When an officer has reasonable suspicion that a civilian poses a threat to his life, he can shoot them. Once police start shooting they are trained to continue shooting until the target is incapacitated. That's the law. Whether the recent shootings you saw meet that standard is up for debate.

Sure, there's procedures to arresting someone and when they are allowed to shoot, that's all fine. But the danger is that these procedures are not being followed, and that there are no consequences to it.

That people get killed is a tragedy, but that the people that killed them do not get the proper training, guidance or consequences for their action is a problem.

Beyond the reasonable suspicion of a threat to their life, the officer must believe that: a) the threat is imminent, and b) the threat will reasonably be mitigated by the application of force. An officer cannot, for example, immediately shoot someone who plausibly promises to murder them in 36 hours.

Also the officer should believe this threat is imminent.

Absolutely, likewise we should shoot ICE officers who come near us because we have strong precedent they are mentally unstable and prone to psychotic bouts of insensate violence. Since we have more than reasonable suspicion of threat to our life.

Sure but the first was arguably unreasonable and the second one was omg are you f@##%&@ kidding me, didn't you see the video about a peppered sprayed guy on his belly on the ground then not possibly brandishing with no gun since it had just been removed from him ?

It's fine to make reasonable sounding comments but for the love of God, a bit honesty wouldn't kill you.

"The party told you to ignore the evidence you see with your own ears and eyes*

[flagged]