It's not about whether MB deserved to die. It's about whether the officer was justified in using deadly force. I feel like I don't have enough accurate info at this point to even venture a guess. But that will be the inquiry that will determine whether the officer can be criminally charged for the shooting. And it's a completely fact based analysis.
The current relevant case law sets some parameters:
Tennessee v. Garner, (U.S. Supreme Court 1985) indicates when it is justified to shoot someone fleeing. (NOTE: It has not been established to my satisfaction whether or not MB was fleeing, advancing or surrendering)
deadly force...may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others.
Graham v. Conner (U.S. Supreme Court 1989) held that evaluating the behavior of officer using deadly force is done using the standard of a "reasonable officer". This is different than the normal standard of a "reasonable person" and takes into account the unique circumstances present for those engaged in LE. But it is an objective rather than a subjective standard that takes into account the need for high pressure split second decisionmaking in determining what level of force is justified.
The Court considered three fundamental questions in assessing use-of force scenarios:
(1) What is the nature or the severity of the offense?; (2) Did the suspect pose an immediate threat to the officers or others?; and (3) Is the suspect actively resisting or attempting escape.
A subsequent case,
Scott v Harris (U.S. Supreme Court 1985) evaluated only whether the officers actions were reasonable. In this case a deputy rammed the suspects car who was only being pursued for speeding. The suspect did not die but was left paralyzed. In an 8-1 decision, the court sided with police and ruled that a "police officer's attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death."
So, everything in this case will be evaluated by the DA/Prosecutors office according to the standards established in order to determine, not whether the decedent deserved to die, but whether the officer was justified in using deadly force.
I don't believe that either. I don't think any of us do. But to take a life as a cop you have to have cause. I don't see that yet. Not if he had his hands up. Not if he had already been shot once.
I think this guy was not squeaky clean but that is a long way from deserving to be shot dead in a street.
