Because I admit when I'm wrong I'll tell you that the news is now reporting he was in the shooters car, not the other car like they said earlier. The video shows he wasn't the shooter, but if reports are now correct it seems he was involved.

While that is a legitimate reason for the police to be on high alert, it's still not enough to require/excuse deadly force against a fleeing suspect according to their rules of engagement or the law, but is likely enough for an acquittal on what they now say are murder charges.

I also know nothing more than the video shows.

Would I do that? no, but I'm paranoid and have a terrible estimation of average police. That said, I don't think he did either. The jerky movements were because his door closed on him unexpectedly, making him drop his wallet. Without that accident making him fumble, wallet in raised hands shouldn't be scary.

Don't get me wrong, I agree it's not smart to have anything in your hands until cops are seemingly feeling safe because they're known to overreact with deadly force over nothing...but it's not fair to anyone to expect everyone to be terrified of police enough to sit perfectly still until told exactly what to do, with failure to do so ending in being shot. That ends with more citizens and more cops shot over nothing but fear.

God fucking dammit. Put your guns away!
Obviously... god fucking dammit, don't make sudden moves like that around cops, especially while black.
But obviously also, the deadly force can't be your first instinct... police gun training is sooo fucked.

Ahhh, that's what you meant.
I submit that because you might not fear in one situation doesn't mean that, for someone less able or more cautious, fear isn't justified.
There are many legal justifications for homicide. Self defense is the most often used, but is far from the only justification. Enforcing a proper citizen's arrest for instance may use any force needed, including deadly force, to affect the arrest...but you better be ready to prove it was needed.

In this case, he used force to effectively stop a continuous attack and stopped the instant the attack was neutralized, and not even deadly force. I don't see why that's wrong, one hit for two, he just hits harder, a chance you take when hitting much larger strangers, no? Had she scratched his eye with her next attack, she may have ended his career.

Granted, with no audio, it's one person's word against another's as to what may have been said, but didn't she claim he attacked her unprovoked before the video surfaced? That's why I used the qualifier "allegedly", I can't tell for myself. It's pretty clear to me that she was instigating while he was walking away, though.

@newtboy I have tried to explain that I like living at home, not in prison, so yes, in a situation in which I did not genuinely fear grave bodily harm I would try to avoid a disproportionately violent response. That's what the law requires. It would not matter whether the irritant in question were male, female, or indeterminate.

No one is ever "legally justified in killing" someone else, unless perhaps they are an executioner. Deadly force in self defense is sometimes allowed in order to stop an attack, but must cease as soon as the threat is neutralized.

Racist taunts have been alleged, so have homophobic taunts on the other side. It's hard to say if anyone is telling the truth.

That is nonsense. He never looked to me like someone who reasonably feared death or grave bodily injury. Furthermore, he could have turned the other way; in states without a "make my day" law, ordinary people in public spaces have a duty to retreat, if possible, instead of using deadly force.

In no jurisdiction that I know of is the threat of missing a doctor's appointment justification for killing someone, not matter how ignorant.

Absolutely untrue.
She appeared to be on drugs, judging from her action and demeanor...in the Philippines she could be a target for death directly from the president, as well as from the death squad militias.
Also, America is far from the only place where deadly force may be used in self defense.
Let's not go into all the nations where a woman alone like that would just be kidnapped, crazy attack or not.

Nice try though.

Just say the words "I'm making a citizens arrest", and then you can absolutely destroy that motherfucker if he tries to leave....(from what I've been told, but I'm not a lawyer). I've been told by numerous parties including police that you may use any force required to effect the arrest, up to and including deadly force (but you damn well better be able to prove it was required if you don't want to be prosecuted for killing them).

Any follow up info on what ended up happening?

WIKI-In general, a private person is justified in using non-deadly force upon another if he reasonably believes that: (1) such other person is committing a felony, or a misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace; and (2) the force used is necessary to prevent further commission of the offense and to apprehend the offender. The force must be reasonable under the circumstances to restrain the individual arrested. This includes the nature of the offense and the amount of force required to overcome resistance.[11][12]

Use of Deadly Force rules vary by state and even by jurisdiction.

This has to stop.

We should have laws about the when the use of deadly force is legal, set at the National level. Also, we can't have Police investigating themselves for violations, or to have their local Jurisdiction handling the trial. The police work with the legal side of things enough that there is a conflict-of-interest... both on a personal and monetary level.

One of two things need to happen for any trust to be restored, either Police need to stop screwing up... or they need to be held accountable for their actions by the courts.

The instant they take your money, they have stopped being police and become violent armed felons. They should be citizens arrested, which means you may kill them if they don't comply...you may use any force needed up to and including deadly force to effect a citizens arrest.

I'm not a lawyer, I'm not giving you directions, I won't help pay for your legal defense or visit you in prison.

