That is not the problem of the guy getting killed. In a just world, that would be a reason to convict the cop.

Manslaughter, like he was charged for. He fired 4 times! This was a man that had told him exactly what he is going to do and he was doing exactly that.

We as a country and a legal system need to somehow remove the idea that police officers, simply by being "concerned" can just shoot people with no justification. It's a sad time that we live in that it seems 100 innocent non-police deaths are worth making sure 1 police death does not occur.

To answer your second question, police should be held to a higher standard than the general population. We shouldn't need new special laws.

"benefit of the doubt" is an understatement. I mean, kids have gotten shot and it's basically been "Well, the cop saw something that may have looked like a gun".

and the cop just has to say "he feared for his life," even if there is no threat, and he gets reasonable doubt off of that.

I think it's nearly an impossible job. People in this country are armed to the teeth. Shootings are consistently in the new. I think most people would crack under the stress.

The only solution is to not allow them to carry firearms unless there is a shooting. I believe it would drive many people from the force though, and likely make it more difficult to fill police jobs. It's a question of what does society want to pay for police service.

I think it's nearly an impossible job. People in this country are armed to the teeth. Shootings are consistently in the new. I think most people would crack under the stress.

The only solution is to not allow them to carry firearms unless there is a shooting. I believe it would drive many people from the force though, and likely make it more difficult to fill police jobs. It's a question of what does society want to pay for police service.

or perhaps change the way we ask police to do their jobs so that their encounters with the public are not confrontational.

Let me ask you a question, when you see a cop driving out on the street, do you feel like he is protecting you or looking for something he can fine you for?

Politicians are too chicken shit to raise taxes so they utilize their cops as armed tax collectors writing fines and looking to abuse asset forfeiture laws.

It isn't an impossible job though. It is more dangerous than your average job but it also has benefits that very few other jobs offer.

It isn't an impossible job though. It is more dangerous than your average job but it also has benefits that very few other jobs offer.

If you were to make 100s of stressful stops every year, can you say, with certainty that you would not shoot someone on accident? I don't think they are considering their pension fund when they pull someone over, and they say they have a gun.

Yes, I would not shoot someone by accident like most cops who somehow don't kill innocent people.

Most of these "stressful stops" don't even include multiple officers at the scene. Are they really scared every time they walk up to a guy going 15 MPH over the speed limit?

Manslaughter, like he was charged for. He fired 4 times! This was a man that had told him exactly what he is going to do and he was doing exactly that.

To answer your second question, police should be held to a higher standard than the general population. We shouldn't need new special laws.

So what experiences do you have in your life that make you certain of this? It's an absurd thing to say. Have you been with a team that has served a drug warrant? Given what we know about post traumatic stress it's beyond naive to say, I would not do that until you are actually in that situation.

If you want police shootings to stop you have to take away the guns.

I watched the dashcam footage with the mic on the cop. He didn't tell the officer he was reaching to secure his weapon. Castille announced he had a weapon on him as he was reaching for something, at some point in defiance of the officer saying "don't reach for it".

How do you codify that higher standard, then?

. Why is everyone on here so much smarter and plugged in than the jurors on this case?

So are you saying he was justified in his actions?

By not letting them free because they "feared for their safety" or "thought the toy kind of looked like a gun".

The man was shot dead without holding a gun. Perhaps wait until he is actually holding a weapon before opening fire.

The cop has had weapons training and was able to draw his gun. He could wait for the victim to at least draw before he considers his life in danger.

He was killed not knowing his life was in danger.

There are guidelines to CC. The gun was not holstered as per guidelines. He was found to have weed in his system--per guidelines you can't be under the influence while carrying. He was in violation of both. If properly holstered he is probably alive. Why is everyone on here so much smarter and plugged in than the jurors on this case?

He was found to have weed in his system

If a cop waits for someone to control a loaded gun, that is a dumbass cop.

The man was shot dead without holding a gun. Perhaps wait until he is actually holding a weapon before opening fire.

The cop has had weapons training and was able to draw his gun. He could wait for the victim to at least draw before he considers his life in danger.

He was killed not knowing his life was in danger.

There are guidelines to CC. The gun was not holstered as per guidelines. He was found to have weed in his system--per guidelines you can't be under the influence while carrying. He was in violation of both. If properly holstered he is probably alive. Why is everyone on here so much smarter and plugged in than the jurors on this case?

I obviously agree 100%. Let me add the cop shot 4 times too! At a minimum, shoot once and then see what happens.

There are guidelines to CC. The gun was not holstered as per guidelines. He was found to have weed in his system--per guidelines you can't be under the influence while carrying. He was in violation of both. If properly holstered he is probably alive. Why is everyone on here so much smarter and plugged in than the jurors on this case?

So are you saying he was justified in his actions?

By not letting them free because they "feared for their safety" or "thought the toy kind of looked like a gun".

I actually don't have a problem with the multiple shots fired. Once an officer has opened fire, in my mind, he has made the decision there is valid concern to take a life. I don't like legislating the result, any time an officer opens fire, the burden of lethal force needs to be justified.

That's not how are system works. Are you suggesting we abandon our current criminal trial system in favor of locking people up because we just know they're guilty?