Exactly! He was no longer a threat! The cops shot him why exactly? He was cornered in a backyard with his back to the cops. No weapon, nothing. Shot in the back.
 August 6, 2016 at 12:21am
Judging from the comments here, many people think the police only have two options — either allow the suspect to flee, or kill him. That is the dichotomy proposed when time it is stated police should not shoot fleeing suspects who pose no threat, “what are they supposed to do! Just let them get away.”
That few consider the third option, continue pursuing the suspect, is lost on so many here is a sign of either derangement or idiocy.
 August 6, 2016 at 12:19am
Trump just showed he needed Ryan and McCain far more than they needed him.
If you knew anything...which you don't judging by your comment you'd know that the only reason Trump is backing those two losers is to shut up the news sissies and people such as yourself.
Trump fans could care less if those two frauds vote for Trump or jump into the Democrat National Cesspit. He wouldn't have lost a single vote...or gained one...either way.
August 6, 2016 at 12:13am
Bamagal — considering how readers here react to minority victims of police misconduct, versus how they react when the victim is white, calling them racist is justified.
August 6, 2016 at 12:11am
Making out — the Supreme Court says otherwise.
 August 6, 2016 at 12:11am
The threat had ended. There was no reason to shoot the suspect.
August 6, 2016 at 12:10am
theBRO — except they don’t even think “blue lives matter”.
These people, any time a minority is a victim of police misconduct, treat the police as if they can do nothing wrong. They will claim even the most minor of offenses is subject to summary execution.
But these same people were cheering for LEOs to be killed at the Bundy Ranch and in the Nevada stand off.
 August 6, 2016 at 12:05am
Sheepdog — the use of force is supposed to be proportional to the amount of resistance. Shooting a fleeing suspect who no longer poses a threat, even though they are resisting, is against the law and the Constitution.
 August 6, 2016 at 12:03am
Just as disturbing as the police shooting a suspect that no longer posed a threat to them in the back (along with so many supposed Constitution lovers that think this is justifiable), is that at no time do they call for an ambulance. At no time do they render aid to the suspect. However, they twice mention they need to call their union rep. They give each other fives. And they complain about being put on desk duty.
 August 6, 2016 at 12:00am
A jail sentence after a jury of their peers, as ascribed in the Constitution, correct? Not summary execution, correct? If you love the Constitution, you know the answer.
 August 5, 2016 at 11:59pm
Brovet, even considering the car as a weapon, he was on foot when he was shot.
August 5, 2016 at 11:58pm
Half-Truths, neither of which carry the death penalty.
[-1] August 5, 2016 at 11:57pm
Supermansdad — learn the facts of the case. He was not shot while he was driving the car. He was shot afterwards, while on foot.
August 5, 2016 at 11:56pm
Supermansdad — attempted murder does not carry the death penalty. Nor is it punishable by summary execution after the threat has expired. It is not up to the police to decide the punishment for a crime. Shooting a suspect afterwards, after they no longer are a threat, is murder and revenge.
August 5, 2016 at 11:54pm
You idiots — the solution isn’t either let him get away with a crime or kill him. The solution is arrest him for his crime, and let him stand trial.
 August 5, 2016 at 11:52pm
Then he should have been arrested for attempted murder.
Shooting him in the back afterwards, after the threat has expired, is a revenge killing.
 August 5, 2016 at 11:51pm
The suspect was no longer in the car, therefore, he was no longer a threat. Shooting him afterwards — when he is no longer a threat — sounds like a revenge killing. And that is what you are attempting to justify.
 August 5, 2016 at 11:48pm
“It’s already been made plain that legally they can shoot you if you’re fleeing from a crime, or if you’re fleeing from them, or if you are resisting arrest in any way, or if they happen to feel threatened- whether or not you ACTUALLY present any threat. It’s all good!”
Not true at all. In Tennessee v. Garner, in 1985, the Supreme Court ruled that police may not use deadly force against a fleeing suspect that does not pose an immediate threat to police or others.