-
The very baseline issue here is that the cost of non-compliance should not be extrajudicial killing (except maybe in situations of extreme risk of harm / death).
The contentious part seems to be whether people believe Kaba was trying to get away or whether there was real risk of harm / death to the officers. It might have been scary for the officers but I'm not convinced it reached a threshold that lethal force was required.
It's pretty obvious why there are armed response units. I think rather there's a disagreement on whether they acted proportionally or lawfully, or whether infact it was an abuse of police powers and a miscarriage of justice.
And you know what ...it's possible to say all this AND think crooks who do bad things are bad. Go figure
-
The very baseline issue here is that the cost of non-compliance should not be extrajudicial killing (except maybe in situations of extreme risk of harm / death).
As a general principle, I agree. Some of the incidents you hear about people being shot in the USA due to not following police orders that they don't understand/hear, or that are actually impossible to follow, are horrific.
As you say, the question is whether the police acted proportionately in this specific situation. I'd say that not all "non-compliance" is equal. This doesn't sound like just not stopping, it was someone who had effectively been stopped attempting to break free by using the car as a weapon. Add to that the fact that the reason the car had been stopped was due to its involvement in a previous shooting and the actions of the police start to sound less unreasonable.
It's fascinating that this issue is absolutely clear to so many people, but in completely opposite directions. I can't work out if that's a sign that the answer really isn't obvious or that people are just bringing their own biases to it really hard.
Can I ask what you think the purpose of armed officers is if not to confront people who might have lethal weapons and/or have possibly recently been involved in violent crime?