Given that the police could get a robot close enough to the shooter, was lethal force against him justified? For example, why not just disable him and arrest him first then charge him in a court of law?

Even in this case the authorities would seem to have acted irresponsibly. Probably with a kind the kind of bias inherent in a rotten criminal justice system.

If it's foreseeable that officers of the law are wont to break the law, then the shooter may have been justified in his actions and is probably heroic.

[quote=tycho]For those who are saying that compliance has more chances of guaranteeing life, and that one ought to give such advice; what guarantees are there that such a strategy would work? And why would such a strategy work?

http://www.cbc.ca/m/touc...olitics/story/1.3670654[/quote]


Bro there is no guarantee BUT as we said earlier you increase your chances of survival. Mark my words in red INCREASE YOUR CHANCES of going home alive . It's not a guarantee but chances are higher than someone who is outright aggressive. Look at trayvon, he was aggressive to the community patrol though he didn't do anything wrong ,


look at the 1st guy to be killed this week,he was aggressive and refused to comply ,don't get me wrong ,we know there are racist police officer but all these situations can be defused completely with compliance .failure to comply gives the racist police ammunition to kill.

There are some isolated cases where compliance doesn't apply like the second murder this week,the guu complied but he was murdered anyway.but all of them has to do with someone being aggressive pre extra judicial execution and trying to elope from police officer

I'm having difficulty in understanding the third paragraph of your response. Are you saying that the murder victim was aggressive and trying to 'elope' from the officer while also remaining compliant?

The second paragraph appears to give the guarantee that compliance is able to diffuse all situations...

Finally, what would be the rationality of increased chances given that: It's reasonable for an officer to expect some hostility from a person who for example, believes his rights are being infringed? Is it like the case of animals submitting by lying on their backs and gaining the sympathy of aggressors? That is, compliance is an appeal for 'mercy'...