There are many levels to this, it is not all cut and dried.
There are no limitations placed in the constitution for gun ownership. It is unconstitutional for them to ban anyone, for any reason (felon, restrictive local laws) from owning any firearm they desire.
Having said that, I see something that is commonplace among those getting shot by police. Refusal to cooperate and deciding to run or take a stand. It will never end well as one will always be outnumbered and outgunned. And not all police are bad, but they worry as anyone would when situations escalate.
In this case, it wasn't clear to me that he was pointing the gun at anyone, looked like he was trying to flee. In this case, I have to ask why non lethal means could not have been used on him. Wrong actions all the way around from what I see that unfortunately led to his death.
Something to ponder. Not sure if things changed from when I was much younger, but the south side of Chicago was the most violent years ago. I mean so bad many police did their jobs in fear. The Vice-lords were no joke, and they branched out south to Indianapolis when I was growing up. I saw nothing in your post about this man having an extensive criminal record, so it is logical to assume he carried for protection in that area.
I agree that its stupid to run from or resist the police. However, if you put yourself in his shoes he was already armed illegally and had they caught him he would have been caged like an animal for three years, possibly more depending on the circumstances.
So when they attempted to apprehend him, it triggered his flight or fight responses, he chose to fight. If you look closely at the video you can see where he attempts to draw his weapon.
So the big question is; When lawfully carrying arms in America that have been deemed illegal by a corporate state is it okay to protect your liberty with lethal force when the police are the ones threatening your liberty?
I don't know if the guy has a criminal record. In fact I think the only reason for the cops to question him was because they saw a bulge around his waistband, they saw a visual cue that indicated he was packing.
Point being, criminal or not. He wasn't trying to do anything to those cops, until they attempted to meddle with his right to bear arms. Seeing as how they attempted to catch him carrying arms. They presented themselves as a clear and present danger to his liberty.
It's messed up enough when the Federal and State laws contradict one another, in this instance we're talking about the Constitution and the State.
I totally get what you are saying, but a smart man picks his battles. Given how the politicians and judicial branches have all sold us out, and their soldiers (police) have the authority not only to kill us, but get rewarded for it (paid vacations called time off) the only avenue left barring outright war on them is to go along and demand a trial by jury in an attempt of jury nullification. To many are getting buried in these situations. A lone man can't win this fight that he chose to make his battle on.
Oh I don't disagree with you, in fact, I agree with you 100%!
Problem with this guy is he either wasn't a smart man, or he was in a neighborhood where it was simply too dangerous for him to not make his personal safety paramount.
I don't know if you remember the 'no lacking challenge.' I think that one originated in Chicago.
So for whatever reason he chose to carry, and then found himself in a very unfortunate circumstance where he was screwed either way.
Also, when you consider the fight or flight response, many times we don't have control over those actions in the moment.
So he might not even had known how he would have reacted in this situation.
I wonder if he ever played this potential scenario out in his mind, if so, I wonder if he acted as planned, or fell victim to his own acute stress response.
Thanks for your feedback @practicalthought!
It's always great to get your take on matters.