisting arrest is not, per se, a justification for the use of lethal force.
Second, has it ever occurred to you to ask yourself why a minority defendant, even an innocent one, might choose to resist arrest?
Please consider:
A person who is being arrested is about to be subject to a system in which, unless he is of considerable means, he will likely be stuck being represented by a public defender who, if he or she is not a total hack (as some are), will be grossly overworked, and who is saddled with a case calendar that obviates the possibility of devoting sufficient time to the development of an adequate defense, against a lavishly funded prosecutor who is handling, at most, a handful of cases at any given time. Thus, it is unlikely he or she will ever go to trial, because the defendant will be under enormous pressure to agree to some kind of plea deal. And even if he does go to trial, he will face month after month of delays due to unreadiness by either his own attorney or the prosecutor. And even absent a plea deal, if he goes to trial and is convicted, he will face a system that has been shown, time and time again, to be unreasonably harsh in its sentences of minority defendants versus white defendants charged with similar crimes.
And even IF he is acquitted at trial, the defendant's life is about to be upended in countless ways.
THAT is the reality, folks. Now ask yourself again why he might choose to resist arrest, and hear how asinine the question is!
This was a 13-year-old kid. I'm sure he was scared. When people are scared, they don't always make the best decisions. That shouldn't warrant a summary execution!
= new reply since forum marked as read