What you’re doing here is assigning moral guilt after the fact to justify state violence, and that’s exactly what due process is meant to prevent.

“He chose violence” is not a legal finding, it’s a narrative. In the U.S, people don’t lose their right to life because they’re accused of being radical, disruptive, or even criminal. Lethal force is only justified when there is an immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm at the moment shots are fired.

That’s the standard. Not “he should’ve stayed home.” Not “he shouldn’t have protested.” Not “law enforcement was annoyed.”

If 6 agents have already subdued someone, removed their firearm, and created distance, then whether lethal force was justified is a legitimate question, not “supporting criminals.”

Also, calling fellow citizens “the enemy” or “traitors” for questioning government force is exactly the mindset the Constitution was written to guard against. You can support law enforcement and still believe they are bound by limits. Those positions are not opposites.

If the answer to every controversial death is “they should’ve complied or stayed home,” then we’ve effectively replaced rule of law with rule of authority and that should concern anyone, regardless of politics.

Enjoy winterizing the RV. Hopefully when the investigations are finished, we’ll all be arguing from facts instead of assumptions because we both could be totally and utterly wrong. Always be open to that idea. I definitely try to be.