Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
They really aren't and you promptly demonstrate that. One thing leading to another is, by definition, two different things, not the same thing.
Sorry but I fail to see a differential. How is an officer allowed to shoot if he is in danger but not allowed to shoot if he thinks he is in danger? How do you draw a legal distinction that works in a court of law?

People's actions are determined by the information they have at the time, not perfect information. If someone honestly and in good faith thinks they're in danger then if they're allowed to shoot if they are in danger then how can their taking what they think is a legitimate shot possibly murder? Murder requires intent and there is no intent if they thought they were in danger. How can the mens rea test of murder be passed if the officer thought he was in danger and thus allowed to shoot?
There is not now nor will there ever be a way to prove a negative regarding a person's thoughts in a single moment in time.
Agreed. Which is why it's quite difficult to get a conviction.
The way to deal with this is for cops to stop thinking they're in imminent danger when they're not in any danger whatsoever, particularly not every damned time they encounter someone black.
Entirely agreed, but not seen any of the people engaging in hysteria providing ways to reduce the imminent danger the Police regularly face so that they don't mistakenly think that they are in danger when they're not. People are naturally risk averse and perceive threats worse than they are, it is self-defence and evolutionarily makes sense. If the Police weren't so regularly in grave danger they wouldn't be so worried that they were. How many officers have been injured or killed by suspects? How many friends and colleagues do officers know who were killed or injured by suspects?
And it shows another officer telling him that the victim WASN'T going for his gun, even before the attacking officer pulled out his own pistol, much less fired seven shots.
Yes within a split seven seconds while the officer was concentrating on a suspect who was reaching into his pockets after declaring he has a gun. While the officer was himself repeatedly shouting to stop before he pulled the trigger in that seven seconds. Don't even know if the officer who fired heard and comprehended him in that time.
Like the jury for the Rodney King beating? Or any of the dozens of examples when it was certainly clear there was no kind of self defense involved? The juries are disagreeing with the idea that cops can ever be convicted for attacking African Americans.
There's a reason people instinctively reach for a 25 year old case, because such clear abuses are rare that they become memorably when they happen.