> descriptions of just how cruel and
violent some of the worst offenders can
be.

I agree. I hope and expect that such for
such a criminal a good and honest
conviction will be quite possible in our
legal system. E.g., per capita, we have a
lot of people in jail, too many on silly,
nearly trivial, charges. There certainly
should be enough room in the jails for the
serious criminals.

We need police -- no joke. I can easily
respect the police because of the dangers
they do face and if they are honest,
actually "serve" the public, obey the
Constitution, etc.

But the police abuses are too common:
E.g., apparently quite generally they can
lie in court and get away with it; they
can confiscate cash just because they want
to (there's a consulting company that goes
to police departments and teaches them how
to do that); can hassle people based on
trivialities as in the broken windows
approach; can lock people up for months,
in dangerous circumstances (that some of
the jails are very dangerous places is a
well known, long standing situation and
not an isolated issue), before a trial;
they can strongly coerce guilty pleas as
in plea bargains (commonly public
defenders say that that situation is
wildly out of control and has been quite
generally for decades); they have long
standing practices such a "nickel ride"
where they put someone in a van and drive
around violently causing the person to
bang against the sides of the van, and
much more. Here I'm talking not isolated
instances but wide spread practices.

> How does whether the suspect was armed
have anything to do with whether his death
was justified?

> A suspect who does not have a weapon is
perfectly capable of being a legitimate
threat to the life of a police officer.

Sure. But the police have so many
advantages in force that an unarmed person
is quite generally at a huge disadvantage.
So, when an officer shoots an unarmed
person, especially at, say, 10 feet, it
looks like the officer just took the easy
way out: He very much didn't like the
person or their attitude or behavior so
just gave up and shot him. Sure, each
case needs very careful, objective review.

And, really, likely an officer who has
shot one unarmed person will have to be
very reluctant to do so again for some
years.

Still, there are well documented cases
that are outrageous -- maybe they are too
rare to form a pattern to be addressed,
maybe not.

> Many unarmed suspects have been
legitimately shot dead while trying to
steal firearms from police officers. How
would you recommend dealing with them?

Sure, if there is a real situation like
that, the officer needs to use force. If
the officer does get to shoot, say, not at
point blank range, then the officer should
shoot for a limb and wound enough to win
the fight but not necessarily shoot to
kill.

> On the other hand, we do have the Second
Amendment, and it is perfectly legal to
carry a firearm with a permit in most of
the country. The fact that somebody
possesses a gun is not an automatic
justification for killing them either.

I know, and just by my saying "unarmed" I
know I'm already giving up this
Constitutional right. But the police keep
saying, "I felt threatened." and find that
that is justification enough to shoot to
kill. Well, if the person had a gun, it's
easier to believe the "threatened".