I agree that it's problematic for the cop, but it's at night, he's been running, adrenaline is pumping so there's that to consider. I just don't think there's enough to convict and it doesn't look to me like the cop intended to murder the kid. I think it's self-preservation and will be considered legally justified.
It's nothing like the kid in the hotel which was cold-blooded murder by a psychopath.
But, for me, the inability to accurately assess a threat by a cop is at the core of the unnecessary violent policing in this country. Sure, state of awareness is obviously heightened & a bit skewed at night after a foot chase with an armed perpetrator, but that still doesn’t absolve what we saw last night.
In neither scenario was the threat at the time of the shooting accurately assessed. There were obvious differences in each event, but the end result is the same.
Both cops will ultimately receive far less punishment than they should.
Cops have to do better, it as simple as that. It goes beyond racism, it’s the ‘everything looks like a hammer’ mentality. End qualified immunity, tie in reductions in federal funding due to inappropriately violent policing, reduce the militarization of the cops vis à vis equipment & mentality, & redirect some funding to more appropriate venues (mental health, youth outreach, gun buy back, etc.), we might start seeing some light at the end of the tunnel.
Actions have consequences as WI said, but the consequences for violent policing actions have been far too muted & facile to stem the true nature of this epidemic. The parameter of what’s legally justified for a cop kill needs to be radically altered.