This is terrible, even with a Mayor Butts involved.

Sounds like some officers need to give a very specific account of why they used deadly force, perhaps before a jury.

1)As if they DID know what the future would hold when they left? EDIT: Those things you mention had not happened when the Jewish people invaded Palestine in the 30's, and NO ONE KNEW what was coming 10 years later.
2)Yes. The European Jews invaded FIRST. Before that, the Arabs and Jews lived peacefully in the region from all history I can find. There was no 'civil war', it was a war against invaders coming from all over Europe in an effort to 'create' a nation.
3)The Jewish population was not growing in relation to the Arab population, so it was still <8% when the European Jewish invasion began, an invasion of foreigners, not a native population boom which the Arabs had. Duh.
4)'standing army' is hardly a measure of applicable force. If it were, we would be Iraqis today. They had far more men in their army when we walked over them with advanced technology, exactly like the Jews did. I've been over that. We (the US) supplied them advanced weapons making enlisted numbers meaningless...
...also, you ignore that ALL 'Israeli' are in the army, 100%. The 'standing army' number is only the professional soldiers, not the entire force by far.
...AND....The Jews didn't need to mount any defense if they had not invaded.
5)What should they have done? Much better minds than mine have failed on a solution that pleases everyone, but stealing another people's property using deadly force, and then subjugating the survivors for decades to the stone age in concentration camps is absolutely NOT the right answer.
That said....If they were truly 'refugees', they should go to refugee camps (as should the Syrians, I don't get why they are spreading all over Europe, but I digress) until they can either be assimilated in other cultures or return home. Period.

Once again...things being bad at home does not give one the right to just move in on someone else's land and push them off. That's what Israel is, a land theft by overwhelming force, and an expansion of that theft continuing to this day. EDIT: It's akin to me stating 'my brother abuses me at home, so I'm moving into your house and you're moving out, and my buddy's with big guns gave me some to force that to happen.' Is that OK? If so, what's your address?

6)Have you seen the stuff right wingers used to wright about Jews...how about the KKK? How about Palin and her cohorts? If some idiot spouting hatred is a reason to run, the entire planet would be on the run all the time.
Would you support blacks invading any European countries they choose because they are treated poorly here in the US? With money and arms? Displacing the current residents and subjugating any that stay as sub human non citizens? I doubt it. EDIT: Would you also make the argument then that it's OK because the invaders are a smaller military than the country they invade, even though they have far better weapons and more of them? What's the difference?

The rules are different for a citizen arrest from arrests by trained, well equipped officers. When an untrained citizen puts themselves in danger to effect an arrest of a violent subject, as I understand it they may use any force they deem necessary to keep the subject controlled, up to and including deadly force. Since the guy kept moving, MMA did have the right (but agreed, not the need) to keep kicking....in my eyes anyway.
The guy also wasn't in submission, he was trying to get up (until the last 2 kicks at least).
A few 'extra' kicks to the head is the chance you take when you violently attack another person. It is only unwarranted when the suspect/perp is in complete submission or control, which he was not as long as he was still moving or trying to get up...or when his accomplice is advancing towards him with the obvious intent to 'rescue' him.
The attendant didn't have any weapons, but there's no telling what the robbers had. That makes the robbers a deadly threat until they are spread eagle on the ground with hands out.
Now if he (and his friends/co-workers) had shot this guy 47 times because he moved, that would certainly be excessive.

I have an idea...what if we ask police to make the first bullet in their clip a rubber bullet, making them ready to use less lethal force yet still be 100% ready with deadly force if it doesn't do the job without changing any other behavior. That alone might stop most officer involved killings.

point 1: addressed above.
Point 2: Yes, there are far more clear videos of bad cop behavior, this one is less clear. That said, this one has sparked the Mexican government to petition ours to change the way our officers act. That's a big deal.
Point3: you are correct, he can't tell for certain that the suspect is unarmed, but can tell for certain he has no arm in his hands, and he never sees anything (even a bulge) that might be an arm. Assuming he's armed is somewhat reasonable, but I want them to actually SEE a weapon before acting as if they're threatened with one.
Point 4: Yes, the guy was an idiot criminal that nearly killed himself and others by drunk driving and speeding. Had he caused an accident, that would be 100% his fault...but that's not what happened. He did give the officer an opportunity to see him as threatening and shoot....opportunity is not a need.

Again, I only want to see officers TRY to not use deadly force...and that means TRYING other things first...and not just commands, actions. I n this case, walking backwards for 20 seconds may well have de-escalated the entire situation and we would never know this stop happened.

If the man had started to run...shoot. If he pulls out a weapon...shoot. If he shuffles at you slowly with hands on head...back up. That's my entire point right there....one I derived in part from the position of the Mexican government, not just out of my ass.