He did follow instruction. The murderer said 'don't pull IT out'.
From what had gone on before it's plain that the IT would be taken to mean the gun. The victim did not pull out the gun. He followed the instruction.
If the murderer had said 'freeze' 'hands on the wheel' or 'don't pull ANYTHING out' then the not following instruction defence would carry water.
It'd still be nonsense like but would at least be intelligible. At the moment all we have is the defence that the murdered victim is dead because he didn't follow instruction when he followed instruction.
No sorry, that's nonsense. The driver says "I've got a gun", and the officer says "well, don't pull it out." It's not ambiguous in the slightest. He clearly did not follow instruction.
He wasn't pulling the gun out though. Which is my point. He followed the instruction not to pull the gun out by not pulling the gun out.
But it doesn't matter - the officer was rightfully concerned that he possibly was. That's the thing. When he mentions the gun, and the officer says "don't pull it out then", instead of saying "I'm not" and continuing to reach for something, he should have moved his hands clear.
I think it was a combination of things. The guy was on weed so probably had impaired reactions, so he didn't react to the officers words, and the officer got jumpy worrying he was going to fire as he was hiding something else in the car and ignoring instructions.
I just don't see it as murder or manslaughter - I see it as a tragic turn of events that was avoidable, yet completely understandable.
My main concern with things like this is shooting is never the last resort as it always should be from the officer
Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.