Comments by "Barry On" (@barryon8706) on "Tacoma Police Drive Over People at Event. | Was it Justified? | Lawyer Explains" video.

  1. I hate to say it, but I have to fall on the side of not justified. He wasn't under imminent threat, as far as I can tell. It's true that someone in the crowd might have had a gun, but not knowing you aren't under imminent threat isn't the same as having reason to believe you are under imminent threat. The streets are full of people who might have a gun hidden on their person and want to do me harm, but I don't get to shoot them "just in case." Gunning it vs. moving slowly might not be as much of a factor in my judgement. He'd already tried moving slowly. If he drove through the crowd at 30MPH, that's not justified IMHO, unless fleeing a ranged attacker or any other reason he needs to escape *now*, like the car being on fire. If he drove through at 15MPH, think that would be justified (if driving through them at all was justified). That's more than average running speed for humans. If a window had been broken or he saw someone with a gun or molotov cocktail, it would have been justified. Floor it, and ask the mechanic to hammer out the dents after. I think imperfect self-defense may be an ameliorating factor in the sentence. A lot of people would have been frightened under those circumstances and acted unreasonably. But as much as the crowd look like Darwin Award wannabees, I think the cop erred.
    1
  2.  @LtDeadeye  I'd say that even though the order was to not raise the gun, I think the officer is entitled to shoot not because an order was disobeyed but because the gun was raised. I'm probably doing a terrible job explaining it. The difference is that even if the officer didn't give the order, a gun being raised is itself justification.
    1
  3.  @LtDeadeye  Got it. I was responding to the old version.
    1