You can’t evaluate because you have almost no facts. It scares me that you don’t know the difference.

Most of what you said is completely ridiculous. Worst of all is your pathetic justification for the murder of innocent cops. These guys are dead because of a lunatic. That’s it.

Just stop. You’re embarrassing yourself more with each idiotic comment.

Only an extremely ignorant person would judge a situation they have zero knowledge of based on the Facebook post from the guys girlfriend. So yes.

Good job. That’s a lot better than making an intelligent point.

As soon as I read your post, I knew there would be a ton of idiotic replies. The only acceptable responses are to claim people have no control over their finances and to blame everyone else for their problems.

Yes it is. This has been discussed several times in the thread.

“No, still a reasonable person”

I understand your frustration. I easily shot down all your silly comments. It doesn’t matter if you “accept it".

You make the same claim as everyone else and it’s still wrong. No sentence was issued. They protected the protected themselves and the public as they are supposed to do.

The “reasonable person” test you are talking about is only for defense of a criminal accusation. It’s not a standard that takes the place of laws. Police officers are judged by that already. In that case it’s “what would a reasonable police officer do in that situation”.

You don’t have a point since I have already established that he did pose a threat. You just choose to ignore it. If he gave up he would be alive.

Where do you keep getting that he didn’t pose a threat? Was he still armed? Did he claim to have bombs? Did he explicitly say he was going to kill more people?

I don’t follow your logic at all. Laws and policies are everything in a case like this. These are the rules that the officers are told to follow. You can’t hold them to an unwritten standard because your opinion changed after the fact.

I don’t agree and I suspect most use of force policies would not agree also. Of course neither one of us really know enough about the situation speak with certainty. I admit that I tend give the good guys the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. Whereas many people here tend to assume they are wrong even after…

He needed to be killed. That was easy.

That’s exactly what was said so get over it.

Where is the counterpoint? That was just a childish rant with no facts.

It make no difference what desires are created. He still NEEDED to be stopped before more people died.

That’s silly. So every time there is s terrorist killing people, there should be a trial before the police respond?