&gt; descriptions of just how cruel and
violent some of the worst offenders can
be.<p>I agree.  I hope and expect that such for
such a criminal a good and honest
conviction will be quite possible in our
legal system.  E.g., per capita, we have a
lot of people in jail, too many on silly,
nearly trivial, charges.  There certainly
should be enough room in the jails for the
serious criminals.<p>We need police -- no joke.  I can easily
respect the police because of the dangers
they do face and if they are honest,
actually &quot;serve&quot; the public, obey the
Constitution, etc.<p>But the police abuses are too common:
E.g., apparently quite generally they can
lie in court and get away with it; they
can confiscate cash just because they want
to (there&#x27;s a consulting company that goes
to police departments and teaches them how
to do that); can hassle people based on
trivialities as in the <i>broken windows</i>
approach; can lock people up for months,
in dangerous circumstances (that some of
the jails are very dangerous places is a
well known, long standing situation and
not an isolated issue), before a trial;
they can strongly coerce guilty pleas as
in <i>plea bargains</i> (commonly public
defenders say that that situation is
wildly out of control and has been quite
generally for decades); they have long
standing practices such a &quot;nickel ride&quot;
where they put someone in a van and drive
around violently causing the person to
bang against the sides of the van, and
much more.  Here I&#x27;m talking not isolated
instances but wide spread practices.<p>&gt; How does whether the suspect was armed
have anything to do with whether his death
was justified?<p>&gt; A suspect who does not have a weapon is
perfectly capable of being a legitimate
threat to the life of a police officer.<p>Sure.  But the police have so many
advantages in force that an unarmed person
is quite generally at a huge disadvantage.
So, when an officer shoots an unarmed
person, especially at, say, 10 feet, it
looks like the officer just took the easy
way out:  He very much didn&#x27;t like the
person or their attitude or behavior so
just gave up and shot him.  Sure, each
case needs very careful, objective review.<p>And, really, likely an officer who has
shot one unarmed person will have to be
very reluctant to do so again for some
years.<p>Still, there are well documented cases
that are outrageous -- maybe they are too
rare to form a pattern to be addressed,
maybe not.<p>&gt; Many unarmed suspects have been
legitimately shot dead while trying to
steal firearms from police officers. How
would you recommend dealing with them?<p>Sure, if there is a real situation like
that, the officer needs to use force.  If
the officer does get to shoot, say, not at
point blank range, then the officer should
shoot for a limb and wound enough to win
the fight but not necessarily shoot to
kill.<p>&gt; On the other hand, we do have the Second
Amendment, and it is perfectly legal to
carry a firearm with a permit in most of
the country. The fact that somebody
possesses a gun is not an automatic
justification for killing them either.<p>I know, and just by my saying &quot;unarmed&quot; I
know I&#x27;m already giving up this
Constitutional right.  But the police keep
saying, &quot;I felt threatened.&quot; and find that
that is justification enough to shoot to
kill.  Well, if the person had a gun, it&#x27;s
easier to believe the &quot;threatened&quot;.