The cop had a gun ergo he is a potential threat. And in fact he is pointing it at the kid finger on the trigger ready to shoot at a moments notice without giving it further thought. It would be sensible for the kid to believe that there is a real chance that their life is in imminent danger. (Personally I strongly recommend neither of them to start shooting.)
Cops are allowed to carry guns as part of the nature of their job. If they discharge one without cause, they are subject to discipline and possible legal consequences for it. If you're not resisting arrest and they can see your hands are empty, your chances of being shot by a cop are practically nil. It is strictly illegal to shot a cop for doing their job. I hope you're not being deliberately obtuse on this.
But the kid was not an active threat. In fact although having possession of a gun temporarily they never even (to the best of my knowledge) pointed it anyone. The kid was raising their empty hands in compliance to the orders of the officer in the second the cop decided to shoot. The danger to the public in that situation was the trigger-happy cop.
But the cop
doesn't know that! He
knows the kid
was holding a gun a second ago while being chased. He
doesn't see the kid's hands or gun while the kid's hands are behind their back. The cop makes a
reasonable assumption, based on
only what he
sees and knows, that the gun is
still in the kid's hands. When the kid
quickly pulls his hands out from behind his back (to surrender), the cop has only a
tiny fraction of a second to decide between:
A) The kid
still has the gun in his hands, and is likely moving them to aim and fire
B) The kid
doesn't have the gun in his hands, and what was
true less than a second ago is now
falseCops aren't psychic. They can only work with what they see and know. Monday morning quarterbacking about how the kid had dropped the gun just before being shot isn't useful. (Media and others saying "a cop shot an unarmed kid" without context is deceitful, and many were happy to do so before the facts came out.)
My point about premeditation also harks back to your comment
but it is entirely valid - premeditation extends from earlier planning to the split second decision to pull the trigger. Otherwise premeditation would never be possible. The cop had clearly decided ('been trained' might also be accurate) before the confrontation that if they were in an uncertain circumstance of possible danger that they would shoot first and ask questions later and they followed through with this to tragic effect.
You're basically describing any type of potentially lethal self-defense training as premeditation to murder. That would never fly in court.
For premeditation, you need to show someone has decided to kill someone, and then has taken steps to carry it out. If the cop had orchestrated putting the gun in the kid's hand, or told (or goaded) the kid to draw his gun,
then that would be premeditation.
Instead, the officer ordered the kid to drop his gun several times during the pursuit, which went ignored until the end, when the kid dropped it out of sight.
Quoting the first sentence of the wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_execution
"A summary execution is an execution in which a person is accused of a crime and immediately killed without the benefit of a full and fair trial."
Hey, look what I found in the
very next sentence:
"Executions as the result of summary justice (such as a drumhead court-martial) are sometimes included, but the term generally refers to
capture, accusation, and execution all conducted within a very short period of time, and without any trial."
(Emphasis mine.)
The cop shot an unarmed suspect who was currently complying with all orders issued by that cop. At that point in time it had not been confirmed (although it was subsequently) that the kid even had been in possession of a firearm.
No-one is defending the gang but two wrongs don't make a right. I see this as desperation on your part.
Aside from having been fleeing the cop, and not dropping the gun earlier, yes he was currently complying with orders. Unfortunately, it didn't look like that from the cops perspective, which makes it a tragedy rather than a murder. Obviously the cop thought or knew the kid had been in possession of a firearm, or he wouldn't have asked him to drop it in the first place.
But there's not even a mention of the gang. No analysis of the circumstances that lead the cop to shoot. It seems it's just the cop's fault for being child-murdering swine.