"he had already committed a crime."
I think you're saying he had already committed a crime so he's the type who might have committed another crime in attacking the officer. I agree.
If he didn't attack the officer (I suspect he did), his past crimes have no bearing on this new possible crime of murdering him.

I will say that police have eroded their presumption of innocence. and the laws protect them against us. but in this case it's pretty clear. Of course we don't know what will be admissible in court. but that does not mean that eye witness accounts and a basic timeline give us a false narrative

you think there are no consequences for wrestling a police officer against his car and grabbing his firearm? The officer suffered serious injury to his HEAD. If I was the officer, I would assume he might be a harm to others. so hatchet guy yesterday...let him keep walking down the street?

I agree with you. But he had just committed a crime. You don't think he might have over-reacted when a police officer encounters him on the street? Zen, you are ignoring evidence and eye witness accounts of his actions. why?

You continue to speculate in an attempt to justify and rationalize murder of an unarmed, individual citizen by the state.
But when you let Barney Fife take the bullet out of his pocket, that's what you get.

yes

yes, he had already committed a crime. It's not like he was all innocent and disarmed walking down the street

Somehow this encounter went from 'Hey, kids get out of the street', not even a misdemeanor infraction, to 6 or so bullets out of how many fired into the body and head of a teenage boy. The rest of everyone's descriptions and conclusions are pure speculation.

The militarization of police includes the attitude of 'Us against them' and 'Whatever happens I'm going home at the end of my shift' and that IS the point of this encounter. That is simply someone I do not want out on the streets with personal combat training, deadly weapons, and a license to kill encountering one of my sons, or me.

"There can be absolutely no excuse for a trained and armed police officer to take such an encounter, two teens walking in the street, beyond verbal contact and to the use of deadly force."
They're saying there's evidence that the *suspects* escalated the encounter. I don't know what to believe, but when things like this happen, they happen fast.

"Yes, the police are over-militarized. But that's not the point in this encounter."
I wonder if people are responding to the over-militarization. Even if the facts back the police in this case, people are angry at the militarized police they deal with and are wrongly taking it out on the police in this one case.

Yes, the police are over-militarized. But that's not the point in this encounter. This officer did not use [as far as I can find out] any military-type weapons or tactics. He had a handgun, and he used it.
I apologize that I can't find, in my long reading list for the day, the excellent account of the action between the two men which lists the individual items with which the police officer was "armed" and why he did not use them. Poor Planning, of course - if you're wearing your baton at your side, you can't access it; you can't pepper spray the other person without hitting yourself as well, etc. If you know what the police carry, though, you can figure this one out yourself.
The article also carefully examined the wounds of the black man and explained how each one was [probably] received. For example, if you have powder residue on your thumb, it means that your thumb was near the muzzle of the gun - the question is why? Sticking your finger in the muzzle so as to cause a catastrophic misfire, injuring both parties? Probably not. Pushing the officer away from you? Possibly. Trying to get control of the gun? Possibly.
Message? stick to the real point, don't drag every situation to your point.

They only need leaders to set example of independence. Not the type they have now that preach dependence and prosper from perpetuating the racial divide.

They desperately need to start acting like individuals. I 'm not allowed to have a " community " why does anyone else need one?

This situation is not about race and discussions centered on that issue only serve to detract from the real concern. That being over militarized police escalating minor contact with citizens into violent encounters and the inappropriate use of excessive force all too often resulting in the death of an unarmed teenager.

I don't care what any evidence or commenter says. There can be absolutely no excuse for a trained and armed police officer to take such an encounter, two teens walking in the street, beyond verbal contact and to the use of deadly force.

True. Unfortunately guys like Ben Carson aren't the right kind of leader so they don't count according to the left.

They desperately need new leaders...

Up until now they have been. I am hoping that they see the evidence and realize this is not the time or place to make some sort of "stand". Most likely I am wrong but I still hope.

Are you kidding? The "black leaders" are at the forefront of the charge to convict.

These protestors will accept nothing less than the officer being charged with murder. Facts and due process are meaningless to them. I hope some African American leaders step up and diffuse this situation before someone else gets hurt.

White, black, blue, green, the only solution is to ignore it. It is less salient than differences between religious sects. And the word you wanted was "Privilege."